Delivery plan for the MPS Anti-Violence Board

Report: 10
Date: 1 July 2010
By: Assistant Commissioner, Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report summarises the role, terms of reference and emerging Delivery Plan for the MPS Anti-Violence Board (AVB). It outlines the MPS Anti-Violence Strategy and provides comment upon issues identified previously by the Authority relating to the approach to violence reduction in London. It further outlines the intended development of the approach, including the formation of a London Strategic Violence Board.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members note the contents of this report.
2. Members provide comment to inform the further development of the AVB Delivery Plan and that of a future London Strategic Violence Board.

B. Supporting information

Context for these developments

1. Violent crime is a key concern for communities in London. Tackling violence will therefore remain a central element in the MPS approach to delivering a Safer London, maintaining and enhancing community confidence and service user satisfaction.

2. Recent operational experience of dealing with gangs has demonstrated that the violence is not a driving factor for many, rather it is a consequence of the criminal activity of those gangs, with groups seeking to enforce this illegal activity and ‘protect’ their areas of operation. This has seen an evolution in the way that the MPS tackles gang activity and the associated violence, with its impact on the overall serious violence picture. In so saying the MPS has acknowledged the need for a single Anti-Violence Board (AVB), and is keen to pursue the concept of a London Strategic Violence Board, working with partners.

3. This requirement arises from:

• Opportunities to exploit cross-business group co-ordination in conditions of increasingly limited resources;
• Concern that violence is addressed more holistically;
• Wider concerns that organisational and geographical boundaries in London are hindering progress in violence reduction;
• Significant and ongoing pressure to substantially reduce MPS costs and similar pressures placed upon other statutory and third sector organisations impacting the violence problem in London.

What does success look like?

4. The MPS Board will be considered a success if its work enhances public trust and confidence. To achieve this it will:

• co-ordinate action by all service providers that can contribute to violence reduction. Specifically it will take a holistic approach to violence focusing upon people (victims and perpetrators) and places, rather than specific crime types, coupled with an external delivery plan that is structured in line with the RIPE model (paragraph 15) with key partners having lead roles; and
• achieve significant and sustained reductions in violent crime, including those repeat incidents of anti-social behaviour that may escalate to more serious violence.

Defining Violence

5. For the purposes of the MPS Anti-Violence Strategy ‘violence’ will be defined as follows:

• Most Serious Violence (MSV);
• Assault with Injury (AWI);
• Serious sexual offences; [1]
• Personal robbery;
• Hate crime (all forms, including domestic violence); and
• Harassment.

6. As the AV Strategy develops through discussion with all service providers, a broader definition may be considered necessary using, for example, that provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO):

''The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual against oneself, another person or against a group/community that either results in or has high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development or deprivation.''

7. The MPS definition will extend to any violence-related recorded offence that has a repeat victim, or involves a weapon and/or group offending. This will capture lower level incidents that have the potential for escalation, and ensure a bridge between ASB and recorded violent crime. Serious youth violence will be covered in the work of the AVB and a clear process map will demonstrate the link between ASB and the Anti-Violence strategy.

8. It is acknowledged that repetitive acts of anti-social behaviour (ASB) directed towards victims and/or in localities can lead to substantial and serious crimes of violence. Processes are being mapped to ensure that the AV Strategy allows identification and intervention to address ASB that can escalate to, or fuel, criminal acts of violence. This would include systems to identify and enhance our response to repeated acts of ASB directed towards vulnerable victims and/or peer group behaviour that may lead to gangs or groups committing violent crime, e.g. repetitive under-age consumption of alcohol in public places. Widening the definition of violence to include robbery (Tier 2 offence, acquisitive crime) seeks to define violence according to the public concern and impact on confidence rather than the statute book.

Terms of Reference and Delivery Plan for the AVB

9. The terms of reference for the new MPS AVB are attached at Appendix 1. Also included are broader terms of reference for a future London Strategic Violence Board.

10. The victim, offender, location, time (VOLT) model will be adopted. This will target scarce resources in a way that achieves the greatest return on investment. It is about progressively identifying the 80/20 relationships [this refers to statistical work that shows that approximately 80% of crime is committed by 20% of offenders]. In simple terms, we know that various MPS business units are operating with victims, offenders and in locations that overlap.

11. Discussions to date highlight the internal MPS opportunities for developments that enhance operational co-ordination. A variety of assets are deployed reactively and proactively across the MPS with differing, but overlapping objectives. The approach to lethal weapons (guns and knives) is a case in point. There are opportunities to improve efficiency by the better co-ordination of marketing, operations, intelligence and offender management for those that are working to reduce serious violence.

12. Beyond the VOLT model, there are clear requirements for process development to achieve standardised and consistent offender management with our partners.

13. The emerging family centred approach also offers the potential to identify and exploit links that are across crime types, e.g. domestic violence, group offending, familial offending (e.g. siblings following older brothers/fathers).This approach may be increasingly significant as opportunities are seen in this model for cost reductions across statutory agencies.

14. The Delivery Plan contained at Appendix 2 is deliberately structured using the RIPE model (Reassurance, Intelligence, Prevention, Enforcement). This is a national model within the police service and increasingly utilised within Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs). It provides common terminology and standardised processes.

15. As we move forward, the existing Delivery Plan will develop with input from the wider statutory and third sectors. The RIPE structure can accommodate future development.

Operating Principles

16. The following operating principles will be adopted to ensure that the activity within each work stream meets the requirements of the AVB:

• Activity must directly impact safety, confidence and satisfaction;
• Activity should be lead by information and intelligence;
• Inputs should be targeted using the VOLT model and ongoing (80/20) analysis;
• Repeat incidence should attract an enhanced response;
• Activity must be prioritised to highest harm first;
• Activity should be sustainable and based on standard processes;
• Activity should be designed for maximum impact upon total notifiable offences (TNO);
• Activity should include processes for review and application of learning;
• Prompt (early) enforcement interventions to minimise later escalation and harm; and
• Activity will be informed by an ongoing customer and community focus.

Timetable

17. The internal MPS Anti-Violence Board (AVB) has been in place since 29 April 2010. The existing Board is will operating to drive forward MPS internal co-ordination through a delivery plan scheduled to complete by January 2011.

18. Following the meeting of the MPS AVB on 1 June 2010, work is now preceding with all relevant London service providers to establish a London Strategic Violence Board. This would include a clear and agreed vision of development amongst all contributing organisations.

19. This will align with the completion of the work currently being progressed through the London Serious Youth Violence Board (LSYVB) to December 2010. These necessary discussions across a complex existing landscape are intended to shape an emerging London Anti-Violence Strategy and Delivery Plan by September 2010. The internal MPS development will continue whilst also operating to shape a wider, strategic delivery plan in London.

20. It is the view of the MPS that a London Strategic Violence Board should have a non-police chair. This recognises the fact that it will work to focus the resources of organisations towards sustainable prevention plans that are complemented by police-led enforcement as necessary.

21. The future Board will bring together key strategic partners to increase the focus upon co-ordinated and effective preventative actions, including those necessary to address inequality and deprivation.

22. Key to the development of the Board will be an understanding of how it adds value or can assist in rationalising an already crowded landscape and the improvement of links with and between existing Boards.

Impact of these developments on existing work

23. The mapping of current strategies and boards that is currently being undertaken should assist in identifying the potential impact of the new Board. There is significant opportunity to reduce duplication of work through the identification of overlaps between existing programmes and meetings (both internally within the MPS and with external partners) and the potential to ensure that there is one ‘overarching’ strategy to tackle violence at an organisational level.

24. There are clear risks with this process being considered ‘just another board dealing with violence’. This risk will be mitigated through a comprehensive internal consultation and communication strategy, coupled with measurable deliverables and accountability framework.

25. Work to date has already explored the links required with the existing MPS Youth Strategy. Further work and clear governance structures will ensure necessary alignment with other work plans.

Equality Impact Assessment and MPS Response

26. The Equality Impact Assessment will develop in accordance with the AVB and its emerging Delivery Plan. The initial draft is attached for reference at Appendix 3.

27. The Strategy recognises the clear requirement for:

• Increased co-ordination in delivery within and between organisations impacting upon violence reduction in London; and
• Delivery within the constraints of significantly reduced public sector resources.

28. In so doing the associated delivery plan for policing will be structured using the ‘RIPE’ model which provides common terminology and standardised processes for working within the police service and Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs). This should ensure that activity is targeted to those sections of the community that are either disproportionately likely to be victims of violence (the young and the vulnerable), those that are at risk of becoming offenders and, finally, known offenders.

29. The development of the overarching Strategy and the Delivery Plan will be subject of consultation with the community at a tactical level. The emphasis will be on specific targeting and communication to ensure that interventions are informed by regular and sustained dialogue with affected communities.

Addressing group violence and gangs

30. The MPS approach to violence will remain focused upon individual victims and offenders. However, the influence of group offending, notably the presence of some street-level gangs, will require specific interventions.

31. It is also important to have an understanding of the nature of group or gang offending:

32. As agreed by the MPA, the MPS defines gangs along a continuum. Peer groups may be involved in low level offending and/or ASB, through to ‘street’ gangs and onto organised criminal networks (OCNs). Individuals may operate at different levels at different times, and therefore there is a need to target the individuals and the risk they pose, rather than the groups. However, membership or affiliation with a group or gang is likely to increase the risk and harm of offending and will be taken into consideration in the prioritisation of VOLT.

33. Street level groupings are often chaotic, unstructured and exhibit both external and internal conflicts. The picture is further complicated by the fact that many groups of individuals committing serious offences would not self define themselves as “gangs”, on the other hand not every group who defines themselves as a “gang” commits criminal offences.

34. A significant degree of caution must therefore be exercised to ensure that interventions do not raise the status of individuals who commit violent offences as part of such groups. The vast majority of young people are not involved in criminal gangs. This is key to informing our engagement with young people. Another key element is the VOLT model that we are adopting is that it enables us to identify and focus on the riskiest people, those causing most harm to communities. Analysis of these groupings will be important, but by focusing on the risk itself we ensure we focus on the right people rather than any label attached to them.

35. One of the key elements of our activity will be links between the MPS Youth Strategy and the AVB to identify young people most vulnerable to joining gangs in the future. This early years work is central to combating the continuum of offending that leads to the most serious crime. We will adopt a joint delivery plan that sits across both the AVB and MPS Youth Strategy.

36. Current activity is prioritised according to the level of criminality. Police activity ranges from that conducted by boroughs at the neighbourhood level through to specialist proactive and covert operations. At this top end of OCNs we are targeting using the Criminal Networks Prioritisation Matrix, which identifies those groups causing the most harm to London. Resources are allocated accordingly.

37. Other mechanisms used to tackle and prevent group and gang violence are:

• Command and control structures to address high risk gang conflicts;
• Numerous proactive operations and reactive investigations,
• Targeted intelligence operations;
• MPS wide daily risk management – central and Borough review meetings to deploy assets in response to risk, e.g. Op Verano [2] & Blunt;
• Dedicated units/structures to address MPS Violence, e.g. Op Trident;
• Partnership activity with other law enforcement agencies e.g. UKBA;
• Formal co-coordinating and tasking structures where resources are efficiently tasked against MPS priorities;
• Various joint intelligence, prevention and enforcement plans to address specific issues;
• MPS activity – Home Office Tackling Knife Action Plan (TKAP); and
• MPS Priority Gun Crime Boroughs.

38. Through our renewed focus on the riskiest individuals we will review current processes and ensure that we are not just identifying the individuals causing the most harm, but allocating resources appropriately to ensure maximum effectiveness in combating their activity.

Delivery of the AV Strategy and its links with the Policing London Business Plan, Policing Pledge, Met Forward, the single confidence measure (APACS 2.2, NI 21) and the commissioners 5 P’s.

339. The ‘strategic aim’ of the MPS Violence Strategy will be to enhance public trust and confidence by achieving significant and sustained reductions in violent crime, including repeat incidents that may escalate to serious violence. The MPS Anti-Violence Board (AVB) will:

• Commission work to progress the MPS Anti-Violence Strategy and its associated delivery plan;
• Undertake activity to enhance, and achieve efficiencies from, operational co-ordination across business groups and units impacting violence;
• Develop and deploy a comprehensive and integrated communication strategy for violence that sustains and enhances public confidence;
• Assess the future impact of environmental trends and developments upon the violence profile in London; and
• Ensure that internal and external research informs the MPS strategic approach and the necessary tactical interventions.

40. Underpinning all of the work of the Board will be the need to ensure that the focus is on safety, confidence and value for money, by reducing crime and the fear of crime through tackling violence in a co- ordinated manner across the MPS and, in particular, tackling knife and youth crime, gangs, guns and, violence against women.

41. In delivering the strategic aims the MPS, through the AVB will ensure that public safety is the first duty of police. It will work to secure community confidence in police tactics through positive engagement with key stakeholders and continue to develop effective long-term solutions to violence by working closely with Local Authority and statutory partners together with ‘third sector’ organisations.

42. In the delivery of ‘policing solutions’ to issues of violent crime we will ensure that our resources are directed according to the RIPE model (mentioned in Section 5), deployments are intelligence-led and conducted in consultation with local communities, and that there is effective co-ordination of intelligence gathering and policing operations across business groups.

43. The Commissioners 5 Ps will run through the processes ensuring that we listen to local community concerns and address anti-social behaviour before it escalates into more serious offending and reflect feedback about our operating methods in future delivery.

444. A performance framework will be developed to ensure that the overarching aims and objectives of the Board are met and impact positively upon ‘the percentage of people who agree that the police and local council are dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in their area’.

Capturing and co-ordinating external funding streams

45. It is not practical to cost detailed resource allocations that are assigned to individual crime types and themes. Much of MPS operational activity has impact across a range of crime types and the VOLT methodology acknowledges the need to move beyond a model that creates siloed response based on crime type.

46. Similarly, the MPS cannot differentiate in any meaningful way between elements of enforcement and prevention/diversion. The interventions required are closely linked and enforcement is frequently concerned directly with preventative legislation, e.g. detection and arrest of persons possessing lethal weapons.

47. Tackling violence is a key thread that runs throughout the operational policing of London. This encompasses the answering of calls and immediate response of officers to ‘crimes of violence in action’, positive arrest and investigation policies for hate crimes, critical incident responses to murders and serious assaults, to the day to day engagement of Safer Neighbourhoods and Safer Transport Teams with local communities to address and prevent anti-social behaviour.

48. Secondary investigation of offences of violence and the bringing of offenders to justice is undertaken by local (Borough based) teams in addition to those deployed within the Serious Crime Directorate (murder, rape, serious sexual assault, child abuse, armed robbery, shootings and serious violence), Specialist Operations (SO) (acts of terrorism), and Central Operations (CO) in managing public order.

49. Prevention work is undertaken at all levels and business groups, and is a critical factor in event planning for public order operations within Central Operations (CO).

550. At a borough level there are local ‘tasking teams’ and Safer Neighbourhoods officers who are deployed to prevent violence in identified hotspot areas, Territorial Support Group deployments directed by the Central Co-ordination and Tasking meeting (CaTO) and local events (for example football matches) where officers are actively engaged in violent crime prevention.

51. There remains concern that external funding streams are not sufficiently targeted or co-ordinated across areas and people (victims and perpetrators). A future London Strategic Violence Board will have a key role to ensure that all resources are being deployed in accordance with identified risk and effective practice.

C. Race and diversity impact

1. The Equalities Impact Assessment will be developed in a parallel process as the strategy is written.

2. One of the potential areas of concern within current tactics used to tackle and prevent violent crime is that of “Stop and search”. There is the potential that this could adversely impact upon young people but it is a tactic that has been explored and developed over a substantial period of time. Continued engagement with youth groups is essential to ensure that young people do not feel disenfranchised or disengaged from police. There are no proposals currently being made in this report that would disproportionately affect any other groups or sections of the community/employees – either negatively or positively – to a greater extent than the general population and no known race/ diversity issues arising from this report.

3. This will continue to be reviewed as part of the iterative EIA process and each work stream will consider the implications within their delivery plans.

D. Financial implications

1. Central to the work of an MPS Anti-Violence Board is the achievement of efficiencies through greater operational co-ordination across business groups and units impacting upon violence. The Board will extend such efforts across all statutory and third sector organisations that have impact upon violence in London.

2. More effective services, delivered whilst achieving efficiency savings will continue to be a key objective for all public services over the coming years.

3. As the AVB develops it will then be possible to identify the financial impact associated with the Board and its Delivery Plan. It is anticipated that all activity will be delivered and managed within existing MPS budgets.

E. Legal implications

1. The Local Government Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State the power to specify by regulation performance indicators and performance standards. None of the MPS’s obligations to report to any other body will be affected by the activity proposed within the delivery plan of the new AVB.

2. The MPA and the MPS have statutory and non-statutory duties to report internally and externally, and the the Police Act 1996 requires all police authorities to publish annually a report including an assessment of the extent to which the local policing plan for that year has been carried out. The establishment of the AVB is likely to assist the MPS in fulfilling that obligation.

F. Environmental implications

There are no known environmental implications of this report.

G. Background papers

None

H. Contact details

Report author: Detective Chief Inspector Mark Stockford, TP Crime OCU

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: MPS Anti-Violence Board Terms of Reference

The MPS Anti-Violence Board (AVB) will:

1. Commission work to progress the MPS Anti-Violence Strategy and its associated delivery plan;
2. Undertake activity to enhance, and achieve greater effectiveness from, operational co-ordination across business groups and units impacting violence;
3. Develop and deploy a comprehensive and integrated communication strategy for violence that sustains and enhances public confidence;
4. Assess the future impact of environmental trends and developments upon the violence profile in London;
5. Ensure that internal and external research informs the MPS strategic approach and the necessary tactical interventions.
6. Develop the MPS performance management framework as necessary to support a future London Strategic Violence Board.

Following necessary development through discussion, it is likely that that a future London Strategic Violence Board will:

1. Provide a common statement, or vision, with high-level agreement between all service providers;
2. Establish and develop a clear governance structure for violence reduction;
3. Ensure the effective targeting and co-ordination of resource plans from statutory and third sector providers;
4. Have a framework to deliver key priorities, with identified roles and responsibilities for each service provider;
5. Act to standardise risk management and assessment models across service providers and different levels of risk;
6. Ensure the co-ordination of universal, targeted and specialist approaches across service providers.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback