Jump to site navigation [j]

Performance and Measurement

  • What information can I find on this website?

    The website presents Police Performance information for all forces in England and Wales.

    The website allows you to view the performance of your local force across key areas of policing. A national table is also available.

    From 2007/08, no graded assessments have been included. This follows the publication of the Policing Green Paper in July 2008, which sets out a more strategic role for the Home Office.

  • Why is Police Performance information published?

    Public services should meet the needs of users. The information provided here reflects this aim by focusing on the ‘end results’ delivered by police forces (with partners) so that:

    • local people and communities have information about the quality of local policing;
    • police forces can manage and improve their own performance;
    • police authorities can monitor local delivery and improvement;
    • good practice can be identified and shared;
    • problems can be addressed.

    In addition to the national information published here, local accountability is also increasingly supported by the publication of local information on crime and police activity, for example through crime maps and neighbourhood policing teams, which mean that the public are better informed about what is happening in their area.

     

  • How should the information be interpreted?
  • How does the 2008/09 approach differ from that used previously?

    Policing performance assessments were introduced in 2004/05. For the three years prior to this the Home Office published comparative data on a range of statutory performance indicators. HMIC also published grades following baseline assessment. In recent years, performance assessments brought together performance data and baseline grades to form an explicit and integrated assessment of performance. For 2006/07 an interim assessment was developed which brought together data with judgements from HMIC’s inspections.

    Following publication of the Policing Green Paper in July 2008, the Home Office no longer produces graded assessments of Police Forces. Therefore, from 2007/08 onwards, only performance data is shown (without any associated grades). In 2008/09, the Analysis of Policing and Community Safety (APACS) performance indicator set was introduced to replace PPAF. Although many indicators remain the same as in previous years under PPAF, APACS contains a different set of performance indicators. Following the approach in 2007/08, graded assessments are not shown and we have only published the underlying data.


     

  • What are APACS Performance Indicators?

    APACS indicators are the quantitative data covering key policing outcomes used to provide a shared view of policing performance. The National Policing Board has a role in agreeing the indicator set each year. The indicators are no longer set in statute and so are no longer referred to as Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs).

  • Will performance affect force budgets?

     

    Police performance does not influence the amount of general police grant funding for forces.

  • Will performance affect the pay of chief officers?

     

    Chief Officer Pay arrangements include an element of performance pay, which takes account of the chief officer's annual performance and development review and their contribution to achieving objectives as set out in national and local policing plans. It is for police authorities to design and operate their schemes in line with guidance produced by the Police Negotiating Board.

  • What are ‘peers’ or ‘most similar forces’?

    Police forces operate in different environments and it is reasonable to expect that performance will vary as these environments differ in complexity. For this reason, it would be misleading and unfair to consider the performance of all 43 police forces in England and Wales in relation to each other. For example, it would not be fair or accurate to compare the performance of the Metropolitan Police Service with that of Devon & Cornwall as they each face very different challenges.

    Consequently, we compare forces which are similar to each other (peer comparison). This means that for each force a list of other forces that are the most similar to it has been identified. Decisions on which forces are the most similar to each other are made using a range of geographic, demographic, and socio-economic information. As a result, there are 43 ‘most similar groups’: one for each force. We believe this is a more appropriate and useful way of measuring and comparing performance. The Home Office website shows the performance of each force in comparison to its peers. These most similar forces did not change between 2004/05 and 2007/08. The ‘most similar’ groups were reviewed as part of the preparation for APACS through a process of joint working and consultation with ACPO, APA and the LGA during the Autumn of 2007. Revised and updated groups were introduced for use from 1 April 2008.

    Note: it should not be assumed that if Force B is in Force A’s most similar group that Force A would be in Force B’s most similar group, as shown is the diagram below.

    Chart with two axes, the vertical labelled variable 1 and the horizontal, variable 2. The chart shows many blue dots, a group of which are inside a yellow circle, with the central dot being red (labelled force X) and the remaining dots being blue apart from one which is green (labelled force Y). The caption for the graph is 'Most similar group for unit X contains unit Y' Chart with two axes, the vertical labelled variable 2 and the horizontal, variable 1. This chart again shows many blue dots, a group of which are within a yellow circle, this time the central dot is green (labelled force Y) and the remaining dots blue. This time the green dot (labelled force Y) appears outside the yellow circle. The caption for the graph is 'But unit X may not be in unit Y's group'

  • Where are the 'Locally selected indicators'?

    From 2008/09, we are no longer reporting on locally set performance indicators.

  • How many performance indicators are there?

    There are 34 performance indicators in APACS for 2008/09 and data has been published for 29 of these. The figures for the remaining 5 indicators will be published when available in early 2010.

    29 SPIs were reported on for 2007/08. Where data is missing, or may be based on partial information, the relevant data item is footnoted.

    There were 29 SPIs in 2006/07 and 27 of these were assessed. The two SPIs that were not assessed are:

    • SPI 3d) Parity of detection for violence against the person: This is because violence in the night time economy is mainly committed by young white men, and when it is seen by police it is easily detected which, with a focus on reducing alcohol-related violence, has inflated the detection rate for such violence; and
    • SPI 8a) Domestic Violence Arrest Rate: This was covered by the detailed HMIC inspection into Protecting Vulnerable People.

    There were 32 SPIs in 2005/06 and 29 were assessed. Three SPIs were not assessed because either a robust statistical assessment could not be made, or to avoid perceived double-counting. 

    There were 36 SPIs in 2004/05 and 32 were assessed. Four SPIs were not assessed because the type and amount of data concerned meant that a robust statistical assessment could not be made.

    There were 27 baseline areas in 2004/05 and 26 were assessed. The baseline area ‘Professional Standards’ was not assessed since HMIC were undertaking a full thematic inspection of this area in 2005/06. All baselines were assessed in 2005/06. HMIC replaced baseline assessments with a more detailed inspection regime in 2006/07.

  • Why have the definitions or data for some performance indicators changed?

    In 2008/09, we changed from PPAF to a new policing performance framework (APACS). Although some performance indicators remain the same, following consultation with stakeholders, some performance indicators are different (in particular, to align with the National Indicator Set for local government in England).   

    No SPIs changed between the 2006/07 and 2007/08 assessments.

    The following SPIs changed between the 2005/06 and 2006/07 assessments:

    •  SPI 3b (Comparative satisfaction of minority ethnic groups) changed for 2006/07. Previously satisfaction levels of ethnic groups were calculated based on a pooled sample of all victim groups. Under the new definition, the SPI is calculated by taking the mean satisfaction of the 5 victim groups: road traffic casualties, burglary, vehicle crime, violent crime and racist incidents. Each user group therefore makes a 20% contribution to overall satisfaction. This change was made to eliminate the bias that could arise if forces over-sample any particular user group.
    •  SPI 5b (Violent Crime Rate): Following the Smith Review of crime statistics the Home Office made a number of changes to the way offences are categorised. In particular, Bigamy and Concealing an infant death close to birth were removed from the categories which constitute violent crime. The number of such offences is small and the effect on the SPI value is negligible.
    •  SPI 13a and 13b (Officer and staff sickness absence) changed to measure the percentage of available hours lost to sickness instead of the sickness hours lost per officer or staff member.

    The following SPIs changed between the 2004/05 and 2005/06 assessments:

    •  SPI 5b (violent crime rate): Forces were assessed on their violent crime rate not counting Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs). PNDs were introduced to tackle low-level anti-social behaviour and to reduce police bureaucracy in dealing with these types of incidents. They can also be issued for behaviour which causes harassment, alarm or distress, but not in cases where (i) the nature of the offence is too serious and/or involves any aggravating circumstances, or (ii) where there has been any injury to any person or realistic threat or risk of injury to any person.
    •  SPI 8a (domestic violence arrest rate):  Data and definition changed as a result of a legal change in arrest powers on 1 January 2006 (see Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 110).
    •  SPI 11a (front-line policing): The way this measure is calculated changed to account for probationers’ contribution and to incorporate an alteration in the way sick absence is included.

  • What is the 'Comparator data' that is shown for the performance indicators?

    For the majority of indicators, a force is compared to the aggregate performance of its peers in 2008/09, which is the first year of APACS. For this calculation, the peer average includes the force itself. In previous years, the comparator year was 2004/05 as this was the first year of the PPAF framework, and was held as the benchmark year to make any change in policing standards as clear as possible.

    Some indicators require a force to compare different elements of their own data.  For example, comparing the satisfaction of White and Visible Minority Ethnic (VME) victims of crime with respect to the overall service provided. Other indicators are compared to the national average (e.g., percentage of female police officers, sickness absence rates). 

  • How is the City of London compared?

    The City of London does not have a peer group for comparison purposes because of its relatively unique nature when compared to other forces.  Comparison is therefore made against the national average for indicators where it is sensible to do so.  These include user satisfaction and road traffic safety.

    The City of London provides policing services to a far larger population than those who are resident in the area. Comparison of the recorded crime indicators which are per 1,000 residents is not meaningful. The BCS does not distinguish responses from the City of London to those of the MPS and so comparison of these indicators is not possible.

  • Can I compare historical assessments in different years?

    Not directly. In the processes of refining assessments, headline assessment areas have changed; a small number of components have changed; and, for a few other components, the methods of assessment have changed. Each set of assessments are best seen as standalone to avoid “comparing apples and pears”. In addition, the APACS framework replaced PPAF from 2008/09.

  • What are the Police Use of Resources Evaluations (PURE)?

    From 2008/09 we are no longer including PURE scores within the annual publication.  Further information on PURE can be found from the Audit Commission.

  • Where can I find further information?
  • Where is the data on five of the 2008/09 APACS indicators?

     

    Data for five of the indicators is not yet available. The full APACS dataset for 2008/09 will be republished in early 2010 and will include data on these measures.

Home Office websites