Memorandum submitted by the Police Standards
Unit
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Police Standards Unit (PSU) was
set up by the Home Secretary in July 2001 and forms a key part
of the Government's police reform agenda. It exists to deliver
the Government's commitment to raise standards and improve operational
performance in the police and in crime reduction generally, and
to maintain and enhance the public's satisfaction with policing
in their area.
1.2 PSU is part of the Crime Reduction and
Community Safety Group headed by the Permanent Secretary Leigh
Lewis. The Group has lead responsibility for three of the seven
Home Office Aims and three of the ten Public Service Agreement
targets, namely:
AIM 1
To reduce crime and the fear of crime, tackle
youth crime and violent, sexual and drug-related crime, anti-social
behaviour and disorder, increasing safety in the home and public
spaces.
AIM 2
To reduce organised and international crime,
including trafficking in drugs, people and weapons, and to combat
terrorism and other threats to national security, in co-operation
with EU partners and the wider international community.
AIM 5
To reduce the availability and abuse of dangerous
drugs, building a coherent, co-ordinated drug strategy, covering
education and prevention, supply and misuse. To focus on effective
intelligence and detection, preventative measures at local level,
community regeneration and—with other relevant Departments
and Agencies—the provision of necessary treatment and rehabilitation
services. To reduce the incidence of drugs in prisons and provide
appropriate follow-up and remedial services.
PSA 1
Reduce crime and the fear of crime: Improve
performance overall, including by reducing the gap between the
highest crime Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP)
areas and the best comparable areas; and reduce vehicle crime,
domestic burglary and robbery.
PSA 2
Police Performance: By 2005-06 to improve the
performance of all forces; significantly reduce the gap between
the best and the worst performing forces; and significantly increase
the proportion of time spent on frontline duties.
PSA 6
Reduce the harm caused by drugs: Reduce the
use of Class A drugs and the frequent use of any illicit drug
among all young people under 25, especially the most vulnerable.
Reduce drug-related crime, including as measured by the proportion
of offenders testing positive at arrest.
1.3 In relation to Aims 1 and 2, PSA 1 and
PSA 2, the focus of the Unit's activities is to assess and compare
police performance, understand the underlying causes of performance
variations, work with those forces in need of assistance and identify
and disseminate good practice. An overview of PSU's budget 2001-02
to 2005-06 funding this programme of work is attached at Annex
A. PSU's programme of work contributes to the wider police reform
programme, spearheaded by the Director of Policing Policy, Stephen
Rimmer. Together with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
(HMIC) and crime reduction partners, in the Home Office and the
regions, PSU works in partnership with the police service, police
authorities and key stakeholders to make improvements in policing
performance.
1.4 Since its inception in July 2001, PSU
has built up a team of 58 staff including Home Office officials,
seconded police officers and other specialists. This includes
the appointment of Kevin Bond as Director of the Police Standards
Unit announced by the Home Secretary on 3 January 2002.
2. PSU'S PROGRAMME
A. Performance Measurement
2.1 Central to PSU's work to improve police
performance is the establishment of systems and processes for
identifying those areas where performance is poor or getting worse.
The same processes are also capable of identifying better performers
and therefore likely sources of good practice.
2.2 PSU is closely involved in developing
and contributing to these processes within the Home Office in
both the short and longer terms.
The Policing Performance Assessment Framework
("PPAF")
2.3 As stated in the National Policing Plan
2002-06, the Home Office, in partnership with the Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Association of Police Authorities
(APA) and the other key stakeholders, is developing a balanced
performance assessment framework for policing—the "Policing
Performance Assessment Framework" (PPAF).
2.4 PSU is leading the development of this
framework, which involves bringing together contributions from
many parts of the Home Office to provide a consistent assessment
programme.
2.5 When completed, the PPAF programme will
facilitate the monitoring of police performance across six performance
domains (Annex B) and deliver a suite of performance measures
which span the full remit of police work. This balanced scorecard
approach will enable performance assessments of police forces
to be made which do not focus just on crime rates and detection
levels, but also on the non-crime work that the police do, such
as policing of traffic and major events. PPAF will also provide
measures of public satisfaction and confidence in the police,
as well as measures that put performance into context in terms
of efficiency and organisational capability. It will be complemented
by HMIC's inspection methodology which will add a qualitative
and contextual strand of judgement.
2.6 Work has now started on developing new
and existing performance measures in the six PPAF domains. Some
of these new measures will be introduced from April 2004 and the
framework will begin to provide an assessment of comparative police
force performance on the basis of these measures once the set
of 2004-05 data is complete. Activity Based Costing, which is
crucial for the understanding of efficiency, was introduced in
all forces from April 2003.
The "Interim Assessment Framework"
2.7 Before the full PPAF is introduced,
an interim assessment framework is being used to compare policing
performance. The National Policing Plan 2002-06 details thirteen
interim performance indicators against which performance is being
assessed.
2.8 Within the Home Office, PSU is leading
on the assessment of forces against these interim indicators,
as well as dissemination of this performance data to police forces/authorities
and the public.
Performance Monitors
2.9 Performance Monitors (for 2001-02) were
published for the first time in February 2003 by PSU. Monitors
provide a high-level summary of performance across different areas
of business, and show force performance in the context of the
performance of similar forces. Although based upon the interim
performance indicators, these diagrams were arranged according
to the PPAF structure, with the intention of re-populating the
indicators that underlie the monitors with PPAF-derived measures
in the future.
2.10 Performance Monitors for 2002-03 will,
subject to ministerial approval, be published later this year.
These will be crucial for setting the baseline of performance
against which the success of Home Office PSA 2 will be judged.
2.11 Performance monitors represent a new
way of communicating policing performance to the general public,
illustrating the broad scope of policing responsibilities and
providing forces with comparative and meaningful data with which
to assess their performance.
Analysing Performance Data: The Quanta system
2.12 Recognising the importance of timely
performance data, PSU helped to accelerate existing plans to capture
crime and detections data from police forces on a monthly basis.
Forces have now been submitting these regular returns since April
2002.
2.13 With data coming in regularly, this
has enabled PSU to develop an analysis tool called "Quanta"
which is capable of distilling the information that is collected
and producing charts and other outputs crucial for tracking performance
on a regular basis.
2.14 Quanta processes force data to produce
an analysis of performance against peers, changes in performance
over time and trends in performance. It is capable of providing
analyses at national, force, Basic Command Unit (BCU) and CDRP
level. It is also capable of automatically reviewing the analysis
methods and flagging up poorer and better performing units. The
original data set within Quanta has been expanded to encompass
the interim performance indicators laid out in the National Policing
Plan. It is expected that Quanta, or some derivative of it, will
support the analysis of data from the full Policing Performance
Assessment Framework once it is introduced.
2.15 The Quanta system represents a significant
step forward in terms of the ability to track performance and
identify poorer performers.
Identifying Poorer Performing Forces and BCUs
2.16 PSU is able to inform the process for
identifying forces and BCUs that are performing poorly because
Quanta flags up those that the data suggests may have performance
problems. The Police Performance Steering Group is then able to
commission assessments of those forces or BCUs which draw together
information from the wider Home Office community, including HMIC,
Crime Reduction Directors and the operational arm of PSU as well
as the performance analyses from Quanta. Using all of this information,
the Steering Group is then able to recommend that the operational
arm of PSU engages with a particular force or BCU, in concert
with HMIC and working with key external stakeholders—including
the ACPO and the APA where appropriate.
Wider Dissemination of Performance Data Analyses
2.17 Since the Home Office began collecting
regular performance data from forces, ACPO and the APA have been
keen for the Home Office to share the analysis of that data.
2.18 Throughout the development of the Quanta
system, PSU has engaged with key stakeholders to ensure that the
analysis methods used are agreed as being appropriate. The vision
for Quanta is for all forces, authorities and all others involved
in performance management of the policing community to have access
to data and analyses that are unified, common and agreed.
2.19 PSU has recently started disseminating
a limited set of Quanta outputs to all forces and authorities
every month. This is an interim solution, whilst PSU develops
a secure internet-based tool that will allow forces to access
comparative performance information which is updated on a rolling
basis. Forces and authorities are already finding these analyses
useful for understanding local performance and they are aiding
the goal of heightening awareness of the performance agenda.
B. Raising Police Performance
Force collaborations
2.20 PSU currently have intensive collaborations
with a number of forces. The purpose of these collaborations is
to assist the force concerned to address performance issues which
have been identified (either via the performance monitoring system
or HMIC report). PSU's work with a force will usually have a number
of strands. Some work will be force-wide, for example assistance
with performance management arrangements or forensic processes.
Some work will be geographic specific, for example establishing
a Policing Priority Area (PPA) in an area of particular need.
And some work is crime specific, for example funding a project
which develops a strategy and deploys a good practice package
to address burglary or vehicle crime. PSU can deploy additional
funding from its programme budget to help with each of these strands.
2.21 There are certain common strands to
these intensive collaborations. The various strands of work (as
many as 10 projects in some forces have been funded) are brought
together in a delivery plan. Governance arrangements usually involve
a PSU funded project manager to manage the delivery plan and regular
progress meetings with the force and HMIC at a programme board.
2.22 The process is intended to be non-coercive,
instead providing the force with the means of drawing on outside
assistance to address performance concerns whilst enabling the
force to retain ownership of the process being pursued.
2.23 Intervention powers exist for use by
the Secretary of State under the Police Reform Act, albeit as
a last resort. These have never been used. Thus far our work with
under-performing forces has focused on the support we can provide—through
intensive collaborations—without having recourse to intervention.
Good Practice and Innovative Schemes
2.24 PSU is currently funding some 60 good
practice projects in around 29 forces. These include good practice
guidance on the issues of burglary, vehicle crime, street crime
and gun crime. It helped to fund the Operation Tower project in
Blackpool which has helped to deliver a significant reduction
in crime in that BCU area. It is also developing or funding innovative
schemes in forces on the issues of domestic violence, hate crime
and tackling persistent offenders.
PERSISTENT OFFENDERS
2.24.1 The Persistent Offender scheme supports
the delivery of the Government's Narrowing the Justice Gap Initiative
which has the objective of bringing more offenders to justice.
The scheme focuses on a core group of adult offenders in England
and Wales totalling some 33,500 who have been convicted of six
or more offences in the preceding 12 months. PSU is developing
a number of strands to support this scheme, including identifying
good practice in relation to National Intelligence Model (NIM)
tasking processes, prisoner handling and case management pre and
post-charge. A separate strand of work involves the post sentence
rehabilitation of persistent and prolific offenders. This mainly
concentrates on the delivery of drug treatment services to reduce
the need to re-offend because of drug addiction.
2.24.2 The Tower project pioneered in Blackpool
BCU and supported by PSU funding, demonstrates what can be achieved
through multi-agency working. The project concentrates on persistent
and prolific offenders who are identified through the NIM as prolific
volume crime offenders. Through cold calling or engagement whilst
in prison this group of offenders are fast tracked into drug treatment.
This engagement with drugs offenders, coupled with intensive police
operations has delivered a sustained reduction in volume crime.
2.24.3 Crime rates in Western Division Lancashire,
which includes Blackpool, for the year ending April 2003, show
a reduction on the previous 12 months of 11% for overall crime,
34% for domestic burglary, 24% for vehicle crime and 27% for robbery.
Deaths as a result of illicit drugs overdose in this group have
also fallen during the same period.
POLICING PRIORITY
AREAS (PPAS)
2.24.4 Policing Priority Areas (PPAs) were
outlined in the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint
for Reform" as areas in need of support to tackle crime and
disorder where policing is particularly difficult. The Home Secretary
announced the first tranche of PPAs in Bradford, Bristol, Camberwell,
Rhyl and Stoke-on-Trent in March 2002. The sites were located
within deprived areas and tackled crime problems by focusing on
a partnership approach. The role of the PSU in relation to this
work is to offer support, monitor performance and encourage effective
policing and partnership working and share good practice nationally.
2.24.5 Police forces with PPAs have found
that working with partners to provide co-ordinated and targeted
action has raised performance, increased community cohesion and
reduced the fear of crime.
2.24.6 This police-led programme has now
been extended to five new areas, also experiencing disproportionate
crime levels and in receipt of Neighbourhood Renewal funding—Great
Yarmouth in Norfolk, Mansfield in Nottinghamshire, Easington in
Durham, Hastings in Sussex and Salford in Greater Manchester.
The extension of the PPA programme follows significant success
in reducing crime and providing public reassurance in the existing
PPAs and to build on the progress made so far. A learning document
has been produced to provide a blueprint for the promulgation
of the model elsewhere.
LEVEL 2 CRIME
(CRIME CROSSING
FORCE BOUNDARIES)
2.24.7 Use of the National Intelligence
Model (NIM) is one of the key priorities in the Police Reform
Programme. The National Policing Plan requires forces to implement
NIM to commonly accepted minimum standards by April 2004 and for
arrangements for implementation to be set out in local policing
plans.
2.24.8 As the NIM has been rolled out, police
forces and intelligence agencies have identified the need to address
potential gaps in intelligence and police co-ordination in response
to Level 2 Crime. This issue was compounded by the difficulties
forces experienced at identifying, co-ordinating and supporting
joint operations, which were targeted at, for example, disrupting
regional drugs markets. PSU is funding the formation of regional
Level 2 Intelligence teams under the direction of NCIS. The project
will provide Level 2 regional strategic assessment and problem
profiles to inform regional control strategy. The intelligence
desks will analyse the links between Level 2 and Level 3 (serious
and organised) criminality and provide target profiles on notable
individuals and groups engaged in Level 2 criminality. They will
also be able to provide a permanent secretariat to each of the
ACPO Regional Tasking and Coordination Groups and assist police
forces to develop a range of products for tackling cross-force
criminality. Progress is being made towards the completion of
the infrastructure needed to deliver the outcomes of this project.
REASSURANCE
2.24.9 The National Reassurance project
is being established to address the gap between falling levels
of crime and the public's adverse perception of those trends.
The project aims to ensure that communities are policed in a way
that not only reduces crime but also makes communities feel safer.
The project will identify and tackle the "signal crimes"
and disorders which local people identify as having a disproportionate
trigger for fear. PSU is providing up to £6.2 million over
three years to support the expansion of the programme from pathfinder
pilot sites in Surrey and the Metropolitan Police Service to eight
police forces in total.
2.24.10 This project aims to test and develop
different policing and related interventions in order to assist
all partner agencies to understand and know what works (and what
does not) in providing a sense of security in different environments.
2.24.11 Interventions will be agreed with
partner agencies on a local level, based on "signal events"
(events or crimes which have a disproportionate impact on local
communities' sense of security) as identified by visual audit
and the concerns of the local communities. The project aims to
establish that tackling these issues in partnership will reduce
the perception of risk, and citizens will have a tangible result
from police and partners' actions of feeling more secure.
Business Process Re-engineering Schemes
2.25 PSU is also funding a number of innovative
business process re-engineering projects.
AUTOMATIC NUMBER
PLATE RECOGNITION
(ANPR)
2.25.1 ANPR is a technological system capable
of instantly scanning number plates and matching them against
information stored in databases to identify vehicles of interest
to the police such as stolen cars or those involved in crime.
2.25.2 The ANPR system was piloted by PSU
in nine forces for a period of six months from 30 September 2002.
Subsequent evaluation indicated that ANPR helped police seize
more than £100,000 in illegal drugs and recover over 300
stolen vehicles (with a value in excess of £2 million) and
£715,000 in stolen goods. More than 3,000 people were arrested—ten
times more than the national average—with the majority of
arrests being for serious crimes.
2.25.3 Following the success of the pilots,
ANPR has been rolled out to 23 forces in England and Wales. The
second phase of the ANPR pilot scheme commenced on 1 June 2003
and will run until March 2004 and will be fully evaluated and
inform policy on the national roll out of ANPR, expected to commence
April 2004. Good practice guidance for the police has been developed
to ensure the technology is used as efficiently and effectively
as possible.
2.25.4 The further expansion to 23 forces
will be partly financed by new revenue hypothecated from fixed
penalties issued by officers who stop vehicles as a result of
the "hits" for motoring offences detected, such as "no
insurance", "no MOT" and "no current vehicle
excise licence displayed".
VIDEO IDENTIFICATION
2.25.5 The Government is committed to providing
a video identification capability to all 43 police forces in England
and Wales. The desire to roll out video ID on a national basis
came about as a result of the successful pilot—funded by
PSU—of a video ID parade system (VIPER), as part of the
Street Crime Initiative. Video ID parades work by "video
recording" suspects' images which are then used along with
other images from a central database of volunteers to create a
virtual ID parade.
2.25.6 These virtual ID parades have proved
to be an extremely useful tool for the police and were integral
to the reduction in robberies as part of the Street Crime Initiative.
The average time to arrange an ID parade is significantly reduced
(2.5 days for VIPER vs 4.5 weeks for a live parade). Fewer parades
are cancelled (17% vs 41%) and there has been a considerable reduction
in the overall costs and staff time. Video ID parades are also
considered fairer to the suspect, and increase witness and victim
satisfaction.
FORENSIC SUPPORT
PROGRAMME
2.25.7 PSU are working closely with ACPO
and other key stakeholders to identify performance variation in
the application by police forces of forensic science, to understand
the reasons behind such variation and to provide collaborative
assistance to those areas requiring it. PSU are also working to
spread good practice in the application and standardised use of
science and technology more generally. Substantial government
investment has been made in the areas of DNA and the National
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), and PSU is
contributing to the effort to ensure forces make best use of this
investment.
2.25.8 Initial work indicated a marked variation
between forces in how forensic science is used. It should be noted
that the forensic process is made up of three key elements, which
are needed to impact on force performance in the round: crime
scene activity in relation to reported crime, variation in analysis
(more notable with NAFIS) and variation in conversion of DNA match/fingerprint
identification into detection of offence.
2.25.9 PSU is pursuing a four-pronged approach
to address these issues: process improvements surrounding the
use of DNA, standardisation and process improvements in the use
of NAFIS, improved performance management, and supporting the
structured application of training to officers to reinforce the
importance of forensic science and enable officers to continually
develop application and understanding.
2.25.10 The following are some examples
of PSU's forensic support work:
OPERATION CESARE
IN LINCOLNSHIRE:
— Improved DNA processes, fingerprint
processes, improved SOCO activity, improved follow-up.
— Total process time reduced by two
months. Scene attendance up 14% for burglaries.
— Outstanding "identifications"
fell by 79% and detection rates rose.
— Volume crime rates fell, for example,
burglary dwelling by 20%, compared to pre-project figures.
SAFER HOMES
IN WEST
MIDLANDS:
— The forensic science element includes
targeted acceleration of DNA crime stains from burglary crime
scenes and improved follow-up of results.
— The project has been successful:
Over a six month period the initiative resulted in 459 DNAD "hits"
and 202 primary detections and 102 additional detections.
— Compared to pre "Safer Homes",
all recorded burglary is down by 12.49%.
— The project now includes new elements,
such as investigating minute traces of DNA from fingermarks.
FORENSIC CONSULTANCY
IN MERSEYSIDE:
— A forensic consultant examined the
processes through which the scientific support service is delivered
in Merseyside.
— As a result of the consultancy work,
40 recommendations were made by the forensic science steering
group. This related to all stages of the process, from initial
call handling right through to tracking of forensic "identifications"
to significant disposal.
— The force are putting recommendations
into action, for example, improving training, developing performance
indicators and piloting the use of Forensic Intelligence officers
at BCUs.
2.25.11 Reviews of force forensic processes
are included in the package of measures provided to those forces
identified as in particular need of support.
July 2003
Annex A
PSU BUDGET 2001-02
TO 2005-06
The following table provides a summary of forecast
and spend for PSU's budget from 2001-02 to 2004-05. Since PSU's
inception the programme of work has developed and the budget has
evolved to meet the changing requirements of the programme.
Year
| Budget
|
| Admin | Programme
|
2001-02
| £1,000,000
| 0 |
| 2002-03 Original | £3,179,034
| £12,110,500 |
| After budget cuts and Baseline reduction in spring supplementary
| £2,679,034 | £10,594,500
|
| 2003-04 | £3,923,000 |
£23,000,000 |
| | |
The programme is split into two separate areas of work:
Performance Measurement, which aims to deliver a policing
performance assessment framework, including implementation and
evaluation of an activity based costing method for all forces,
an annual audit of crime data for all forces, publication of performance
monitors, a check on detection data quality and knowledge management.
Raising Police Performance, which aims to deliver
assistance with good practice, innovation and partnership; armed
organised and serious crime; under-performing forces; forensics
and funding towards implementation of a national video identification
capability, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and Reassurance.
The SR 2002 forecast is shown below:
| 2003-04 | 2004-05
| 2005-06 |
| Performance Measurement | £3,233,850
| £2,853,850 | £2,853,850
|
| Raising Police Performance | £19,360,000
| £19,510,000 | £19,510,000
|
| Total | £22,593,850 |
£22,363,850 | £22,363,850
|
| | |
|
Annex B
| 
