Update on Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMs)

Report: 8
Date: 13 May 2010
By: Report on behalf of the Chief Executive

Summary

This report provides an update on Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMs). This joint problem solving process involves the police, local councils and other partner agencies at the borough level.

JEMs were held with all 32 London boroughs between October 2008 and February 2010. The first round of JEMs focused on serious youth violence, however those boroughs that did not see this as a local priority issue were offered the opportunity to instead focus discussion on anti social behaviour, disorder and other drivers of public confidence.

The next round, planned to commence in June 2010, will review the first round and extend the discussion to all violence.

A. Recommendation

That: Members note the content of this report

B. Supporting information

1. Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMs) are a mechanism to facilitate borough level joint problem solving work between the police, the Local Authorities and other pan London partners, in order to explore local crime and community safety issues. They are key in supporting achievement of the Met Partners work strand of Met Forward, as they are the MPA’s main tool in driving partnership and are the starting point in developing joint strategies in areas of shared concern.

2. JEMs are not intended to hold boroughs to account for performance or replace existing tasking and deployment processes within boroughs. Rather they are intended to focus on developing new solutions to problems, to sit alongside and support existing mechanisms, such as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), and to bring together London-wide partners at a borough level.

3. JEMs are chaired by the MPA Chair and Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Territorial Policing (TP), or a deputy, and are attended by the Borough Commander and two further borough police representatives, the local authority Chief Executive and Leader, or deputies, and two further representatives and the MPA link member. Pan London partners attending include Transport for London (TfL), the London Criminal Justice Partnership (LCJP), the British Transport Police (BTP), Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Greater London Authority (GLA).

4. The process offers considerable potential for wide-ranging service improvement across London. It allows for the identification of potential new work between partners and for a wider dissemination of current good practice across partner agencies.

5. Data sources identified and analysed as part of the JEMs have allowed partners to look at community safety issues from a different perspective, review crime hotspots, crime generators and current tactics and consider whether they are working with each other in the most effective way.

Achievements

6. JEMs were held with all 32 London boroughs between October 2008 and February 2010. The primary theme of this first round of JEMs was serious youth violence, which was chosen by 24 boroughs. The remaining 8 boroughs felt they did not have a significant problem with this and so chose the alternative theme of anti social behaviour, disorder and other drivers of public confidence for the discussion.

7. The JEMs process has been continually developed and improved since the meetings were initially piloted in late 2008. Candid debate has been enabled by limiting the number of attendees and by the closed nature of the meetings. Boroughs have generally found the opportunity to observe another JEM in advance of their own and/ or a pre briefing on the process helpful.

8. Partners have generally fully engaged in the problem solving process by offering ideas and taking on actions. Attendees (including the MPA) take on actions where appropriate and are responsible for progressing them. Progress updates are requested and collated by the MPA and assistance in progressing actions is offered.

9. For example, one JEM resulted in a borough convening a meeting with five other neighbouring borough youth offending teams to identify common issues and work better together to tackle them. Another ensured that offender resettlement work was joined up with a GLA pilot with a similar aim. TfL have worked with boroughs after JEMs on issues such as timetabling of school transport, designing out crime in hotspot areas and identifying opportunities for displaying community reassurance and crime prevention advice messages, for example on Oyster card holders.

10. The information collated in the slide packs has improved considerably from the first meetings, based on feedback received from the chair and attendees. The slide packs bring together a wide range of data sources and information and facilitates clear and focussed discussions. The concentration of the meetings on a single theme, with an alternative option and a standard data pack has worked well. It has allowed the analysis of each borough to be put in the context of the wider London picture.

11. The enhanced use of briefing the chair prior to the meeting has enabled more targeted questions and ensures all partners attending the meeting are brought into the discussion, which is vital to ensure their continued engagement with the process.

12. Potential good practice on tackling serious youth violence identified during the JEMs meetings has been a key source of current interventions for a new handbook on managing gangs and group offenders that was commissioned by the Pathways Programme Board, which is chaired by the Chief Executive of the LCJP. It is being developed by the MPS Specialist Crime Prevention and Partnership Unit (SCD3) and is a collation of current tactics and interventions to enable boroughs to consider options they may have not otherwise have used and whether they could use those tactics for their borough. The handbook will be published and launched in late May or June 2010.

13. This good practice information was also shared with the MPS TP Crime Operational Command Unit Commander whilst good practice relating to the tackling of anti social behaviour was provided to the MPS Anti-Social Behaviour Advisor and will be shared with practitioners at an appropriate forum.

