The Management and Accountability of MPS Partnership, Multi Agency and 3rd Sector Programmes

Report: 12
Date: 12 November 2009
By: Director of Resources on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an overview of the policy, guidance and mechanisms that the MPS has in place for the management and accountability of MPS Partnership, Multi Agency and 3rd Sector Programmes.

A. Recommendation

1. Members are requested to note the content of this report regarding the management and accountability of MPS Partnership, Multi Agency and third Sector Programmes.

B. Supporting information

1. This report builds on two previous reports to the Communities, Equalities and People Committee (CEP): the Sponsorship and Grant Aiding of Voluntary Projects and One-Off Events, 16 July 2009, agenda item 14 and the Funding through the MPS of Partnership, Multi Agency and Third Sector Projects and Programmes 2008-09, 10 September 2009, agenda item four. It seeks to provide more clarity about the decision making processes that underpin these investments at a corporate and local level.

2. This paper covers the areas of work which the MPS defines as Partnership and Sponsorship. The MPS definition of partnership is:

An agreement with an external body to achieve common objectives.

3. The definition of partnership covers the many different types of partnerships the MPS is involved in, ranging from service delivery partnerships such as policing the Palace of Westminster, strategic partnerships including Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), through to informal, local partnerships managed by officers within Operational Command Units (OCUs), and designed to address local issues. This definition includes all of the MPS’s relationships with other bodies, including expenditure on third sector projects and programmes (see Appendix A for the full definition).

4. The MPS definition of sponsorship includes benefits in kind, gifts and financial sponsorship (See Appendix B for the full definition). The MPS has separate strategic frameworks in place for partnerships and for sponsorship; this report will describe how both of these currently operate.

5. The MPS complies with the MPA Financial Regulations in its management and accounting all of all partnership and sponsorship activity. It also has corporate objectives, policy and guidance to be used by the whole organisation. The MPS manages and accounts for both Partnership and Sponsorship activity through strategic frameworks, managed centrally by the Directorates of Resources and Human Resources respectively. Decision making by all Business Groups via their B/OCUs takes place within these frameworks, whilst they also have the necessary flexibility to respond to locally identified operational need, both over the long term and following critical incidents.

6. This report reflects the relationship between the MPS’s strategic and operational activity, with each response describing the strategic framework that is in place, and giving a picture of how these decisions are taken operationally within this framework. The size and complexity of the MPS and the volume of different partnership and sponsorship activities, makes reporting this comprehensively very challenging.

7. As the committee will be aware from previous reports, over the last 15 months, under the Partnership work stream of the Developing Resource Management (DRM) Programme, the MPS has made real progress in the partnership arena. There is still work to do to ensure that this framework is embedded across the organisation. Thus this report will outline the ‘as is’ picture at The MPS regarding the management and accountability of Partnerships and will also outline planned developments. The next phase of the planned strategic Partnerships work is due to begin in late November. Where noted, the planned work will be delivered in 2009/10, otherwise it will be delivered in 2010/11. A detailed work plan for 2010/2011 can be made available to the MPA from 31 March 2010.

8. The Partnership strategic framework is set out in a number of documents providing general partnership guidance as well as specific guidance on partnership finance, EU Funding and Local Area Agreements (LAAs). These are described collectively as the Partnership Guidance throughout this report. They are all published on the MPS intranet. The framework provided by this Partnership Guidance is designed to be flexible enough to be relevant to the range of partnership activity across the MPS, whilst setting down clear financial regulations that require compliance from practitioners. One of the elements of the next stage of the work is to consider whether to develop the Partnership Guidance into formalised policy, and how this would be managed.

9. All MPS sponsorship activity is required to comply with one of two policies:

• Sponsorship Income is regulated by the Management of Sponsorship Trading and Events Policy which reflects the Home Office and APA approved ACPO income generation guidelines, and has been integrated into MPS processes for nearly 10 years.
• The Sponsorship Expenditure Policy provides procedure and guidance to follow when deciding on funding or supporting an activity being controlled and delivered by an external body. This policy has been active for over three years.

The process by which projects are decided upon – topics, nature of intervention, prioritisation of area of work etc.

