Future Management and disbursement of MPA Partnership Fund.

Report: 6
Date: 11 June 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

In 2003 the Authority created the Partnership Fund, which annually allocates £50,000 to each Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU). The Fund was last reviewed in 2006, but with the advent of a new Authority, it is now timely for a further review of the Fund arrangements. The purpose of this report is to put forward a number of options for the future management and disbursement of the Partnerships Fund.

A. Recommendations

That

1. officers develop the process to gain community and CDRP partners’ views on annual partnership fund plans and for feeding back on the use of the fund regardless of which option is agreed;
2. members identify a preferred option for the arrangements for the provision of partnership funding to commence in the 2010/11 financial;
3. officers conduct further consultation on the preferred option and bring a further report to the next meeting of this committee.

B. Supporting information

The need for review

1. The new guidance and spending plan process introduced in 2006 was intended to ensure more flexible and effective systems for the application of the Partnerships Fund and that link members were more fully involved in decisions on the application of the fund at borough level.

2. The new process has ensured that flexibility of approach, enabling borough commanders, in consultation with their link members, the opportunity to support a wide range of projects and initiatives. This has included supporting longer-term partnership-led activities, such as the development of independent domestic violence advocates and smaller-scale initiatives, such as crime prevention events with Age Concern. In addition, this flexibility has supported the development of local variations in the way in which the fund has been managed at borough level. Most borough commanders have been disbursing the fund through their own local processes, but some have aligned the Partnerships Fund with the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership’s (CDRP’s) commissioning process.

3. In addition, past consultation has indicated that boroughs commanders are of the view that the fund provides a very useful additional resource precisely because it is so flexible, and this view is even more strongly felt in the outer London boroughs, which receive far more limited funding (this is generally true for all CDRP partners not just the borough police) than their inner London counterparts.

However, members have expressed concerns that in the light of their experience over the last year:

• The current framework is not sufficiently detailed or robust to support members in making appropriate decisions about disbursements;
• It is unclear how some of the uses of the fund are related to the work of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP) or to MPA/MPS priorities;
• That there is a lack of transparency and accountability to the community for the use of the fund;
• That the current financial arrangements by which the MPS receives the funding in a block grant within the overall annual budget is inappropriate if the Authority retains approval rights.

In addition, a number of other issues have made a review of the current arrangements appropriate at this time:

• The MPA partnership fund was devised to provide a means for the Authority, as a newly responsible authority, to make a financial contribution to CDRPs and to also meet borough commanders’ need to have additional resources to bring to bear on CDRPs as a way of gaining more equal status with local authorities, which they have now achieved to a greater or lesser extent.
• The Borough Command Unit (BCU) Fund (£8m across 32 BCUs), which was similarly developed by the Home Office to help the BCUs play a full and active role in CDRPs, has contributed to this development. However, the current intention is that as of 2010/11, this funding will be directly allocated to local authorities through the area-based grant and not to BCUs. As such, this funding will be overseen by local strategic partnerships that will have the ability to allocate funds to whatever elements of the Local Area Agreement they deem appropriate. This could have implications for the MPS’ ability to access this funding in future, particularly given that the Authority is not a member of local strategic partnerships as a matter of statutory right.
• Members have previously raised concerns about the level of under spend. This has continued and at the end of the 2008/09 financial year there was an under spend equivalent to 9.7% of the overall annual budget, although this is a significant reduction on 2007/08 when 17.5% of the fund was carried forward.
• It is incumbent upon all public authorities to be able to demonstrate the effective use of resources and in the light of future police authority inspections the Authority also needs to be able to effectively demonstrate its contribution to local partnerships. However, the current system does not always effectively fulfil these requirements.
• With funding so limited in the current financial climate there will be an even greater need for strong and effective monitoring of expenditure.

4. Two further matters on which members are asked to take a view are:

1. whether they would want the fund to be explicitly directed towards voluntary and community sector organisations, rather than statutory services, which could enhance third sector engagement and
2. whether they would wish to hold the funding within the Authority for release to BCUs upon completion of an agreed funding process.

Options for change

5. This report asks members to consider the issues detailed above and sets out a series of options for the future management and disbursement of the partnership fund and these are discussed below.

Option 1 - No change

6. Retain the current system whereby £50 000 is allocated to each borough commander for disbursement within existing parameters (see Appendix 1).

Strengths

7. The current system provides a flexible and relatively unrestricted source of funding that is not subject to the same constraints as other partnership funds, and can therefore be used to support virtually any kind of partnership activity, including projects that would not otherwise have been considered of sufficient priority to receive funding. In addition, subject to the submission of a spending plan, funds can also be carried forward from one year to the next.

8. The current system operates within the same accounting parameters as the BCU Fund, which is managed by Territorial Policing Headquarters, and does not therefore add any additional bureaucracy (other than the need to consult the Link Member), which is welcomed by BCUs.

Weaknesses

9. The flexibility of the current funding scheme means it is heavily reliant on consistent liaison with the Link Member and Link Officer in making funding decisions. However, the level of member-BCU liaison is variable and relatively informal and when coupled with the wide parameters within which this fund operates, this may in some cases have had an impact on the Authority’s ability to influence expenditure decisions.

10. The use of indicative spending plans allows for considerable variation of in-year expenditure and does not provide sufficient detail or evaluation criteria to justify funding decisions. It also has an inherent weakness in terms of providing an adequate audit trail.

11. While the Authority has never yet wanted to do so, transferring the fund to the MPS as a block grant significantly limits any leverage the Authority might wish to exercise over the fund.

Option 2 – Enhance the current system

12. This would require the provision of more structured guidance in the use of the Fund and the identification by the Authority of specific priority areas each year, e.g. serious youth violence or domestic violence. In order to access the Fund, BCUs would be required to negotiate a service level agreement (SLA) with the Authority similar to that used with CPEGs prior to the start of the financial year and to also seek approval for any in-year alterations to those plans with detailed business cases (See Appendix 2).

13. Expenditure would be reviewed on a quarterly basis by Link Officers and at the end of the financial year any unspent funds for which an approved business case had not been received would be drawn back into MPA Reserves.

14. This process could be further enhanced if the Authority retained the partnership funds for release upon agreement of the SLA.

Strengths

15. The provision of more structured guidance for the use of the fund would help ensure expenditure is better targeted and more closely aligned to MPA and/or CDRP objectives.

16. The requirement for an SLA would continue to facilitate the early consideration of expenditure decisions and the provision to seek variations in spending would maintain the flexibility for BCUs to respond to changing needs and demands as they might arise throughout the financial year. Such an approach would assist in more efficient use of the fund and could reduce the size and frequency of under spends.

17. Retention of the fund by the Authority until the SLA was agreed would afford the Authority more direct control over the fund.

Weaknesses

18. This option would create some additional work for Members, MPA officers and BCUs, although this would be relatively easy to manage within current resources.

19. The introduction of a more rigid planning process might have a disproportionate impact on smaller voluntary and community sector projects, because such processes can sometimes hamper engagement with the third sector.

20. In addition, were the Authority to take this option, it would have to be carefully implemented to guard against any unintended consequences. E.g. it might be regarded by TPHQ as a negative reflection on their management of the partnership fund (which to date they have done in accordance with current guidance).

Option 3 – Allocate the fund through link members

21. This would involve the Authority holding the Partnership Fund money and managing disbursements at borough level through link members in consultation with CDRP partners (including BCUs) and the local community against agreed criteria and in accordance with MPA guidance.

22. As for option 2 this model would require the development of a detailed SLA and business cases to support the decision-making process and expenditure would be reviewed and managed as for option 2.

Strengths

23. The benefits of the provision of more structured guidance for the use of the Fund and of the requirement for detailed spending plans and business cases have already been discussed (see paragraphs 17 and 18).

24. This option would give members the ability to directly support the delivery of CDRP priorities with additional financial resources, which would give the Authority more equal status at CDRPs. It would also facilitate closer alignment of the expenditure to MPA and/or partnership priorities, demonstrating our commitment to partnership working and the development of provision to suit local circumstances, whilst maintain sufficient flexibility to facilitate a community sector focus if desired.

Weaknesses

25. Again this option would involve some additional administration that would have to be managed within existing resources. It would also be more time-consuming for members than option 2, but they would, however, be fully supported by Link Officers.

26. This model would enable the development of considerable variations in how the fund is used across London and members might consider this undesirable.

27. Given that the BCUs are likely to lose direct access to BCU funding as of 2010/11, the Partnerships Fund could take on more significance for borough commanders in terms of leverage and status within CDRPs. This being the case, members may feel it inappropriate to make such marked changes to the current arrangements at this time. Additionally, as discussed above this could also be seen as a negative reflection on BCU’s management of the fund.

Option 4 – Directly align the partnership fund to CDRP commissioning processes

28. This option would be similar to option 3, but the funding would be made exclusively available to the CDRPs (not LSPs) for disbursement according to local priorities and arrangements.

29. Detailed SLAs and business cases would still be required to facilitate adequate record-keeping, but there would otherwise be complete local flexibility within the parameters of the guidance.

30. Funds would be held by the Authority and released upon agreement of the SLA.

Strengths

31. This option would represent a demonstrable commitment to partnership working and the development of appropriate provision to suit local circumstances, but would be sufficiently flexible to support a community-sector focus should that be desirable.

32. It would also reduce the administrative burden on the Authority.

Weaknesses

33. This model would require the Authority to commit to a partnership process in which it would have an equal voice amongst all partners. There would be no veto powers and there could be less opportunity to respond to changing circumstances as they arose.

34. As for option 2, it would also enable the development of considerable variations in how the fund is used across London and members might consider this undesirable.

5. The concerns related to the demise of the BCU fund, as discussed in option 3, would be equally valid were this the preferred option.

Consultation

36. At the present time, consultation has been informal and limited, but whatever option is agreed further consultation will be required and this will be conducted in two phases. The first phase will be to consult all members on the preferred option as agreed by this committee. That will inform the development of an Authority-wide view on the way forward and officers will then set about developing the monitoring systems to support the new process. Phase two of the consultation will be focused on borough commanders and other partners to gauge and secure their support for the way forward.

C. Race and equality impact

37. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 places a responsibility on all public authorities to have due regard to the need to tackle racial discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. As one of five statutory partners the Authority has an equal responsibility to ensure the general duties are met within the context of CDRP activities.

38. In this regard the Authority works with CDRPs across London to promote the consideration of race and equality impacts in the development and implementation of local community safety strategies.

39. The agreed management process will be designed to enable the Authority to better monitor whether the Fund is being disbursed across diverse communities and how much is being used to engage with under-represented groups.

D. Financial implications

40. The MPA has allocated £1.6m equally amongst the 32 BCUs each year since 2003. This report has no specific financial implications, but the implementation of the preferred option may require the reallocation of existing resources. In addition, if a new framework is agreed there may also be a need for transitional arrangements to be agreed with BCUs before full implementation can be achieved.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Natasha Plummer, Engagement & Partnerships Team, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback