chief constables’ council foi/npcc miscellaneous... · 2019. 12. 10. · 1.8 on the basis that...

Go to Agenda

Chief Constables’ Council

Disclosure Key Performance Indicators

17 April 2019/Agenda Item: 4.2 Security Classification

Documents cannot be accepted or ratified without a security classification in compliance with the Government Security Classification (GSC) Policy (Protective Marking has no relevance to FOI):

OFFICIAL

Freedom of information (FOI)

This document (including attachments and appendices) may be subject to an FOI request and the NPCC FOI Officer & Decision Maker will consult with you

on receipt of a request prior to any disclosure. For external Public Authorities in receipt of an FOI, please consult with [email protected]

Author: T/DCC Jeremy Burton

Force/Organisation: Surrey Police

Date Created: 15 March 2019

Coordination Committee: Criminal Justice Coordination Committee

Portfolio: Disclosure

Attachments @ para N/A

Information Governance & Security

In compliance with the Government’s Security Policy Framework’s (SPF) mandatory requirements, please ensure any onsite printing is supervised, and

storage and security of papers are in compliance with the SPF. Dissemination or further distribution of this paper is strictly on a need to know basis and in

compliance with other security controls and legislative obligations. If you require any advice, please contact [email protected]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management

1. Summary

1.1 The National Disclosure Improvement Plan (NDIP) jointly addresses a number of issues in relation to failings

to properly discharge police responsibilities in relation to disclosure. Part of this was to set a framework

in which to measure disclosure performance. By doing this each force would be able to address any

shortcomings and initiate appropriate interventions.

1.2 At the Justice Select Committee in June 2018, Nick Hurd MP, Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service

stated that the police are to be held accountable on delivery of the NDIP (sic). The Minister further

assured the Committee that Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) would be created to target failings,

commenting that the level of scrutiny on police process would remain intense. This was also strongly

supported by the Attorney General in his November 2018 ‘Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of

disclosure in the criminal justice system’, expressing a need for the alignment of performance measures

between the police and prosecutors.

1.3 It is to be noted that the Home Secretary and Attorney General are to shortly write to all Chief Constables

encouraging them to maintain the momentum and scrutiny on police disclosure performance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management

1.4 Since mid-way through 2018, the CPS has been developing a set of more sophisticated disclosure

performance indicators that are replacing their previous measure under EN44. They have created 13

indicators that diagnose limitations in primary and secondary disclosure both at Force and Regional

levels. It is evident that KPIs for policing need to synchronise with this data and enable more focussed

discussions at Prosecution Team Performance meetings (PTPM).

1.5 A number of Forces, under their Disclosure Strategic Leads have developed bespoke indicators. However,

Surrey Police appear to have pioneered an approach which uses 12 indicators and sits within a ‘tableau’

technological solution. This process has been presented to the National Disclosure Working Group and

also the Strategic Police Leads National Forum. It received positive support and in order to make it easier

for Forces to manage, the 12 indicators were broken down into 5 headline measures:

Schedule descriptions lacking sufficient detail

The information and description about each item on schedules needs to be sufficiently detailed to explain what is being referred to, and allow the CPS to fully understand what the item is and make an informed decision on whether it should be disclosed.

Schedules lacking items (relevancy test inappropriately applied)

Schedules must contain all relevant unused material and items. If the relevancy test has not been applied properly then relevant items may be missing. In many cases there are predictable items or material and the absence of these items will be quickly apparent. This position is a precursor to the AG’s recommendation for rebuttable presumption.

Schedules missing

MG Schedules are required by the national file standards; missing schedules could be as a result of an apparent oversight, an administrative issue, missing blank forms (e.g. MG6 D&E) submitted to show that it has been considered and discounted as inappropriate, or a fundamental misunderstanding of what should be included on the form. These omissions cause additional work to resolve; potentially causing delays and undermining justice.

Schedules contain evidence

Schedules must only contain relevant unused material or items which, by its nature is not evidence. Inclusion of evidence on the schedules means items are duplicated, creates confusion, causes unnecessary work and suggests a lack of understanding about disclosure.

PNC prints missing

PNC prints provide relevant background information on individuals and can be essential in case preparation should previous convictions becoming relevant, or undermining in some way.

1.6 All Forces were written to and invited to comment on the proposed measures. There was a 58% response

rate from which 85% of respondents appeared to indicate broad agreement for the measures. Some

forces also indicated that they would implement further measures to enhance performance in this area.

Those that were not in support cited their reasons were mainly down to the fact that their current

infrastructure would not support such data collection.

1.7 The 5 headline measures are supported by the National Disclosure Delivery Board.

1.8 On the basis that synchronicity with the developing CPS KPIs is desirable; police performance requires

established indicators in this area and further national consistency is vital, the following

recommendations are made below.

2. APPROVAL OF THE COORDINATION COMMITTEEE

2.1 This paper has the approval of the Criminal Justice Coordination Committee and was presented on the 13 March

2019.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. All Forces to adopt the 5 headline measures (Police Disclosure KPIs)

• Schedule descriptions lacking sufficient detail • Schedules lacking items (relevancy test inappropriately applied) • Schedules missing

• Schedules contain evidence PNC prints missing

National Police Chiefs’ Council

2. Systems and processes are adapted to ensure the effective monitoring of this data to ensure continuous

improvement; and

3. These KPIs are introduced into Force and Regional PTPMs to complement the new suite of CPS monitoring data. T/DCC Jeremy Burton, Surrey Police NPCC Lead for Disclosure Criminal Justice Co-ordination Committee

National Police Chiefs’ Council Blank Page - left for Double Sided Printing

Go to Agenda


Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP)

17 April 2019 Agenda item: 4.2 Security Classification

Documents cannot be accepted or ratified without a security classification in compliance with the Government Security Classification (GSC) Policy

(Protective Marking has no relevance to FOI):

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE-COMMERCIAL




Author: DCC Gary Cann

Force/Organisation: National Police ESN Coordinator

Date Created: 8 March 2019

Coordination Committee: IMORCC

Portfolio: Communications

Attachments @ para 2.1 – three appendices




compliance with other security controls and legislative obligations. If you require any advice, please contact [email protected] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management

**S31 Law Enforcement, S24 National Security &* S43 Commercial Interests**

4 DECISIONS REQUIRED

4.1 This is an update paper, and there are no decisions required from Council at this time.

Kier Pritchard Chief Constable Wiltshire Police

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management

Security Classification/FoI 2000 Official

FoI Requests on rationale [email protected]

Author CC Francis Habgood

Force/organisation Thames Valley Police

NPCC Coordination Committee ESMCP

Telephone number 01865 541881

Date created 5 February 2019

TO: SIR PHILIP RUTNAM

PERMANENT SECRETAR

Dear Sir Philip

EMERGENCY SERVICES MOBILE COMMUNICATION PROGRAMME


Kind regards

Francis Habgood

Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police

NPCC Lead for ESMCP

Thames Valley Police Headquarters

Oxford Road

Kidlington

Oxon

OX5 2NX

Sir Philip Rutnam KCB Permanent Secretary

2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF www.homeoffice.gov.uk

CC Francis Habgood National Police Chiefs’ Council 10 Victoria Street

London

SW1H 0NN


13 March 2019

Dear Francis


Yours sincerely,

Sir Philip Rutnam Permanent

Secretary

cc: Sara Thornton

Cressida Dick

Ian Dyson

Joanna Davinson

Stephen Webb

Bryan Clark

Becca Jones

-1- 11th March 2019 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE Version 1.0 (Final) (Open)

GCS: OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE

Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP)

Joint Chief Constables’ Reference Group and Gold Group Meeting

Minutes of the meeting

**S31 Law Enforcement, S24 National Security & S43 Commercial Interests**

Go to Agenda


Title: Police Activity Survey Data Collection &

Analysis Exercise

17 April 2019 / Agenda Item: 4.2 Security Classification


OFFICIAL




Author: Karen Mellodew

Force/Organisation: Lincolnshire Police

Date Created: 14/03/2019

Coordination Committee: Performance Management Coordination Committee

Portfolio: Demand Management

Attachments @ para App 1




compliance with other security controls and legislative obligations. If you require any advice, please contact [email protected] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This paper outlines a proposal to undertake a activity survey data collection and analysis exercise for

police service. This is an opportunity for the service to reality test some of the emerging narrative around

complexity of demand, functional drift whilst building our understanding of the interplay between calls

for service, demand allocation, costs (and cost drivers) of service delivery and the drivers the quality of

services provided.

1.2 Proposals to improve the sector’s data on activity costs are strongly supported by officials in both the Home

Office and Cabinet Office. A recent Cabinet Office Implementation Unit Review identified the absence of

up to date data on police activity costs as a key evidence gap and recommended action to address it.

1.3 This information is vital for the service as a whole and also for individual forces. Observations from

HMICFRS and NPCC reviewers about the variable quality of analysis and assessment contained in Force

Management Statements suggest that the consistency of strategic insight can be improved going

forwards. One key observation has been the challenge to forces to clearly articulate the relationship

between demand, choices being made to service that demand, efficiency, productivity and outcomes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management


1.4 The SR19 team working to build the business case for policing with the Home Office, have faced a

significant challenge to providing detailed costings for future investment in policing. In part this has

been due to the lack of available information around unit costs and robust evidence about the

activity required to deliver services.

1.5 This information is key at both the national and local levels in order to inform the strategic perspective on

policing need and support individual police forces to be able to forecast the impact of choices/change

on outcomes. The paper appended describes a two phased approach to developing the evidence base.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 A number of police forces have undertaken some form of activity survey data collection or detailed

qualitative analysis exercise. These include West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Kent, and North Yorkshire. A

range of approaches have been applied that have sought to generate large descriptive data sets or have

sought to describe the complexity of processes involved in delivering services through more qualitative

methods. 2.2 Activity data collection and analysis can only provide a partial picture of the time spent in dealing with

specific incident and crime types. This partial picture could provide a compelling dataset at a national

level to describe the policing costs and time taken in dealing with issues such as mental health or other

safeguarding issues. This would not only help to articulate the business case for policing with the Treasury

but would also support the identification of areas where whole system approaches have the greatest

potential impact and help to evidence the value that policing brings to the wider economic and social

wellbeing of the Country. 2.3 Adding activity data collection and analysis to the rich picture of other National datasets (such as

HMICFRS Big Data and VFM Profiles) would provide further benchmarking evidence in relation to

demand and resource allocation. Forces could identify whether the time and resources being invested at

different incident/crime types is comparable with other forces and whether efficiency savings are

possible in light of achieved criminal justice outcomes.

2.4 Aggregating national activity data collection and analysis would provide a significant evidence base to

demonstrate the range of activities not previously acknowledged as the mainstay of policing, including

mental health and child safeguarding, whilst also illustrating the shift to ‘new’ and emerging demands such

as cyber related activities. If comparisons could be made with the campaigns from 10 years ago this shift in

the nature of policing would be increasingly transparent.

2.5 The paper appended (Appendix 1) summarises the issues that the exercise might seek to address, the

benefits identified to forces and the different methods applied.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 A two phased approach to activity analysis is proposed. The first phase will be an activity survey based on

the West Yorkshire approach to activity analysis. The survey will be developed to reflect additional

potential drivers of complexity. A limited number of specific police forces representing a broad range of

diversity of policing contexts will be specifically invited. The opportunity to take part in the survey based

data collection exercise will be open to all police forces. 3.2 The second phase will involve working with academic partners to develop a detailed qualitative approach

that will be used to validate the first phase assessment and identify emerging narratives from the service

about demand shift, the costs of service delivery, impact on outcomes and value of policing to the economy

and society. This exercise will involve detailed fieldwork in a limited number of police forces. 3.3 The first phase will be run relatively quickly, with results available by the end of June 2019. This will have the

advantage of linking the results closely to the submission of FMS2 allowing validation of the process and

emerging narrative, and testing the impact of different choices about how demand is managed and service


is delivered. The attached paper outlines the approach proposed and shares early findings from a pilot in

West Yorkshire. An app for handheld devices and tablets will be developed to support delivery of the survey

as well as a communications package to ensure consistent engagement by officers and staff. A guide to

support local analysis of the data collected will also be developed.

3.4 A short list of specific police forces will be identified that are representative of the service as a whole and

they will specifically be asked to support the exercise.

3.5 The app, survey and materials will be available to other police forces that wish to undertake the exercise. 3.6 Outline schedule for delivery is a follows:

1. Draft survey, develop app for delivery, develop communications package and analysis guidance by

mid-April

2. Contact forces selected by mid-April 3. Communications roll out within selected police forces by end April 4. Surveying complete by mid-May 5. Analysis complete by end June

4. APPROVAL OF THE COORDINATION COMMITTEEE

4.1 This paper was submitted to the NPCC Performance Management Coordination Committee on behalf of the

FMS Steering Group on 20 March 2019 and was approved.

5. STATEMENT/DETAILS OF COST OR RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5.1. The costs associated with local delivery and analysis of the collected data will be borne by participating

forces.

5.2. Central analysis of the data could be delivered in a number of ways:

1. Contributing forces will provide an analyst for two weeks in early June to support a virtual team. 2. Analytical support could be commissioned. 3. The Home Office or HMICFRS analysts could provide support

5.3. The costs associated with the development of the app and additional materials will be borne by the

NPCC SR19 budget.

5.4. Failure to make significant progress to fill this gap in the service understanding carries a number of

significant risks for the service and for individual forces:

1. If the police service is not able to demonstrate to Treasury that it is taking meaningful action to

build it’s understanding of the costs associated with service delivery it is likely that the service

will fail to secure adequate funding to meet future demand. 2. The service will continue to fail to drive further efficiencies and be unable to demonstrate value

for money to the public. 3. Evidence about the drivers of demand that are passed from other agencies will be limited and

not well quantified, limiting the potential to negotiate cross-sector responses. 4. Individual police forces will continue to have variable understanding of the costs of delivering

services leading to continued inconsistent articulations of demand gaps across the service.

5. The development of effective management information as supported by FMS will be inhibited.

6. DECISIONS REQUIRED

6.1 Chief Constables are asked to support PMCC in working with the Home Office, HMICFRS and the College of

Policing to deliver a quick-time activity survey in a number of forces.


6.2 Chief Constables are asked to agree to share their activity survey data with PMCC, Home Office and the

College. 6.3 Chief Constables are asked to agree to provide analytical support to the project.

6.4Chief Constables are asked to note the PMCC work with the Home Office, HMICFRS, the College and other

academics to develop a qualitative approach to activity analysis and to deliver this within a limited number

of police forces.

Bill Skelly Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police Chair of the NPCC Performance Management Co-ordination

Committee


Security Classification


OFFICIAL


This document (including attachments and appendices) may be subject to an FOI request and the NPCC FOI Officer & Decision Maker will consult with you on receipt of a request prior to

any disclosure. For external Public Authorities in receipt of an FOI, please consult with [email protected]

Author: Karen Mellodew

Force/Organisation: Lincolnshire Police

Date Created: 14/03/2019

Coordination Committee: Performance Management Coordination Committee

Portfolio: Demand Management

Attachments @ para


In compliance with the Government’s Security Policy Framework’s (SPF) mandatory requirements, please ensure any onsite printing is supervised, and storage and security of papers are in compliance with the SPF. Dissemination or further distribution of this paper is strictly on a need to know basis and in compliance with other security controls and legislative obligations.

If you require any advice, please contact [email protected] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management

Appendix 1

Police Activity Data Collection Survey and Analysis Exercise

Introduction

This document outlines a proposal to undertake an activity data collection and analysis exercise for

policing.

This is an opportunity for the service to reality test some of the emerging narrative about complexity

of demand, functional drift and to build our understanding of the interplay between calls for service,

demand allocation, cost of service delivery and the drivers of the costs associated, and the quality of

services provided.

This is vital information for the service as a whole and also for individual forces. Observations from

HMICFRS and NPCC reviewers about the variable quality of analysis and assessment contained in Force

Management Statements suggest consistency of strategic insight can be improved going forwards. One

key observation has been the challenge to forces to clearly articulate the relationship between demand,

choices being made to service demand, efficiency, productivity and outcomes.

The SR19 team, in working to build the business case for policing with the Home Office, has also faced

a significant challenge to provide detailed costings for future investment in policing. In part this has

been due to the lack of available unit cost information and of robust evidence about the activity

required to deliver services.

This information is key at the national and local levels to inform the strategic perspective on policing

need and to support individual police forces to be able to forecast the impact of choices/change on

outcomes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-managementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-policy-framework/hmg-security-policy-framework#risk-management


This paper describes a two phased approach to developing the evidence base.

Benefits to the service nationally

• Activity data collection and analysis can only provide a partial picture of the time spent to deal

with specific incident and crime types however even a partial picture could provide a

compelling dataset at a national level for describing the policing costs and time given up to

dealing with issues such as mental health or other safeguarding issues. This would not only

help to articulate the business case for policing with the treasury but would also support the

identification of areas where whole system approaches have the greatest potential impact and

the description of the value that policing brings to the wider economic and social wellbeing of

the country.

• Adding activity data collection and analysis to the rich picture of other National datasets such

as HMICFRS Big Data and VFM Profiles would provide further benchmarking evidence in relation to

demand and resource allocation. Forces could identify whether the time and resources being

invested at different incident/crime types is comparable with other Forces and whether

efficiency savings are possible in light of achieved criminal justice outcomes.

• Aggregating national activity data collection and analysis would provide a significant evidence

base for demonstrating the police resources invested in activities not previously acknowledged

as the mainstay of policing including mental health and child safeguarding whilst also

demonstrating the shift to ‘new’ and emerging demands such as cyber related activities. If

comparisons with the campaigns from 10 years ago are also available then this shift in the

nature of policing would be increasingly transparent.

Benefits to Local Police Forces

Activity data collection and analysis has been undertaken within a number of individual forces already.

They report a number of benefits resulting from the information generated:

1. Improved understanding about how force resources are used and outcomes delivered

including providing insight to potential mechanisms of action for specific interventions.

2. Resulting analysis and comparison with historical activity data collection and analysis has

evidenced the shift in policing activities away from crime related activities towards

safeguarding related activities. This evidence supports the Forces increased resourcing of

safeguarding units across the districts and adds evidence and weight to discussions with

partners in relation to funding and necessity for partnership working.

3. Crime and incident data is helpful in highlighting increasing trends for specific crime and

incident types however activity data collection and analysis in West Yorkshire evidences the

increase in time now being spent in dealing with specific incidents. For example the increased

time spent dealing with missing people corroborates data held on other systems and these

findings have been a driver for demand reduction activity in these areas.

4. Including ‘complexity factors’ has provided evidence that around 40% of all activities have at

least one complexity factor. Complexity factors include issues such as mental health, CSE and

cyber-related. These findings have been used to inform training programmes perspective to

ensure frontline officers are suitably equipped to deal with the complexity they are facing on

a daily basis.


5. Identifying aspects of latent or hidden demand that are otherwise unmeasured. These include

scene sitting, A&E delays, reassurance visits, high-visibility patrols, and engagement.

6. Facilitating comparisons across districts and comparisons across functional areas including

differences in the ways that domestic abuse is responded to and differences in single/double

crewing rates. Activity data collection and analysis that is accessible to districts to review each

role (NPT, Patrol etc.) allows an opportunity for reassurance about consistency of approach,

relevance to role and alignment with strategic priorities.

7. It is accepted that the snapshot nature of the campaigns provides only a partial picture of the

overall time spent dealing with particular crime and incident types however indicative timings

and associated costs could support future decision making and planning by chief officers in

relation to prioritisation of activities, deployment policies and secondary investigations. In

particular the optimisation of resource allocation decisions and the potential to inform future

resource scenario modelling has emerged as a benefit.

8. Validating anecdotal reports from the frontline. For example concerns regarding the

workloads and demand on Sgts and their subsequent well-being have been explored using

activity data collection and analysis.

9. Activity data collection and analysis will support the development of force strategic

understanding of demand, complexity and resourcing gaps. This in turn will build the evidence

base provided in FMS.

Outline Principles

1. The design needs to be robust, consistent across participant forces and defensible.

2. There is a need to minimise the impact of the data capture on service delivery.

3. The data capture exercise needs to be service-led, with an opportunity for all forces to

engage if they are motivated and able to do so. This needs to be balanced against the

need to ensure that the data capture reflects the diversity of police forces described in

point 5.

4. It needs to demonstrate a meaningful commitment by territorial policing to improving

knowledge and understanding of the demand burden that results from calls for service

and the resources required to deliver an effective service in response to need. The initial

exercise should provide a foundation that can be developed in future.

5. The exercise needs to ensure that the broad diversity of sociodemographic and

geographic profiles across police forces is reflected.

6. There is an opportunity to explore the benefits of different approaches to service delivery

which might lead us to identify specific forces that would be of specific interest.

7. Police forces should have access to their own data for local analysis.

8. Collating a service-wide view or analysis would need to be done centrally in a single point.

9. The product that results from the analysis should be shared with the service.

10. Although there is clear potential for the exercise to inform a future review of the police

core grant distribution method, this should not be the primary function of the exercise.

11. There may be benefits to considering commissioning independent design of the method

or analysis of the data.


Phase 1: Activity Survey

Aim/Purpose

There are a broad range of issues that an activity survey could be used to address.

These include:

1. An estimate of the relative activity burden and resources required in response to different

calls for service. This could be used to provide an estimate of the amount of police hours

required in order to respond to different types of incident or crime. An obvious use for

such an estimate would be to contribute to future Home Office exercises to estimate the

cost of crime. There are limitations to this exercise in estimation, a key point being that

the product tends to rely on averages while from recent work it has become clear that

there are a variety of drivers of complexity that result in a wide variation of need and

therefore cost even where the incident/offence might appear to be a straightforward one.

2. Evidence help demonstrate the shift in complexity of response required by the service. If

the exercise provides data that is sufficiently close to the original Activity Based Costing

exercise in 2006/07 it would be possible to identify changes in the relative amount of time spent engaging in

safeguarding activities. In West Yorkshire the exercise has been used to assess this and

compare to the earlier results with some evidence emerging to suggest that more officer

time is spent on safeguarding and public protection activities compared to the earlier

analysis.

3. Provide baseline efficiency/productivity data against which to assess future productivity

gains. This would allow the service to track its progress in delivering efficiency and

productivity gains into the future and would support the Home Office and others in

holding the service to account for achieving any improvements against the SR19 offer.

4. It might be possible to use activity survey to identify and estimate the impact of specific

demand drivers on the burden of activity required to respond to calls for service. Including

markers that are associated with increased complexity (mental health, substance abuse,

vulnerability, deprivation, elderly, children, domestic abuse, non-english speaking for e.g.)

might allow us to estimate the impact of these factors on service need. This would be

really valuable information to feed into the discussion about how the service need has

transformed over time and also to support discussion with other public sector bodies

about a whole-system approach to demand reduction. This might be challenging to deliver

across the service at this time due to variations in flagging reliability and the impact of

subjective perception of these issues, nonetheless the value that could emerge from the

exercise makes it worth consideration.

Methods

1. West Yorkshire

Not captured – not circulated with Council Papers.

Leeds Activity Leeds Activity Leeds Activty Analysis - Survey.doc Analysis Report.docx Analysis - Dec 17.ppt


Officers and staff completed hourly returns via Snap Survey software on two days, a weekday and at

the weekend.

2. North Yorkshire


Shift modelling draft report

precis.docx

Both activity survey and a functional approach has been applied to map demand and remodel resource

allocation patterns.

3. South Yorkshire


South

Yorkshire Police -

activity analys

Both activity survey and a functional approach has been applied to map demand and remodel resource

allocation patterns.

The West Yorkshire method appears the most robust and well developed. The on-line survey

methodology provides a relatively quick and simple method to obtain data with minimum burden to

officers. Adopting this method would allow the generation of a large volume of detailed information in

a short period of time. There is an opportunity to adapt the survey to reflect a broader range of

complexity drivers than are contained in the original.

The method comes with a number of caveats however:

• The data represents a snapshot in time

• It cannot reflect concurrent tasks

• It is dependent on officer and staff compliance in completion, this can be mitigated through

an effective communications and leadership strategy.

• The resulting data will only provide and estimate of time spent dealing with an incident, and

is limited to an estimate of the resource requirement for the functions surveyed. Typically this

has been limited to response and local policing teams.

Phase 2: Detailed end-to-end process mapping

Aim/Purpose

There are a range of issues and questions that an activity survey would struggle to evidence.

Responding to these with a robust evidence base would require a more in-depth and qualitative

approach.

These include:


1. Evidence about increased efficiency/productivity across service. It is not clear at this time that

activity survey alone will deliver this aspiration. It may form part of a broader evidence review

that needs to assess the progress that the service has made in delivering outcomes against

reducing resource availability since 2010. The position is complicated by the shift in complexity

and focus on threat, risk harm and vulnerability across the service. The potential for perverse

implications arising from efficiency-driven decisions about where to reduce or alter the service

offering on outcomes is also a confounding factor and cannot be readily dissected out from

the evidence. Any discussion about productivity/efficiency needs to consider the impact of

decisions made to increase efficiency on the effectiveness of service provided.

2. There is potential to reality-check the emerging narrative from FMS about a shift in where

service is being delivered. This would require an approach that would allow a functional

analysis of where activity is being provided. Examples include the amount of demand being

resolved in contact centres or reported shifts of investigations into local policing functions.

This might help us to move towards a more nuanced articulation of how the service has

adapted to provide a more efficient service to the public. It could also provide a foundation

for us to explore the interaction between efficiency-led choices and service

quality/effectiveness.

3. It may allow a comparison between the relative efficiencies resulting from different

approaches being adopted by different forces. For example the use of centralised specialised

investigation functions as compared to a more distributed approach where local policing

teams carry an investigation workload.

4. Detailed qualitative analysis could be used to estimate current prevention-related activity

within the service, provide estimated costs for the various activities and to support a stronger

business case to treasury about what the service needs in order to increase the focus on

prevention and reduce demand/calls for service. There is already work being undertaken by

the South Yorkshire Problem Solving and Demand Reduction team in collaboration with the

College.

5. Detailed qualitative analysis will not describe any shift in capabilities or skills required to meet

changes in the nature of demand but it will provide evidence of the shift in the nature of the

service being provided and could be used to inform more detailed debate about what

capability gaps remain.

6. A detailed end to end process review of activity could be used to begin to develop

understanding about the relative impact of different effects on outcomes as well as begin to

build an evidence base about wider value of police activity and prevention to economic and

societal wellbeing.

Methods

In addition to the more detailed approaches described by South Yorkshire and North Yorkshire above

the following have also undertaken a detailed qualitative analysis.

Methods

Kent



RAM2017methodolo RAMmethodologyv0.

gyv0.6.docx 6.docx

A functional systems-based approach was taken. Initially system-generated data relating to

call/response data and investigation data were analysed by function. The service provided was process-

mapped and key points where the efficient delivery of service was inhibited were identified. Resource

availability was also mapped across the function. Focus groups were used to explore the results and to

validate the data-led observations. The results were used to adapt the force resource allocation model.

To achieve this would need careful consideration of the areas/issues that could be explored and the

development of a tailored method to deliver.

Potential areas where this could inform some of the thornier questions include:

• The activity and services being delivered directly through contact centres, the impact on

demand burden elsewhere in the service and on effectiveness/outcomes for the public;

• How investigations are being delivered in different police force areas and the consequences

of different delivery models on CJ outcomes;

• The functions being delivered by neighbourhood policing;

• The value of police activity and in particular prevention activity.