10. The Partnership Guidance states that all MPS partnership activity has to contribute to the MPS’s corporate objectives, which are set out annually in the MPA/MPS Annual Policing Plan. It also notes that partnership working can require the objectives of other organisations to be met as well, and recognises that there is a balance to be struck here to ensure that effective relationships can be built and business can be done. The Partnership Guidance also states that the purpose, and fit with MPS objectives, resource implications, risks and authority to proceed should be considered before entering into any partnership. A flow chart clearly outlining this decision making process to be included in the Partnership Guidance will be developed before the end March 2010. A protocol to be used by all MPA BCUs is currently being developed for the management and accounting of the BCU and MPA Partnership Funds, and will be in place by the end of March 2010. This will require all MPS BCUs to follow the Partnership Guidance in this respect.

11. The specific EU Funding Guidance states that before an application is made for EU funding, the intended project’s fit with MPS’ corporate objectives, plan, strategy and values is addressed. The EU funding bids process flow chart for EU funding applications is included in Appendix C.

12. The objectives set in the MPA/MPS Policing Plan, provide the framework within which Business Group and Borough Business Plans and targets are agreed. These in turn inform operational decision making for Partnership and Sponsorship across the MPS. Operationally, MPS B/OCUS need to balance their MPS objectives with other drivers in all partnership decisions.

13. For B/OCUs, drivers for decision-making include local policing priorities as well as partnership targets in the Local Area Agreement (LAA). Some decisions about partnership activity are taken jointly with partners and often with the involvement of the MPA link member. Business Groups use a range of processes to make decisions on partnership and sponsorship projects. These include:

• Specific strategies, for example the Youth Strategy;
• External boards, for example the London Serious Youth Violence Project Board, and
• Internal boards including Management Board and programme and project boards.

14. The Income Generation Unit advises B/OCUs and oversees all sponsorship applications to ensure that that they follow the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Sponsorship Income is accepted pursuant to the 1996 Police Act, which allows sponsorship to be accepted by police authorities. All decision making is at a B/OCU level and policing priorities (corporate and local) determine what projects/activities are created. The availability of existing resources determines the need to seek external sponsorship. Occasionally a project subject will be ideally suited for the involvement of a commercial partner, rather than budgetary constraints being the driver.

15. The Sponsorship Expenditure Policy informs B/OCUs that policing priorities and objectives should be the primary drivers in deciding whether or not to fund an activity. Third parties such as charities, community groups and event organisers approach the MPS with either formal or informal funding requests. Requests are considered using the existing policy, which includes a decision making flowchart and proforma. All decisions are taken at B/OCU level. B/OCUs are instructed within the Sponsorship Expenditure Policy to seek the expert guidance of the Income Generation Unit when considering approaches from external organizations for sponsorship. In addition, Finance Services should also be contacted at this early stage to include the request on the sponsorship database and to undertake an equality review, so as to identify whether a single external organisation is seeking financial support for the same project from more than one OCU.

The assessment of value for money and appropriateness of providers to tackle particular issues.

16. Regarding the assessment of value for money, the Partnership Guidance states the need for partnerships to demonstrate that they are making the best use of its resources. It outlines the approach that partnerships should take to manage their performance.

17. Devolved financial management across the MPS means that a range of processes are used to assess partnerships’ value for money, performance and appropriateness of providers. All decisions regarding partnership expenditure must be taken according to the delegated authority levels for individuals and Boards set out in the MPS Scheme of Delegation. These include:

• Assessment by MPS programme, project or Management Board. This is more likely to happen for significant partnership projects.
• Assessment based on local knowledge and professional expertise.
• Using a business case approach.
• Review of delivery. If a provider is not giving value for money or meeting requirements then the MPS can decide not to renew funding.
• Taking decisions jointly with partners, specifically the local authorities, who undertake assessments of value for money and evaluation of delivery.

18. It is important to note that in some cases MPS requirements are very specific, so there are limited suitable partners. Standard MPS procurement processes apply to all partnership activity. The MPS’s DRM Programme procurement workstream is developing tighter controls around partnership expenditure, which will be ready for implementation by the end of November 2009.

19. Further development is required in ensuring value for money is assessed and achieved in all partnership decisions taken. At present some controls exist for assessing the value for money of partnerships, for example the MPA oversight of the BCU Fund. The planned Partnership work will build on existing good practice, developing the database of MPS partnerships to include activity to measure partnership costs and performance, which will facilitate and support the assessment of value for money. By the end of March 2010, The Partnership Guidance will be amended to outline how all partnerships should assess value for money for any expenditure.

20. The Management of Sponsorship Trading and Events Policy states that the appropriateness of the potential partner will need to be assessed according to the SOP and in consultation with the Income Generation Unit who may take advice from Procurement Services, Legal Services and Public Affairs. The issue of value for money lies with the potential partner as they will ultimately make the decision on whether to support the project.

21. The Sponsorship Expenditure Policy states that all decisions to fund must be put through the Income Generation Unit, Public Affairs and Procurement Services for relevant opinions. For expenditure in excess of £40,000, Procurement Services will take a lead in deciding the legality of providing funding, and whether this is the most appropriate course of action. The assessment of value for money is taken at B/OCU level using the SOP, and consultation with the local senior management team (SMT). Toolkits are in development to assist further in this process.

Project management at MPS strategic and operational levels.

22. Between June 2008 and ending in November 2009, the MPS Partnership Strategy and implementation plan have been delivered as a project within the Developing Resource Management (DRM) Programme. This project is nearing completion with ongoing core work being built into Strategy and Improvement’s normal work plans.

23. In order to ensure a successful transition to business as usual, a dedicated partnership post providing strategic leadership for all MPS partnerships has been created within the Strategy and Improvement Department (S&ID). The Partnership Central Steering Group, with representation from all Business Groups and the MPA will oversee this work.

24. The MPS’s strategic framework provided by the Partnership Guidance outlines that when the MPS is accountable for the financial management of a partnership, the MPS approach to project management should govern the partnership. It also states that where the MPS is not the accountable body, robust project management must be in place and well documented.

25. The MPS has in place a corporate project management framework, in line with Office of Government Commerce (OGC) best practice: Prince 2 and Managing Successful Programmes (MSP). All Partnership and Sponsorship projects should be delivered using this framework. The Programme and Project Management Support Team provide best practice support across the organisation. Need to know how application of framework is being monitored.

26. Project management of Partnership and Sponsorship activity at an operational level is delivered differently across the MPS depending on specific business, project and programme needs. These are outlined below:

• Some Business Groups have in place project management approaches tailored to their specific requirements, The Directorate of Information for example. Project management standards are maintained through dedicated programme teams who primarily focus on major change projects, which are included in the MPA/MPS and business group business plans. Training and guidance is also provided to other smaller projects which are not in these plans. In many cases, funding is dependent on adherence to the MPS’s project management approach.
• Partnerships with third sector partners who receive MPS funding will often have in place a formal agreement, in the form of a memorandum of understanding or terms of reference. Payments will often be staged to manage the delivery.
• Significant operational partnerships will have relevant governance in place. This could be within the established local or regional partnership structure, for example by the local strategic partnership (LSP) or the London Criminal Justice Board or by an internal MPS SMT.
• Many partnership projects are managed through the audited BCU Fund spend plans, requiring quarterly reporting. It is recognised that these processes have been conducted to a variable standard. With the MPA taking over responsibility from GOL for monitoring spends from this fund the Territorial Policing (TP) HQ Partnership Team held a training seminar on 14th October, where the spend plan requirements for funds to be allocated by the MPA were reiterated to all boroughs. The use of and management of the MPA Partnership Fund has been reported separately to the Community Engagement & Citizen Focus Committee on 29 October 2009 (Items 5 and 6). This fund will be subject to more thorough scrutiny in future with a greater input from MPA officers.

27. Not all Partnership projects are necessarily managed following the project management processes outlined. MPS strategic Partnership 2010/11 work will include activity to embed further the application of existing project management guidance for all significant partnership activity.

The mechanisms in place to account for any income or expenditure relating to Partnerships Multi agency and Third Sector projects and programmes 2008/09.

28. This report describes the mechanisms in place across the MPS for 2008/09. These are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. Financial management of all partnership, multi agency and third sector programmes is subject to standard MPA/MPS approval and governance arrangements. All financial transactions are recorded on the SAP financial system.

29. When planning new partnership agreements the Scheme of Delegation approval limits apply in the same way as for Business Case approval. The Scheme sets its financial approval limits locally within each business group. Spend plans are in place for BCU and MPA Funds, which are submitted to the MPA in advance of any expenditure, ensuring that the MPA is sighted on their appropriateness and probity. Decisions regarding this partnership expenditure are taken by the B/OCU based on strategic and local priorities. The spend is monitored by the MPS TPHQ Partnerships Team and the MPA.

30. Decisions about expenditure are made locally. When this entails making payments to third sector organisations, it is required that prior consultation is held with the Directorate of Legal Services and/or Procurement Services to ensure that it is appropriate for the MPS to engage with the respective organisation.

31. Corporate financial management advice is provided by the ‘Guide for the Financial Management of Partnerships’. This guide is relevant for all partnership, multi-agency and third sector programmes, and provides a high-level summary of the financial governance requirements. Specific Guidance for submitting bids for European Funds is also provided.

32. More specific guidance on accounting for partnerships is contained within the MPS Finance Manual. The following paragraphs provide the detail as to how to account for income and expenditure relating to partnerships, multi-agency and third sector programmes.

33. When an OCU engages in partnership activity, recommended practice is to open separate cost centres so as to record all financial transactions relating to that partnership. This is mandatory for some partnerships such as the Basic Command Unit Fund (BCUF); the Home Office conditions of grant require that transactions are accounted for separately from other funding streams. A similar approach is taken for projects that are funded through the European Commission.

34. However, it would be impractical to generate a cost centre for each separate partnership initiative that is generated by an OCU as there are likely to be multiple initiatives, some of relatively low value. Furthermore, from a B/OCU perspective general practice is to have one additional partnership cost centre to record all other transactions. There is a further monitoring option, which entails creating a separate Internal Order number for each partnership initiative. This adds an extra layer of detail to each transaction and enables B/OCUs to monitor transactions against multiple projects within a single cost centre.

35. The primary exception to the requirement to create separate cost centres is in regard to the management of the MPA Partnership Fund, relevant to all TP B/OCUs. This funding is part of each B/OCU’s primary budget allocation and is therefore managed in the B/OCU operational cost centre. Nevertheless, there are specific financial management processes for the MPA Partnership Fund, which are referred to in further detail below.

36. Once a cost centre has been established and the partnership has allocated funds to activities through an agreed spend plan, a budget is set against the cost elements where expenditure is expected to be incurred and income received. Details of all partnership budgets are maintained within a corporate partnership database, with all Business Groups required to provide quarterly returns, which are consolidated by Finance Services.

37. When actual costs and income are posted against partnership cost centres, B/OCU Finance Managers then have a base against which to monitor transactions and analyse and review any variances. This is further enhanced by the requirement to produce a monthly forecast of expected income and expenditure against that partnership cost centre. The monthly process also requires a commentary to be produced to identify any variances against the budget and to provide explanations as to what plans are in place to manage those variances.

38. To ensure that only partnership-related transactions are recorded against the partnership cost centres, B/OCUs are instructed to maintain a separate record of approved income and expenditure transactions on a summary spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is reconciled to information recorded on the SAP financial system, with any necessary correcting action then being undertaken to ensure that the two sets of records are in balance. This reconciliation is part of a monthly process but is especially relevant at the end of each financial year. This is because, when the accounts are closed, partnership cost centres must have balanced income and expenditure, i.e. total partnership costs are exactly matched by total partnership funding. In practical terms this means that a partnership cost centre cannot be shown to have overspent at year-end, whilst any underspends must be carried-forward to the following financial year when they will either be returned to the funding provider or re-allocated to new partnership activities, depending upon the terms and conditions of the funding and the approval of the funding provider. When underspends occur in respect of the MPA Partnership Fund, the MPS seeks MPA ratification to create an accounting reserve as part of the final accounts process. Once approval is given BOCUs can then apply to re-allocate the funds towards other partnership related activity in the following financial year.

39. If a project underspend is identified in-year, the B/OCU often has the opportunity to reassess spend plans and redirect funds to new or existing projects. For the BCUF there is a formalised process whereby a revised spend plan is produced, and written approval for any amendment is required from the appropriate authority, the MPA Head of Engagement and Partnerships in this instance.

40. In-year monitoring is undertaken through a variety of measures. B/OCU Finance Managers provide regular financial monitoring reports to the B/OCU Partnership Manager, who in turn may be required to report on financial progress to local partners, often through the borough CDRP. More formal arrangements are in place for the BCUF and the MPA Partnership Fund. In both cases, each B/OCU generates a dedicated spend plan and on a quarterly basis B/OCU representatives are tasked to provide a return identifying expenditure against the individual projects contained within the spend plan. For the BCUF, the monitoring also includes a requirement to provide operational returns, detailing progress against specific activities, together with examples of key achievements during the reporting period, identifying any barriers to progress and how the B/OCU has sought to overcome them.

41. B/OCUs have to maintain a file containing documentary evidence of all transactions relating to each partnership. Specifically, this file should hold:

• A copy of any application for funding and associated correspondence;
• Notification of approval from the funding provider, together with any terms and conditions supplied;
• A detailed spend plan;
• A summary spreadsheet identifying all items of income and expenditure, by cost element code;
• Supporting documents for each financial transaction such as: Payroll reports; SAP financial systems reports; SAP journals; invoices and any other relevant document that validates the transaction.

42. On an annual basis, part of the role of the B/OCU Business Support Accountant is to review the local accounting records to ensure that there is sufficient, detailed documentation to satisfy any auditing requirements.

43. The principles of financial management of sponsorship income and expenditure were detailed in the paper ‘Funding through the MPS of Partnership, Multi-agency and Third Sector Projects and Programmes 2008/09’, which was presented to the September 2009 CEP Committee, agenda item four.

44. For sponsorship income, written agreements are put in place between the MPA and the third party. This is a commercial agreement that by its very nature would be unlikely to involve any community involvement during the negotiation phase. It is then the responsibility of the respective B/OCU finance team to ensure that the existing corporate financial procedures are used to process any monies received. Finance units are instructed that all sponsorship income must be recorded against the appropriate general ledger code set up for this purpose. Relevant guidance and reminders of the requirement to code sponsorship income correctly are issued periodically within the forecasting guidance issued by Finance Services. Furthermore, quarterly reconciliation takes place of general ledger records against data held within the Income Generation Unit sponsorship database.

45. For sponsorship expenditure (incorporating grants given by the MPS), written agreements should also be put in place between the MPA and the third party. The extent of community involvement will be entirely at the discretion of OCU management. It may be that where an OCU makes funds available for community projects, they may enter into a bidding process to allow community groups to apply for funding for a specific project. Alternatively, individual approaches – formal or informal - may be made by external agencies to request financial support for a project, in which case the procedures outlined in the Sponsorship Expenditure Policy are to be followed, with policing priorities and objectives being the primary drivers.

46. It is additionally the responsibility of the local finance unit to ensure that the existing corporate financial procedures are used to process any expenditure, including seeking the advice of experts from Procurement Services where financial limits, as outlined in the Scheme of Delegation, are reached. All items of sponsorship expenditure should be coded against the general ledger code created for this purpose and details of known activities are recorded in a database. Relevant guidance and reminders of the requirement to correctly code sponsorship expenditure are issued periodically within the forecasting guidance issued by Finance Services. Furthermore, quarterly reconciliation takes place of general ledger records against data held within the sponsorship expenditure database.

47. Further developments to the corporate management and accounting of Partnership and Sponsorship money are being delivered throughout 2009-10. These include: guidance for the management of partnership data; procurement changes within the DRM programme which will place additional controls on the transfer of funds to partner organisations, and the assessment of risk to partnership funding, using the data collected on a quarterly basis in the partnership database.

Explain what if any of the MPS/MPA’s formal consultation process is used to ensure that any grants awarded would be supported by the local community and if the consultation process used is consistent across the MPS.

48. The MPA/MPS’s Annual Policing Plan’s strategic objectives are directly informed by broad consultation with the communities across London. The consultation conducted includes the MPA’s Online Survey, the Public Attitude Survey (PAS), the School Survey as well as feedback forms from The Pledge and local consultation.

49. In addition to the strategic level consultation which goes on to inform B/OCU business plans and partnership decisions, at an operational level there is additional consultation. This is considered firstly for boroughs and then for all business groups.

50. Decisions taken by TP boroughs regarding partnership, including the awarding of grants are also based on the following consistently applied community consultation processes:

• The CDRP’s community consultation.
• The Local Strategic Partnership’s community consultation for the development of its Sustainable Community Strategy. This in turn informs the development of the Local Area Agreement.
• Community consultation, both formal through ward panels and locally established contacts, which drives the objectives and activities of all Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
• The borough Public Attitude Survey (PAS) findings.

51. Both local and pan - London partnership projects may also conduct a range of additional community consultation to inform particular projects or challenges, such as:

• Community and Police Engagement Groups;
• Key individual networks (KINs);
• Consultation as part of Equality Impact Assessments (EIA), and
• Using a ‘community voice lead’ to draw on existing networks.

52. In many Pan - London projects the MPS also draws on relevant existing consultation conducted by external bodies, including London Councils and the GLA.

53. For sponsorship expenditure, a set of guidance notes have been produced as part of the SOP for the Sponsorship Expenditure Policy. A number of actions are suggested, including an EIA. There is not a prescriptive consultation process; each B/OCU will interact with partners and their local communities in their own way either through their Borough Commanders, other members of the SMTs or partnership teams.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The funding received has been used to support a broad range of activities. There are no indications that the use of these funds has had any adverse affect on any single section of the community.

2. The ongoing implementation of the MPS Partnership Strategy will improve service delivery and improve our working with partners. A consistent and effective approach to working in partnership from local informal collaborations through to statutory strategic partnerships should increase and sustain community trust and confidence in the police service.

3. Staff working with partners should carry out an Equality Impact Assessment to measure the positive, and any potential adverse, impact of the aims and objectives of the partnership on communities. This should be used to guide engagement, assist in making decisions over the direction and effectiveness of the partnership and to identify and minimise any potential risks.

D. Financial implications

1. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report, which focuses primarily on controls and compliance. As noted in the MPS report to CEP on 10 September 2009, agenda item four; Funding through the MPS of Partnership, Multi Agency and Third Sector Projects and Programmes, the total amount of partnership and sponsorship income in 2008-9 was £37.511 million, made up of £32.644 million in grants and £4.867 million sponsorship. Details of this funding are set out in Appendix D.

E. Legal implications

1. There may be legal implications arising from individual grants, loans or sponsorships, however, as this is an information report there are no direct legal issues arising from the recommendations.

2. Income generation activity is primarily covered by the Police Act 1996. Section 92 allows local authorities to make grants to the MPA where the police area falls wholly or partially within the area of that local authority. The grants may be conditional or unconditional. If they are conditional, then the Chief Officer of the Police must give his agreement. Obtaining grant monies will usually require bids to be supported by clearly defined priorities. Proper accounting arrangements will ensure expenditure against any grant monies can stand up to audit scrutiny and demonstrate best value.

3. The acceptance of gifts and loans is covered by section 93(1), and the acceptance of sponsorship is covered by section 93(2). Gifts of money or other property may be accepted on terms that appear appropriate to the police authority in connection with the discharging of any of its functions. These gifts may also include terms providing for commercial sponsorship.

4. The acceptance of sponsorship for non-core policing activities is intended to extend and enhance police force services to the community. Care must be exercised when accepting gifts of money; loans or sponsorship to ensure the correct balance is maintained between the legitimate business aims of the sponsors or donors and the police authority. There are a number of restrictions placed by legislation and internal controls, such as: the capping of sponsorship; compliance with the MPA’s financial regulations; and annual reporting requirements by the police force to the MPA setting out details of all gifts, loans of property and sponsorship received. Proper financial records and controls will therefore allow for scrutiny in the way the police force delivers its functions, demonstrate transparency, and minimise the risk of offending the integrity and propriety of the police.

5. Procurement services and legal services should be consulted, where appropriate, in relation to individual cases to advise on procurement and contractual matters.

