Home Office Basic Command Unit Fund - Mid-Year Report 2009/10

Report: 8
Date: 11 March 2010
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an overview of the financial and operational performance of MPS boroughs in respect of the BCU Fund for 2009/10, as well as considering planning issues for 2010/11

A. Recommendation

1. Members are requested to note the contents of this report, in respect of the 2009/10 financial and operational performance of MPS boroughs against the Home Office Basic Command Unit Fund.

2. That members endorse the suggestion that Boroughs complete an Equality Impact Assessment of their BCU spend plans.

B. Supporting information

1. The Basic Command Unit (BCU) Fund is Home Office funding distributed to each local police commander which, in London, means each borough operational command unit (BOCU). The fund is made available for the police to support local partnership activity, providing additionality to what is delivered as core business. It is a requirement of the fund that local allocation be approved by the local partnership.

2 Previously the BCU Fund was administered by the Government Office for London. However for the 2009-10 year the task of administering the fund passed to the MPA, although, it should be noted that notification of this change was not made until two months into the financial year.

3 A process for managing the fund was agreed by members (CEP committee meeting of 16/7/09 refers) and the stages of this process included the requirement for each BOCU to submit a spend plan detailing the projects they wished to support through the fund. A panel comprising officers from the Authority and from the MPS (Territorial Policing HQ), was convened to review the spend plans. As a result requests were made to a number of boroughs for clarification or for further information. Upon receipt of a satisfactory spend plan, the Authority issued an approval letter releasing the funding to the borough, subject to periodic review as had been the pattern in previous years.

4 The Home Office wrote to the Commissioner and to Chief Executives on 4th June 2009 detailing the conditions attached to the use of the BCU Fund: The Fund is provided to BCUs to:

• Help deliver crime and disorder reduction locally through supporting work with their other partners on Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships or Community Safety Partnerships (CDRP/CSPs).
• Promote partnership working; for example in supporting the implementation of the recently introduced legislative requirements for partnerships and the introduction of the six hallmarks of an Effective Partnership for CDRP/CSPs. This includes providing support for embedding intelligence-led business processes and training and developing staff.
• Assist in delivery of the objectives set out in the Government’s Public Service Agreements for 2008-11 with a particular focus on PSA 23 (Making Communities Safer) and PSA 25 (Reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol). These underpin the delivery of the Home Office crime strategy entitled “Cutting Crime a New Partnership” which identified a number of key areas for focus over the period 2008-11.
• Fund spending which is consistent with Partnerships priorities as set out in the Local Area Agreements (LAA) and to take account of the work of the emerging performance management and delivery landscape.

5. A spend plan template was issued to all boroughs. This template required each borough to list the specific projects that they intended to undertake, providing details such as objective crime type, performance measure, Local Area Agreement target, any specific in-year milestones and the outputs and outcomes of each activity. The lead agency and project leader for each element was also identified. Each spend plan also has facility to indicate that the project list has been agreed with relevant local partnership representatives.

6. Analysis of the spend plans shows that the projects identified by boroughs to be supported by this fund fulfil the criteria laid down by the Home Office. For instance, over two hundred projects relate specifically to Public Service Agreement (PSA) 23 (Make Communities Safer) - most notably through National Indicators (NIs) 15 (serious violent crime rate), 16 (serious acquisitive crime rate) and 21 (deal with local concerns about ASB and crime), while fifty six projects relate to PSA 25 (reduce harm caused by alcohol and drugs) - most notably through NIs 20 (assault with injury crime rate), 40 (number of drug users in effective treatment) and 42 (perceptions of drug use and dealing). Furthermore, a number of the activities receiving funding relate specifically to building capacity within partnerships and to implementing the Hallmarks for Effective Partnership.

7. The 32 boroughs and TPHQ received allocations under the BCU Fund, the latter largely to support corporate administration of the fund. All boroughs submitted spend plans although approximately two thirds were asked for further information.

8. Since the approval of the majority of proposals only one borough has notified its intention to seek a variation. That borough will be resubmitting its spend plan showing the variation sought with explicit confirmation that the variation has been approved by the partnership, before further approval is given by the Authority.

9. In order to illustrate the range of initiatives supported by the BCU Fund, the following examples have been drawn from the borough spend plans:

• £5,000 to Met Track, a police-led diversionary scheme involving athletics, aimed at reducing youth-related anti-social behaviour (Sutton).
• £20,000 to tackle a range of issues related to key times in the year (such as bonfire night) and key locations, through specific multi-agency operations (Sutton).
• £34,000 for the delivery of the Anti-social behaviour action plan, itself a borough LAA priority (Merton).
• £189,000 to support the Partnership Intelligence Unit which drives the Borough’s National Intelligence Model tasking process (Lambeth).
• £10,000 to support the work of the Appropriate Adult Scheme (Lambeth).
• £15,000 to carry out target hardening work on domestic properties affected by repeat victimisation through burglary (Hillingdon).
• £18,000 for joint test purchase operations involving police and Trading Standards (Croydon).
• £12,250 for the running of Community Fire Cadets, a youth diversionary scheme with links to 7 National Indicator targets (Bexley).
• £5,000 for the Borough Faith Forum to assist with community engagement and fostering understanding between diverse communities (Haringey).

In each case the boroughs have made specific links to National Indicators and to the priorities set in Local Area Agreements.

10. Towards the end of 2009 a briefing was held for all boroughs regarding the next year of the BCU fund and it was made clear (by the Home Office speaker) that boroughs must show that they are using the BCU Fund to address the confidence and satisfaction priorities. This position has been confirmed by Home Office guidance issued 12 January 2010 covering the BCU Fund for 2010/11. It is currently anticipated that the administrative process will mirror last year though this has still to be confirmed. This has enabled an element of planning to be set in motion to the extent that a request has been issued for the boroughs to prepare and submit their spend plans.

11. As the ultimate financial management responsibility for the Fund lies with each BOCU commander, it is MPS employees who will compile the spend returns. Furthermore, for the Local Authority to receive reimbursement for costs incurred, the Authority will be required to submit appropriate invoices to the MPS. As with any other payment made through MPS financial systems, invoices submitted for reimbursement must be accompanied by relevant documentary evidence to support the payment. The frequency of submission of such invoices is a locally agreed procedure but would generally be on at least a quarterly basis; reimbursement is nevertheless only provided with the approval of an appropriate senior officer, such as the Partnership Chief Inspector or Superintendent.

12. It is important to recognise that the procedure through which the Home Office releases the BCU fund to the MPS and, ultimately, to the boroughs, has changed since the process was managed through Government Office for London. Formerly, funding was released quarterly, with the payments for the first three quarters made in retrospect upon receipt of a claim detailing the costs incurred during the relevant period. The fourth quarter was paid in advance because of the need to ensure funds were allocated before the end of the financial year. It is now the case that the money is released quarterly to the MPS and is then distributed to boroughs simply as an allocation of one quarter of their total fund. The position will be fully reviewed prior to final accounts closure to ensure that BOCUs receive income up to a maximum of their annual allocation but not more than has been spent. Where an underspend is identified, the excess funds will be transferred to a corporate cost centre for carry-forward and re-allocation in the new financial year, as agreed with the Home Office and referred to in the report.

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 effect on any single section of the community. It can be seen from some of the examples quoted in paragraph 9 that support has been given to existing programmes or schemes that have had EIAs completed such as Met Track, LAA activity, and the National Intelligence model. However, it is fair to say that the situation is not currently monitored through specific Equality Impact Assessments for each project funded by this means. Notwithstanding the fact that we are about to enter the final year of the BCU Fund it is recommended that BOCUs undertake a specific EIA for their spend plan to particularly consider the confidence gap, and disproportionality in satisfaction rates between BME and white communities.

D. Financial implications

1. The budget allocation, recorded expenditure from April to November 2009 inclusive and full-year forecast expenditure for each borough has been summarised at Appendix 1. The total allocation amounts to £7.929 million, of which £2.817 million was identified as having been spent by 30 November 2009. By close of the 2009/10 financial year it is forecast that actual spend will reach £7.855 million, a potential underspend of £74,000. Whilst borough partnership teams will do their utmost to ensure that BCU-related projects are completed by year-end, it remains a risk that not all projects will be finalised and therefore the potential underspend could be increased.

2. The Home Office grant agreement identifies the funding period as 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010, although it should be noted that this document was issued by the Home Office on 24th June 2009. A further financial concern is that the grant agreement contains a specific clause requiring that any underspends at the end of the financial year be refunded to the Home Office.

3. However, the MPS view is that due to the delay in implementing the new procedures for 2009/10, boroughs suffered inevitable knock-on delays in obtaining approval for their proposals and an allowance should be made to carry-forward reasonable underspends. On 1st February 2010 Alister Williams, the Home Office Head of Police Finance Settlement and Capital Team, provided written confirmation that the Home Office is content to allow a carry-forward in respect of the 2009/10 allocation, should the MPS underspend. A process for reallocating any actual underspends has yet to be determined and will clearly be dependant upon what, if any, underspends materialise. Nevertheless, appropriate MPA agreement will be sought once any final underspend figure is arrived at and plans are generated to utilise the funding.

E. Legal implications

1. The Home Secretary makes the grant payment under the authority of Section 169 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The grant funding is for the purposes of the BCU Fund as set out in Home Office Circular 12/2003, revised by Home Office Circular 008/2008, as set out at paragraph 4 of the report. If the conditions of grant are breached by the BCU the Secretary of State may require the repayment of all or part of the grant monies paid.

2. Forces and Command Units to which the award has been made, must at all times be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Home Office that it has proper financial and other controls in place. The grant is to be identified separately within accounting systems to facilitate a clear audit trail. The Director of Finance is responsible for making the necessary arrangements for local management controls and allocating the funding to BCUs.

3. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 made partnership working a statutory duty, which was subsequently refined by the Police and Justice Act 2006 and Regulations in 2007. As part of the CDRP (Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships) the hallmarks of effective partnership are:

1. empowered and effective leadership;
2. intelligence-led business processes;
3. effective and responsive delivery structures;
4. community engagement;
5. visible and constructive accountability;
6. appropriate skills and knowledge.

4. The fund has been provided to assist in the delivery of the objectives set out in the Government’s Public Service Agreements (PSAs) for 2008-11 with particular focus on PSA 23 (Making Communities Safer) and PSA25 (Reduce the Harm Caused by Alcohol and Drugs). In 2010-11 the fund will additionally and primarily need to demonstrate that it supports the borough’s work to increase the borough’s confidence in the police and the local authority services to reduce crime.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Chief Inspector Gareth Morgan

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1

 BCU Fund 2009/10 - Financial Returns

The following information shows the total budget allocation for each borough, together with the amount spent against that budget up to 30th November 2009 and an estimate of total annual spend to the end of the financial year 2009/10.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback