Performance and Measurement
City of London
Back to previous pageThe assessments for each performance area have been formed from component grades and then aggregated together. These are listed below and the performance data that underpins these assessments is also available for each component.
| Performance Areas | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Tackling Crime | Good | Deteriorated |
| 4a Comparative risk of personal crime | - | - |
| 4b Comparative risk of household crime | - | - |
| 5b Violent crime rate (excluding harassment PNDs) | - | Stable |
| 5f Acquisitive crime | - | Deteriorated |
| 6b Percentage of offences brought to justice | Good | Deteriorated |
| 7a Percentage of sanction detections | Good | Deteriorated |
| Performance Areas | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Serious Crime and Public Protection | Fair | |
| 5e Life threatening and gun crime | - | Stable |
| 8c Value of cash and confiscation orders | Good | |
| 9a Road traffic safety | Poor | Deteriorated |
| National Intelligence Model (NIM)* | Fair | |
| Specialist operational support* | Good | |
| Strategic roads policing* | Good |
| Performance Area | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Protecting Vulnerable People | Good | |
| Child Abuse investigations | Fair | |
| Domestic Violence | Fair | |
| Missing Persons | Good | |
| Public Protection | Good |
| Performance Areas | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction and Fairness | Fair | Stable |
| 1a Satisfaction with making contact | Fair | Stable |
| 1b Satisfaction with action taken | Fair | Improved |
| 1c Satisfaction with progress updates | Fair | Stable |
| 1d Satisfaction with treatment by staff | Fair | Stable |
| 1e Satisfaction with overall service | Excellent | Improved |
| 3a Satisfaction of victims of racism | Fair | Stable |
| 3b Comparative satisfaction of minority ethnic groups | - (e) | Improved |
| 3c Fairness of stop and search towards minority ethnic groups | Poor | Deteriorated |
e: Forces with a confidence interval greater than 10% on the difference in satisfaction are not assessed.
| Performance Areas | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation of Neighbourhood Policing | Fair |
| Performance Areas | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Local Priorities | Excellent | |
| 2a Residents perception of police performance | - | - |
| Locally Selected Indicators | Excellent | |
| Assessment of resident perceptions*: | ||
| 10a1 Residents fear of crime (burglary) | - | - |
| 10a2 Residents fear of crime (car crime) | - | - |
| 10a3 Residents fear of crime (violent crime) | - | - |
| 10b Perceptions of anti-social behaviour | - | - |
| 10c Perceptions of drug use | - | - |
| Performance Areas | Delivery | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Resources and Efficiency | Good | Deteriorated |
| 3e Minority ethnic officer recruitment | Poor | Deteriorated |
| 3g Female officer representation | Fair | Deteriorated |
| 11a Front line policing | Good | Stable |
| 12a Efficiency savings - Total & cashable | Excellent | Improved |
| 13a Officer sick absence | Excellent | Deteriorated |
| 13b Staff sick absence | Good | Improved |
| HMIC - Performance management | Fair | Deteriorated |