F. Background papers

• None

G. Contact details

Report author(s): Lizzie Peters, Head of Partnerships, S&ID, DoR

For information contact:

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

Abbreviations

• BCUF - Basic Command Unit Fund
• B/OCU - Borough Operational Command Unit
• CDRP - Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
• DoR - Directorate of Resources
• DRM - Developing Resource Management
• LAA - Local Area Agreement
• LSP - Local Strategic Partnership
• S&ID - Strategy & Improvement Department
• TP - Territorial Policing

Appendix A: Partnership Definition

The MPS partnership definition from the Partnership Strategy Report to the MPA Finance Committee 19 June 2008.

A partnership can be defined as an agreement with an external body to achieve common objectives. Partnerships take many forms and require different governance structures. The partnership spectrum can be illustrated as follows:

Informal Collaboration

• Brings partners together to discuss shared goals
• May or many not have a budget or deliver any services
• May not need a formal agreement but may benefit form a toolkit
• E.g. Local SNT working with local authority in specific area to address local community issues

Strategic Partnership

• Non-statutory, non-executive relationship
• Plans, co-ordinates and monitors activities
• Takes strategic decisions
• May have a budget ( but not in all cases)
• E.g. BOCU working with private company to implement crime prevention / distraction etc. measures or working with voluntary organisations

Statutory Strategic Partnership

• High level formal relationships pertaining to legislation where shared objectives demonstrate a clear alignment to the strategic aims of the Police Service
• Likely to have a budget, with resources focused on commonly agreed priorities
• Takes strategic decisions
• E.g. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and Local Area Agreements (LAAs)

Service Delivery Partnership

• Involves the delivery of services by one body on behalf of another through joint working
• Aspires to deliver more value than a traditional contract
• If it is a contractual relationship then this type of partnership needs to be monitored as such
• E.g. Palace of Westminster Policing or secondment to the Safer London Foundation

Appendix B: Sponsorship Definition

Sponsorship

Sponsorship is the 'umbrella' or generic term used in the MPS to describe the areas detailed below. It is, however, becoming more common to understand sponsorship as a partnership with a private person / body / organisation / company.

Benefits in kind

The donation or loan of equipment, services or expertise in lieu of cash. (A benefit in kind can come in the form of a gift or sponsorship, e.g. your local council donates the use of a function room for a crime prevention event.)

Gifts

The donation or loan of equipment, services, cash or expertise without any requirement for publicity or logo branding, e.g. the donation of an IT system.

Sponsorship

The donation or loan of equipment services, cash or expertise in return for publicity and / or logo branding. e.g. the use of a vehicle for non-core activities with your sponsor's logo on the side.

Sponsorship can be defined from the following areas:

1. Donation of cash. (e.g. from a company)
2. Donation / loan of equipment. (e.g. computers/mobiles/vehicles)
3. Secondment of personnel
4. Donation / loan of services. (e.g. printing)
5. Contribution from a company towards a project. (e.g. project supported by consortium of local authorities & local businesses)

Equipment for testing, assessment and pilots

The donation or loan of equipment for testing by the relevant branch or OCU to ascertain its suitability for use by the MPS, e.g. the loan of an IT system to DoI for assessment or the loan of a car to Transport Services for testing.

Appendix C: EU Funding Bids Process Flowchart

Stage 1 – Calls for funding circulated to all Business Groups

1. Call for applications issued by European Commission, summaries of each funding scheme circulated by Strategic Finance to Business Managers and Lead Accountants for each Business Group.

Stage 2 – Business Groups scope, approve project and bid

2. B/OCU decide that they have a project for which a funding application can be made, which they then discuss with their lead accountant.

3. B/OCU as per Scheme of Delegation approval limits to provide authorisation for funding bid to be made.

4. Applications for bids worked on with the project lead and Business Accountants to be portrayed in a standard financial format as per this guidance and comments to be gained from Procurement, Legal and HR as per Business Case Approval.

Stage 3 – Bid submitted for corporate review, appraisal and to EU

5. Bid submitted to Strategic Finance for review, support and advice. Two page summary of project required along with a full financial appraisal.

6. Corporate Approval gained from Director of Finance, the Director of Resources and the Treasurer of the MPA – note that the bids must be with the Corporate Centre at least 2 weeks before the EU bid submission deadline.

7. Bid submitted to EU or leading partner by Project Manager / Lead Accountant.

Stage 4 – Governance and Audit

8. Strategic Finance to add bid to central database, which is maintained by Strategic Finance. Annual returns to be submitted to Strategic Finance and Internal Audits completed.

9. Treasurer of MPA and Director of Resources notified of bid if not involved in the approval process as per the scheme of delegation.

10. The Lead Accountant will put into effect and complete the Audit process and monitoring of EU funding.

11. Project goes live and funding is received. Often secondary legal advice will be sought in the case of another contract presented by main partner.

12. Annual report provided to the Finance Committee in December for the current year reporting on bids and their status.

Appendix D: Financial Implications Information

(From the MPS report to CEP on 10 September 2009, agenda item four, Funding through the MPS of Partnership, Multi Agency and Third Sector Projects and Programmes).

Partnership grant income received 2008-09

MPS-wide initiatives were projects that either involved activities across a range of Operational Command Units (OCUs) or were for funding streams relevant to a wide number of OCUs. The funding supported a range of activities, specifically:

• The Basic Command Unit Fund (BCUF) is a Home Office funding scheme to help local delivery of reductions in crime and disorder through partnership working. The fund was paid at varying rates to all 32 Borough Operational Command Units (B/OCUs). Value: £7.929 million.
• The Home Office funded the Drugs Intervention Programme to support the employment of Designated Detention Officers to carry out drug testing on arrest and charge in 21 B/OCUs. Value: £6.42 million.
• Corporate Territorial Policing (TP) projects, including Operation Blunt to combat knife crime, received Home Office funding. Value: £0.393 million.
• TP also received funding from the London Development Agency (LDA) in support of the administrative management of the Metropolitan Police Volunteers Programme. Value: £0.037 million.
• Central Operations (CO) was granted funds by Transport for London (TfL) to operate the London Safety Camera Partnership, to undertake speed and red-light camera enforcement. Value: £5.9 million.
• CO received further grants from TfL in support of initiatives to lower the number of motorcycle rider casualties and to promote general road safety measures. Value: £1.18 million.
• Total value: £21.859 million.

MPA Partnership Fund

• Each of the 32 B/OCUs was allocated fifty thousand pounds by the MPA to fund local partnership-related activity, specifically supporting each borough crime and disorder reduction strategy; this formed part of the B/OCU base budget allocation. Value: £1.6 million.
• A number of BOCUs received a re-allocation of prior-year underspends against the MPA-funded partnership allocation, again to support the local crime and disorder reduction strategy. Value: £0.252 million.
• Total value: £1.852 million.

Borough grant income

Single borough grant-funded projects occurred across all B/OCUs and generally entailed the MPS working in partnership with various units from the Local Authorities to develop local initiatives to combat crime and disorder, as identified by the respective local partnerships. The funding received by each B/OCU for this type of initiative was as follows:

(£000)

• Barking and Dagenham 484
• Barnet 5
• Bexley 202
• Brent 325
• Bromley  61
• Camden 317
• Croydon 193
• Ealing  89
• Enfield 526
• Greenwich 485
• Hackney 851
• Hammersmith and Fulham 0 96
• Haringey 622
• Harrow 22
• Havering 110
• Hillingdon 584
• Hounslow 70
• Islington 145
• Kensington and Chelsea 116
• Kingston  30
• Lambeth 227
• Lewisham 063
• Merton 351
• Newham 352
• Redbridge 0 98
• Richmond 0 34
• Southwark 280
• Sutton 337
• Tower Hamlets 415
• Waltham Forest 136
• Wandsworth  15
• Westminster 291
• Total value 7,932

European Commission grant income

There were four EC-funded projects operational in 2008/09. Funding amounted to £1.001 million and was allocated as follows:

• Operation Golf, a TP project involving a joint investigation between the MPS and Romanian National Police into Romanian Roma Organised Crime Networks trafficking and criminally exploiting children from within the Roma community. Value: £0.643 million.
• The Comenius project, based on Haringey borough, supported the creation of a European safer schools partnership through education for citizens. Value: £0.243 million.
• CO was involved with Operation Torch, a project to conduct a four-day event, which included a real-time simulation of the body recovery and identification phases of a mass fatality incident in a crowded place. Value: £0.112 million.
• SO received funds for project EU SEC II for involvement in a project to coordinate national research programmes and policies on security at major events in Europe. Value: £0.003 million.
• Total value: £1.001 million.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback