Borough visits 2001/02

Report: 13
Date: 26 September 2002
By: Chair

Summary

In this report I have attempted to bring together the various threads and issues that came up during my programme of borough visits from October 2001 to March 2002. I am now about to start a second round of borough visits.

A. Recommendation

That Members note this report and that a further programme of borough visits will take place in 2002/03.

B. Supporting information

Overview

1. Between October 2001 and March 2002 I visited 29 boroughs to discuss policing issues with the borough police, the Council and other partners. For various reasons I did not visit Camden, Harrow and Tower Hamlets – I hope to do this early in my second round of visits. I am very grateful to the Councils and the borough commanders for the welcome I received and to the Councils in particular for making the practical arrangements which made the meetings possible. 

2. In nearly every borough the Council representation was headed by the Leader of the Council or the relevant portfolio Cabinet Member, an indication I think of the growing emphasis on leadership through cabinet-style government. The meetings mostly took the following format:

• introductions from myself and the Council Leader/lead Cabinet Member
• a presentation by the borough commander on an overview of policing in the borough, performance, trends, hotspot issues, problems and successes/innovations
• a presentation, usually by the Council, on partnership working
• questions and discussion session 

The size of the meetings varied but on the whole the key partnership organisations were represented, although health agencies, the Probation Service and the Crown Prosecution Service not as regularly as I would have hoped.

3. As one would expect there were common threads running through nearly all the meetings to varying degrees, such as drugs, violent crime, street robbery (fuelled by mobile phone theft), hate crime, a desire for visible policing and a fear of crime. Not surprisingly given the timing of my visits, the Resource Allocation Formula figured large, usually as a concern - I think those boroughs who expected to do well out of the RAF were cautious in expressing their pleasure in case this was tempting fate!

4. Of course, the MPS response to the terrorist threat after 11 September impacted on every borough as officers were drafted in to central London. I was impressed by the positive way borough commanders responded to this but often it seemed that resource intensive but successful initiatives had had to be suspended as a result. 

5. The issue of bespoke local targets did not feature particularly highly in the meetings and this is something I want to address specifically in my next round of visits. 

Issues 

6. Below I have tried to summarise (in no particular order) some of the areas that were covered in the meetings. I have deliberately not referred to boroughs by name to avoid upsetting those who might not get a mention through no fault of their own.

7. Fear of crime
Local surveys and crime audits regularly show that the fear of crime and the perception that crime is increasing are at odds with reality. It is hard to correct such public misconceptions. Local newspapers can obviously help by carrying more positive coverage. At one meeting the police were asked to review the length of time that yellow signs asking for witnesses of an incident were left in the street, as they increased the fear of crime. Linked to a fear of crime is the call for more visible policing. Whilst high visibility policing can be an effective tool in some circumstances, there can be a tension between providing public reassurance and catching criminals. 

8. Partnership working
The need for partnership working runs through many of the individual issues in this section. Whilst at every meeting the strength of that particular partnership arrangement was claimed, it must be true that some are proving to be more effective than others. Some general principles emerged from what boroughs said made their particular partnership arrangements work, or what would help them to work better:

• commitment at a senior level (for instance the Chief Executive chairing the Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership) – both as an indication of serious intent and so that representatives have enough authority to speak for their organisation
• clear joint targets and clear individual responsibility for delivery of these
• joint working can be greatly helped by secondments or liaison, e.g. a police inspector seconded full-time to the Council or a joint Council/police community safety team
• need to involve all key players – health authorities have been notably slow to engage in many partnerships but this should improve with the advent of Primary Care Trusts co-terminous with borough boundaries. 
• frustrations from some borough commanders that they are only able to contribute premises and staff resources rather than funding for partnership projects
• clarity about how the CDRP fits with other partnership arrangements such as the Local Strategic Partnership
• community safety and police involvement is an increasing element of successful regeneration partnerships and Public Services Agreements
• the need for better information sharing although there are problems to be overcome in terms of confidentiality and the way data is held

I also learned of various multi-agency initiatives, a lot of them bringing about what might be called ‘quality of life’ improvements, such as tackling anti-social behaviour in all its forms in a focused way in a particular locality.

9. CCTV
The use of CCTV is a growing aspect of partnership working between the police and the local authority, although largely dependent on local authority funding or successful bidding for central government challenge funding. Fixed CCTV is often sited in town centres or housing estates although some boroughs use or are looking to use mobile CCTV to address crime hotspots or to collect evidence of racial harassment. There are some differences of view about how effective CCTV is. One borough said that it resulted in two arrests a day, some felt that it has deterrence/reassurance value (but possibly by displacing crime) and others felt that with the increasing quality of the CCTV images its evidential value is improving. In some boroughs the local authority and the police are working closely together, jointly staffing CCTV control rooms or by having communication links. 

10. Warden schemes
This is another area that I will be keen to explore in more depth in my next round of visits. Warden schemes were referred to in at least six of the meetings. Some boroughs had won government funding for such schemes. One borough had obtained £450,000 a year for neighbourhood wardens and the MPS was to deliver training and support. Another borough had also received Home Office funding to employ 11 street wardens. In addition their parks wardens shared intelligence with the local police. In another borough wardens based on social housing estates had weekly briefings with the local police.

With the advent of Police Community Support Officers and the kinds of issues that we discussed at the July Authority meeting, I will be interested in round two to learn the local perspective.

11. Neighbourhood Watch
This was not something that I explored explicitly at the meetings but it is clear that some boroughs consider it a higher priority than others and are prepared to fund neighbourhood watch schemes accordingly. One borough, for instance, has 930 schemes covering 45% of the borough and another says that one-third of the borough is covered by schemes.

12. Anti-social behaviour
This was referred to in a number of boroughs, and not just those in outer London, as a major issue and one which impacts both on quality of life and residents’ perceptions about safety. This ranged from drunkenness and disorder on weekend evenings, to graffiti, noise nuisance and abandoned cars. Youth disorder is a major contributor to this. Few boroughs reported any significant use of anti-social behaviour orders although some appeared to be developing acceptable behaviour contracts. 

13. Schools
Some meetings reported good working relationships between the police and schools. At others there was some ambivalence. Head teachers can be reluctant to involve the police in incidents happening in the school, perhaps because of concerns about the school’s reputation or simply the traditional view that they are responsible for sorting out their own problems. A number of borough commanders said that they would like to have more police school liaison officers but were hindered by lack of resources. There are positives, such one borough which has held a safer schools conference and where the police have been offered a seat on the local head teachers group. A number of boroughs participate in junior citizens schemes. 

14. Youth involvement
A number of meetings referred to the difficulties in finding ways to engage young people in meaningful consultation. Mainly through Community Police Consultative Groups, there are youth forums or youth parliaments planned or in place but no-one was confident that they had got it right. This is an issue that I would like to return to in my next round of visits. 

15. Multi-agency public protection panels (MAPPPs)
There is a statutory duty under the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 for the police and probation services, through MAPPPs, to keep track of registered sex offenders and potentially dangerous violent offenders. This is made more difficult because the latter category are not required to register.

Whilst no-one argued about the importance of this work the point was made on several occasions that this is an additional demand on police and resources have not followed responsibility.

16. Police estate
At several meetings the condition, size or inadequate location of police stations was raised as an issue. In particular, at busy times the lack of custody suites can mean valuable police time being spent in locating and taking those arrested to available cells in other boroughs. 

17. Policing initiatives
Ending on an upbeat note, I would like to congratulate borough commanders for the way in which they are constantly looking to make the best use of what are necessarily limited resources. I have briefly listed below some of the initiatives I have been told about in my visits:

• use of custody arrest support teams to release response teams more quickly
• a ‘docket squad’ to extract and follow up on all scientific evidence
• use of decoy cars to tackle auto crime
• third party reporting for race and homophobic crimes
• performance review – individual inspectors reviewed quarterly
• civilian burglary investigators or dedicated burglary investigation teams
• tactical rostering to get more officers out when demands require and to enable overlapping shifts
• increasing emphasis on telephone reporting of crime
• quick turnaround of DNA/fingerprint analysis
• single crewing of cars

Conclusion

18. I certainly found this programme of visits a rewarding experience, one which has helped me to appreciate the challenges facing borough police, Councils and other agencies, and the absolute need for strong and coherent partnership working.

19. Undaunted by the time commitment involved in this first round of visits, I will be repeating the exercise between October and next April (at the time of writing the programme starts in Bromley on 11 October). I would welcome the greater involvement of borough link members both in attending these meetings and in contributing in advance issues that should be discussed at the meeting. This time I would like to be more specific about the topics that I would like covered – I have referred to some of them in this report, such as Police Community Support Officers/neighbourhood wardens; local target setting; and youth involvement. I have no doubt that police numbers will again figure in our discussions and I would also like to address the contributions made by Community Police Consultative Groups. Members may have other issues and I would be pleased to hear of them. 

D. Financial implications

No specific financial implications

E. Background papers

• Notes of borough visits

F. Contact details

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback