Metropolitan Police Authority Partnership Fund 2011/12

Report: 5
Date: 14 February 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report seeks member approval for the 2011/12 Partnership Fund priorities and to also change the way in which the Fund is managed so that it is held centrally by the MPA.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the 2011/12 priorities for the MPA Partnership Fund be aligned to those of the London Crime Reduction Board; and
2. the £1.6m Fund be held centrally by the Authority.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA Partnership Fund (MPAF) allocates £50 000 to each borough command unit (BCU) annually. The target priorities areas for 2010/11 were: (i) antisocial behaviour and disorder, (ii) activities to support delivery against that confidence target, (iii) hate crime, (iv) serious youth violence, (v) violence against women and (vi) outcomes/issues arising from Joint Engagement Meetings and variable target setting. The MPAF spend plans for 2010/11 submitted in March 2010, indicated that the total Fund would be apportioned to each priority as follows: (i) 19%, (ii) 23%, (iii) 11%, (iv) 19%, (v) 18% and (vi) 9%. There may have been some changes to the allocations over the course of the financial year, however, this report does not deal with this matter, which will be the subject of a subsequent report to committee in July 2011.

2. Members will be aware that finalisation of the MPA budget has occurred later in the financial year than is usually the case and this has delayed the decision-making process. As a result, and as part of the development of the work of the London Crime Reduction Board and in recognition of the potential for the Authority to have been abolished before the end of the financial year, the future of the MPAF was considered by the member-led internal Business Management Group in March 2011. As a result of that discussion, the purpose of this report is to seek member approval for the 2011/12 MPAF priority and to change the way in which the MPAF is managed so that it is held centrally by the MPA rather than delegating it to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

3. It is proposed that the MPAF priorities be aligned to those of the London Crime Reduction Board (LCRB), which are (i) reducing violence against women and girls, (ii) reducing violence (which would encompass serious youth violence and hate crime, for example) and (iii) reducing reoffending. The rationale for aligning the MPAF priorities with those of the LCRB is two-fold, which has been endorsed by BMG. Firstly, the LCRB priorities have been identified, with multi-agency support, as key issues for London and secondly, these priorities have been identified as areas in which a London-wide focus could make a significant impact.

4. While there might be some concern that this focus on London-wide priorities might skew activity away from local priorities, analysis of 2011/12 borough strategic assessments indicates that there is a good degree of correlation between the LCRB objectives and those identified at borough level. While acquisitive crime, which tends to be a greater concern for outer London boroughs, is not specifically included, this would not preclude borough Community Safety Partnerships from using other funds to support work in those areas. An analysis of the 2011/12 CSF submissions indicates that three boroughs have specifically targeted monies at acquisitive crime, but in addition, other areas of funded work, such as activities related to prolific and priority offenders/reducing reoffending, should also have a positive impact on acquisitive crime rates. A further point to note is that a key feature of the MPAF for 2011/12 will be the focus on encouraging more innovative practice and joint initiatives to ensure the MPAF supports the development of good practice and helps boroughs to explore and take advantage of the opportunities to deliver more for less.

5. This committee has previously considered the option of holding the MPAF centrally, but has previously decided against implementing such a change. However, the reasons for considering holding the funds centrally remain relevant, i.e. that it would provide the Authority with greater control over the rate of under spending and would also provide the opportunity to reallocate such funds, so members are asked to approve a change in the way the Fund is managed with immediate effect. Members should note that there is no suggestion that the MPS does not have the appropriate financial management processes in place and officers have been advised that as part of their normal financial management processes MPS colleagues do work with BCUs to ensure the MPAF is used correctly, e.g. not allocated to overtime expenditure. However, the MPAF is delegated to individual BCUs and holding the budget centrally would enable the Authority to have greater confidence that there is sufficient adherence to the terms of the MPAF and would also facilitate the re-profiling of the budgeted allocation according to Authority requirements as and when appropriate.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. An analysis of the 2010/11 spend plans has indicated that 26% of the MPAF was targeted at young people and 13% at gender-based initiatives, which were mostly domestic violence (DV) projects. The other equality groups - race, faith, sexual orientation and disability were also targeted but to a lesser extent, with only 3%, 2%, 1% and <1% of funding targeting those groups respectively. While it is encouraging to note that activities and services for young people and DV have been supported through the Fund. Members should note that overall, whilst there would be some overlap between categories, the figures indicate that targeting towards other protected groups is very limited and this could be a cause for concern. Having said that, this is mitigated by the fact that crime reduction data indicates that equality impact in relation to community safety funding is positive since a number of protected groups tend to be disproportionately represented amongst the victims and offenders of crime. Nevertheless the analysis demonstrates that the planning and targeting of the Fund could be strengthened to ensure a better distribution across all equality groups.

2. To further address this issue, the 2011/12 Fund guidance has been updated to reflect recent legislative changes and the Engagement & Partnerships Officers have been primed to offer further guidance and assistance to BCUs should it be required.

Consideration of MET Forward

3. Met Forward provides a strong emphasis on partnership working, specifically within the Met Partners work strand, but it is a key theme throughout the document. The MPAF is designed to support partnership working at BCU level and the proposals for 2011/12 ensure this continues through the maintenance of the MPAF at £1.6m and by encouraging BCUs to use their MPAF allocation to support and develop innovative partnership initiatives.

Financial Implications

4. The Authority allocates £1.6m to the MPAF each year and this is contained within the existing budget. The proposals contained in this report will require changes in current processes and MPA officers are currently discussing with MPS officers how to take this forward. Given that this meeting is taking place after the financial year has commenced, the MPAF documentation and guidance has been circulated to all BCUs so that they can begin preparation of the necessary paperwork. The intention is to then process and sign off the spend plans and to distribute the monies in May 2011.

Legal Implications

5. There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

6. There are no environmental implications arising from this report.

Risk Implications

7. There are no significant risks arising from this report. However, the MPS may have some concerns about the Authority holding the MPAF centrally, particularly given that it may be perceived that this decision indicates some criticism of their current financial arrangements. Members should be advised that that is not intended to be the case and that the greater benefit from the new arrangements will be the reduced risk of wastage.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Natasha Plummer, Engagement and Partnerships Manager, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback