Hampshire Police Authority
Performance Committee
Item: 6
23 June 2008
Commentary on Force Performance Profile
Report of the Chief Executive
Contact: Sue Wade Performance Management Officer (01962 814857)
1.
Summary
1.1
This report will comment on the full year performance of Hampshire
Constabulary for 2007/08 using the March 2008 profile, and also
introduce the new performance framework for 2008/09 using the May
2008 profile.
1.2
This report supports:
 Objective 1, 2, & 5 of the Police Authority’s annual objectives for
2006/07.

1.3
Item 1 & 2 of the Performance Committee terms of reference.
This report provides details of:
 The Constabulary’s performance over the 2007/08 reporting year.

Areas where performance is good or improving.

Areas where performance may require additional scrutiny
2.
Recommendations
2.1
That the improvements in performance are noted.
3.
Summary of full year performance 2007/08
3.1
Commission levels reduced in all crime types and targets were met for
significant reductions in almost all areas. Sanction detection rates
increased in almost all crime types, with significant increases in violent
crime detection rates. Hampshire’s position compared to its most
similar forces (MSF) has improved in violent crime and British Crime
Survey (BCS) comparator crime (the CDRP measure) and has
remained in the top quartile in burglary and all crime categories. Quality
of life and citizen focus indicators (using BCS data from September
1
2007 and victim survey data from March 2008) are all demonstrating
strong performance in these areas, with Hampshire either best or
second best compared to MSF other than perception of violent crime
where Hampshire was third in MSF.
3.2
These are exceptionally good results for the year, particularly given the
context of a two year period of recovery from poor performance. The
Police Authority has commented very favourably on these performance
results in press releases issued in April 2008.
4.
Areas of performance that may require additional scrutiny
4.1
Burglary crimes are at a very low level in Hampshire and reduced by
2.8%, but have not reduced to the challenging target set, and there are
early indications of some increases. Hampshire is traditionally very
good at dealing with this crime type and a watching brief from the
Police Authority is all that is suggested.
4.2
Vehicle crime has reduced significantly by 18.5%, but detection rates
and victim/user satisfaction rates are poor. This crime type features in
the new performance framework and is already the focus of
Constabulary action. It should be a continued focus of Police Authority
scrutiny.
4.3
Violent crime has reduced by 4.5% and detection rates increased by
6.8%, but Hampshire is still in the lowest quartile in its MSF for the
level of violent crime. This may be partly a result of historic recording
issues. Reduction of violent crime features strongly in the new
performance framework.
4.4
Call handling performance is generally excellent, but FEC performance
(attributed previously to vacancies held for 101 decisions) has still not
been resolved. Performance has been significantly below target for all
of this performance year.
4.5
Sickness absence is still lowest in MSF, but there are upward
pressures and police staff both on OCUs and in central departments
are significantly exceeding targets. The target set in the new
performance framework will require active interventions to improve
performance.
4.6
Although PDRs overdue are of concern, the roll out of the new format
should assist performance and in one department (Professional
Standards), action has already been taken to complete the process,
where sign off was the blockage not actual completion of the PDR.
2
5.
New Performance Framework for 2008/09
5.1
The national framework has changed with Assessment of Policing and
Community Safety (APACS) replacing PPAF. APACS is designed to
develop into a combined assessment of policing, community safety and
drugs interventions. A number of the detailed measures and targets are
still in discussion at national level. They are therefore included in the
performance profile as ‘placeholders’ and have no data yet associated
with them. Some of those measures may take some months to be
agreed at national level.
5.2
The local policing performance framework, policing plan and control
strategy is agreed each year by the Police Authority and the
Constabulary and the process has been discussed in previous reports.
The new performance profile reflects the significant changes made for
this year, including a focus on user satisfaction, on neighbourhood
policing and on resolving neighbourhood priorities. These priorities run
alongside the continuing focus on reduction of crime, high detection
rates and high performance in the Special Operations portfolio and in
organisational management and use of resources. Within the reduction
of crime domain, vehicle crime is not mentioned separately but will
require increased focus from the Constabulary in order to meet the
acquisitive crime target. This change in emphasis connects to the
findings from Police Authority consultation. Within the Safer
Neighbourhoods domain, a number of the agreed measures link
directly to Police Authority consultation findings. The violent crime
indicator is a new one introduced by the Home Office and distinguishes
between what is termed serious violent crime and less serious. Serious
violent crime appears in the “prevent reduce and detect crime” domain,
whereas assault with less serious injury appears separately in the
Safer Neighbourhoods domain.
5.3
The Force and the Police Authority are continuing to develop the profile
and it is likely that it will change over the next few months as we jointly
understand what measures and targets are reliable indicators of the
new priority areas. In addition, the significant changes in the profile
have provided an opportunity to review the amount of departmental
performance data included in the profile. Many of the individual
departments will provide data on a ‘reporting by exception’ basis where
underperformance or particular issues raise concerns that require
inclusion in the profile. This approach requires Police Authority officers
to engage with the more detailed department and OCU performance
meetings and for Police Authority link members to scrutinise
performance issues at that level to ensure that appropriate decisions
are made about the ‘reporting by exception’ approach. The Chair and
officers will attend an increased range of Constabulary performance
meetings more frequently. The Deputy Chief Constable and the Police
Authority’s performance management officer are developing proposals
for a formal reporting process to the Authority’s Performance
3
Committee for the Force’s highest level performance meeting. This
new approach will be kept under review.
5.4
In terms of the May Performance profile, the data is not yet sufficient in
most areas to indicate any trends but it will be important to scrutinise
the criminal damage, overall satisfaction/ being kept informed, assault
with less serious injury, serious acquisitive crime and sickness
indicators as they are all challenging targets. Overall detections are
slightly down compared to the previous year and may indicate the
beginning of a trend that would require early intervention by the Force.
5.5
The performance of the Specialist Operations portfolio (OCUs 7 and 8)
are now included in the formal performance committee scrutiny in
addition to the detailed work undertaken by Police Authority link
members. Roads Policing Unit and Scientific Services are the selected
areas of scrutiny for this meeting and are covered in another agenda
item.
Section 100D – Local Government Act 1972 – Background Papers
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an
important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in
the preparation of this report.
N.B. the list excludes:1. Published works
2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as
defined in the Act
TITLE
None
LOCATION
4