14. Pan London issues have been identified and raised at appropriate forums. For example, issues of bus service provision in relation to the after-school period were identified in several JEMs. As a result a meeting was held between the MPA Chair and TfL to discuss TfL’s strategic approach to managing school related issues. The MPA Chair has also met with the interim head of Probation services to raise concerns from boroughs regarding probation resources and they have agreed to meet regularly to monitor progress.

15. The JEM process was one of just four police authority projects shortlisted for an Association of Police Authorities (APA) Recognising Excellence in Police Authorities Award 2009 for demonstrating good practice delivering collaboration in police authority business.

Proposals for 2010/11

16. The next round of JEMs is planned to commence in June 2010 with eight JEMs currently being scheduled for June and July 2010.

17. This new round of JEMs will both review the progress made by the borough since the first JEM against the agreed action plan and explore an extension to violence across all age groups, with a focus on most serious violence and assault with injury. The slide pack will be tailored to the key violence issues on each borough, focussing on those that are a priority to that specific area. Depending on this, the discussion may include alcohol related violence and response to the night time economy, domestic violence, hate crime, and youth related violence.

18. Pan London partners attending JEMs to date have included TfL, BTP, LCJP and YJB. For the next round, it is intended to extend the invitation to probation, prisons, health and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to bring more varied data, viewpoints, and opportunities to problem solve. Success in achieving continued engagement with any pan London partner will rely on ensuring they are fully brought into the discussion during the meeting and that there are clear beneficial outcomes for them. This is being progressed through current meetings with partners.

19. Whilst there has been some valuable output and follow up work from the JEMs, there is scope for improving the follow up process. A more comprehensive record of the current borough activity will be made, both for the purpose of review at subsequent meetings and also to enable recurring themes and issues to be identified across boroughs. New actions and potential good practice will be recorded also.

20. Pan London themes and issues will be considered by MPA officers in the London context and acted upon to support boroughs. Opportunities to add value through our pan London perspective will be sought, where possible linking the work of JEMs to other problem solving and improvement work, such as that of the proposed MPA led London Crime Reduction Board.

21. MPA Link members and officers involved with the boroughs will encourage further discussion at CDRP meetings. Ad hoc MPA member performance packs will contain details and action updates from JEMs as appropriate.

22. A spreadsheet of potential good practice and contacts is being developed to allow quick time sharing of practices that are working well locally. This will signpost boroughs to ideas for ways to tackle local problems and will be launched with the new round of JEMs in June.

23. Partners will be kept up to date on JEMs work through a quarterly email bulletin and MPA members via the new member intranet site that is currently being developed.

24. Output from JEMs, particularly pan London issues and themes, will continue to be raised at appropriate forums and boards. For example, discussions are already underway to ensure that the JEMs process is joined up with the new Violence and London Crime Reduction boards.

25. There is an opportunity to link up the JEMs process with the Safer London Problem Oriented Partnerships Awards, of which the MPA are a key sponsor. These awards recognise the achievements of partnership projects between the police, local communities and other partners, that are responsive to local needs, are people focused and address the causes of crime, not just the consequences, to reduce crime and disorder. JEMs could be used to reinforce that work, provide details of the awards process and encourage partnerships to submit entries.

26. We continue to seek feedback on the JEMs process and have found the suggestions of partners useful when reviewing the process. Feedback will be requested at all meetings in the next round. It is also intended to develop new ways to better seek feedback and engage boroughs, for example through MPA link members and Engagement and Partnerships Unit officers.

27. A separate programme of JEMs, focussing on the Prevent strand of Contest, will be considered later in the year, following an assessment of current Prevent work.

C. Race and equality impact

An equality impact assessment (EIA) has been completed for the JEMs process and resulted to a change to the invitation letter to ensure that attendees are consulted on any individual needs they may have. 

D. Financial implications

The main costs are opportunity costs. JEMs are resourced internally largely by the MPA Policing Planning and Performance Improvement Unit. We do not assess the cost of MPS and partner time both in preparing for and participating in the meetings.

The financial costs associated with JEMs in 2009/09 totalled approximately £6,000. A budget of £15,000 has been agreed for JEMs for 2010/11.

E. Legal implications

No legal implications are noted.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Sarah Easey & Helena McKinnon, Planning & Performance

For information contact:

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

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASB

Anti-Social Behaviour

BOCU

Borough Operational Command Unit

BTP

British Transport Police

CDRP

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership

EPU

Engagement and Partnerships Unit

GLA

Greater London Authority

JEM

Joint Engagement Meeting

LCJP

London Criminal Justice Partnership

MPA

Metropolitan Police Authority

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

SYV

Serious Youth Violence

TP

Territorial Policing

TfL

Transport for London

YJB

Youth Justice Board

YOT

Youth Offending Team

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback