PCC Governance Board Quality Performance Framework Bev Ashton

Context Coalition Government removed existing targets and replaced with one focus to reduce crime: “I want police officers chasing criminals, not chasing targets” (Home Secretary, Theresa May, May 2011) Despite this, the pressure remains on the police service nationally to conform to ‘performance’ and to provide increasing amounts of data The Force, OPCC and Kent Police Federation had a view that the quality of service was being hindered by performance targets and leading to skewed activity Kent Police’s Chief Constable commissions an internal review, followed by PCC Commissioned HMIC review

Performance Review Findings Integrity message sufficiently conveyed but not as ‘loud’ as the performance message General feeling of being weighed down by targets amplified by posters/information displayed around stations Daily performance meetings (strategic and local level) resulting in inappropriate and ineffective short-term activity Desire for more honest, open and transparent internal and external communication particularly around capability Acknowledgement that there should be a performance culture and some purposeful measurement Requirement from Chief and PCC to have a whole new performance framework based on quality

New Performance Framework 6 High level themes representing performance outcomes arrived at through consultation Underpinned by a suite of measures and quality focussed data Monthly grading process taking a rounded approach Limiting Judgements to ensure focus on doing the right thing Underpinned by continuous research and analysis - Weekly Statistical Process Control (SPC) Charts, Daily Management Information, 24/7 statistical availability on data hub

What are the 6 themes?

What sort of data is considered?

How does the process work? Identified Management information is collected and presented to the Grading meeting, attended by Operational and Analytical staff Utilising the management information, inspection/audit findings and progress updates a grading is given to each of the 6 outcomes. Areas of positive and negative performance are identified from the grading These are discussed in a Performance Committee with chief officers and senior managers from each of the force departments. The meeting starts with a context of demand and resourcing for current month and challenges for the month ahead. The discussion topics will identify potential blockages and barriers to improvements and identify how these can be overcome. Quick time audits and inspections are commissioned into identified themes

How does the process work? Grading meeting Success and improvement themes identified Performance Committee Questions (used at national CPMG) Do we know we have a problem? Is what we are doing to combat the problem making a difference? Is the problem on-going or short- lived? HODS accountability – reassurance and seeking assistance Judgement Grading: 1 – 4 1 = Significant issues 4 = Best Practice Limiting judgement Grade 1 or 2 only Audit, inspection and review Activity

Current performance January 2015

Overall Context June2014January2015No. change Victim Based Crime:+11.3% 25 forces  +5.5% 26 forces  Burglary dwelling:-8.3% 12 forces  -13.7% 13 forces  -338 VAP:+40.9% 38 forces  +20.6% 43 forces  Sexual offences:+54.1% 43 forces  +21.1% 43 forces  -413 Vehicle crime:-3.4% 6 forces  -4.0% 5 forces  -50 In February 2014 the force set out its forecast for the year looking at the impact of the more accurate crime recording. It was forecast that VBC would peak at 12% in June and then see between 0.5 and 1 percentage point reductions on a monthly basis. To date, the performance has been within these predictions.

Current Performance

VBC October 13 Vs December 14

Grading Matrix – January 2015

Themes at February’s Committee - 1.Calls for Service – Current provision; focusing on high call management and attendance 2.Operation Castle – Key findings and results following the force Burglary initiative 3.‘Local to Global’– The implementation of the Serious Organised Crime (SOC) local profiles promoting a partnership approach to tackling organised criminals

Thoughts on implementation 1.Positive feedback force-wide Trust the staff and the performance will follow Focus on quality service satisfaction and dealing with risk…rather than…counting…and knee jerking. 2. HMIC feedback “Following recent crime recording HMIC inspections, a considerable number of areas were identified which required improvement. These included a fundamental shift from an approach in which performance management was based primarily on meeting numerical targets. This had tended to skew aspects of crime recording. It is to the credit of the entire force that this significant change has been accomplished in a short period of time and has been strongly embedded across all areas.” “At the time of our inspection the deputy chief constable, following extensive internal and external consultation, was planning to introduce a new performance regime, which considers trends in crime recording and concentrates on checking the quality of policing services provided to the public. Staff have welcomed this and see it as further evidence signalling the switch to a victim focussed service and quality in policing rather than a simple concentration on crime figures.” 3.Baker Tilly Internal Audit Awaiting report – best practice highlighted 4.Other forces Several approaches to attend grading meetings and understand the framework