Borough Partnership Funds 2010-11

Report: 7
Date: 7 July 2011
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of The Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an overview of the end-of-year financial and operational performance of MPS boroughs in respect of the Basic Command Unit Fund (BCUF) and the MPA Partnership Fund for 2010/11. In addition, it offers evaluation of the impact of funding changes, as requested by CEP on 6 January 2011.

A. Recommendation

Members are requested to note the contents of this report in respect of the 2010/11 financial and operational performance of MPS boroughs against the Home Office Basic Command Unit and MPA Partnership Fund.

B. Supporting information

1. Basic Command Unit Fund

This report relates to the final year for which this funding stream is available as a separate and dedicated source of partnership funding. The BCUF was created to provide funding for the development of innovative projects and to provide additional partnership activity; these principles were enshrined in the allocation criteria issued by the Home Office. The BCUF has been administered by the MPA for the past two years, following the transfer of responsibility from GOL. The Authority has seen and approved all spend plans submitted by boroughs. A breakdown of allocation by borough is given in Appendix 1. It should be noted that these allocations represent 80% of the original BCUF fund which, three years ago, was reduced by 20%. Boroughs have been required to submit spend plans for approval by the Authority and these plans were required to confirm that local partnerships had agreed the allocations. In addition, any changes to spend plans during the course of the year have been notified to the authority by way of an updated spend plan. Approval was based on the previously published Home Office Guidance on allocation of BCUF.

2. It was a specific requirement for the 2010-11 year that all projects supported by this fund should be linked to at least one of the five confidence themes, as follows:

Tackle anti-social behaviour effectively
Build effective partnerships
Deliver a high quality service
Develop an empowered, engaged, confident workforce
Work with and for the public

3. Each spend plan identified which theme was addressed by each project. In a number of cases projects addressed more than one theme which means that it is not possible to give a meaningful breakdown of spend according to individual themes; however, it is possible to give a sense of the distribution by identifying the number of projects which support each theme

• Tackling crime and ASB effectively – 170 projects.
• Driving effective partnerships – 100 projects.
• Working with and for the public – 50 projects.
• Delivering a high quality local service – 40 projects.
• Building an empowered, engaged and confident workforce – 10 projects.

4. The BCUF grant conditions for 2010/11 are such that there was no facility to carry-forward any underspend. However, by realigning some borough underspends to support pan-London projects, the funding was fully utilised in 2010/11. A breakdown of underspend by borough is given in Appendix 1, in respect of BCUF and Appendix 2 in respect of MPA partnership Fund (dealt with below, paragraph 6).

5. Throughout its lifetime the BCUF has been a significant and valuable source of income supporting a wide range of partnership activities. These have included on the one hand issue-specific activities such as domestic violence reduction projects and on the other, pro-active and responsive initiatives agreed throughout the course of the year in partnership joint tasking groups.

MPA Partnership Fund

6. During 2010/11 the MPAPF provided borough commanders with a small funding stream (£50k per borough) to allocate to local partnership initiatives, with a minimum of bureaucracy, allowing great flexibility. It has traditionally been used to support a range of smaller, local initiatives which require small amounts of funding. Within this category would be the various sports based diversionary schemes that operate across the MPS.

7. Some boroughs have sought to take advantage of opportunities to carry forward funding from previous years to enable them to support larger projects. In all cases boroughs have consulted with the Authority via link members and have involved partners in allocation decisions.

8. The MPAPF is required to support the Authority’s priorities. Each borough has submitted a spend plan which identifies the priorities addressed by each allocation of funding.

9. The end of year figures show that, with prior-year underspends carried forward in reserve, boroughs began the year with £1.956m MPAPF. Against this total, they report an actual spend of £1.641m. As a result, the fund reports a carry forward of £315k (See Appendix 2); a reduction on the previous carry forward which was £356k. Subject to the finalisation of the 2010/11 accounts, this underspend has been placed in an earmarked reserve, available for draw-down in 2011/12 upon submission of an approved spend plan. Underspend comes about for several reasons. In some cases proposed projects fail or do not require the original level of funding allocated. Sometimes boroughs, working with local partners, agree to set aside all or part of a year’s allocation to increase funding for projects planned in subsequent financial years.

As with the BCUF, it is difficult to give discrete monetary totals for each of the MPA priority areas. However, it is possible to get a sense of the distribution from the number of projects which are linked to each priority, recognising that there are projects which relate to multiple priorities. This analysis provides the following picture:

• ASB - 102 projects
• Confidence - 113 projects
• Hate Crime - 60 projects
• Serious youth violence - 103 projects
• Violence against women - 49 projects
• Joint engagement / variable target setting - 48 project
• Other - 32 projects

10. A further breakdown reveals the following, which may be illustrative of the way MPAPF has been used:

• 19 projects make specific reference to domestic violence with a total allocation of £173k to these projects
• 4 projects relate to restorative justice with a total allocation of £23k to these projects
• 4 borough projects relate to Volunteer Police Cadets; in addition, pan-London VPC projects were supported. The total allocation to these projects was £188k
• 4 projects relate to the Kickz initiative with a total allocation of £45k to this.

11. These figures may be indicative of the variable impact of changes to funding structures, although, it is understood that these changes do not, at this time directly affect MPAPF.

Impact of funding changes

12. The principle impact is the loss of the BCUF. It should be noted at the outset that this fund had been expected to cease for some time. At the point when the last round of spend plans were submitted, all boroughs were made aware that this was expected to be the last year for which this funding was available and that should any posts be dependent on BCUF then an appropriate exit strategy should be agreed.
13. A review of the spend plans indicates that many projects include funding for staff time. In some cases this means dedicated posts being fully or partially funded from BCUF. In those project profiles which specify dedicated posts there is a mixture of police officer and police staff posts but with a majority of local authority posts. The impact is not evenly distributed across boroughs, for instance one borough has supported eight posts with BCUF as follows:

• 1 x Detective Inspector
• 1 x researcher
• 1 x Probation Officer
• 1 x Housing Officer
• 1 x Employment worker
• 1 x Street Pastor coordinator
• 1 x Domestic Violence coordinator
• 1 x Kickz project coordinator

All at a total cost of £296k, against an allocation of £325k. However, only the first two posts are MPS posts.

In contrast, another borough funds 2 x domestic violence workers and 1 x police staff post to assist ward panels at a total cost of £100k. However, in this case, the borough has set aside an allocation of £277k to fund a range of pro-active partnership operations targeted at emerging crime problems. Further detail on the staffing consequences of the loss of BCUF are given at paragraph D.2, below.

14. End of year returns from boroughs would indicate that alternative arrangements have been made to support those projects that have proven to be of greatest value. However, according to returns received from several boroughs the level of that alternative support is commonly around 50 percent of what the BCUF previously provided.

15. It has always been the case with BCUF that allocations were divided between a number of discrete and specific projects with clearly defined activities and also the funding of a range of activities generally bracketed under the heading of pro-active partnership work. These joint operations would include some seasonal issues such as reducing Halloween and bonfire night disorder, as well as emerging issues such as increases in specific volume crime types which emerge in the course of the year and which are addressed through joint-tasking forums.

16. As a result, it is likely that the absence of BCUF will be felt in two ways. First, a reduction in the opportunity to develop and fund discrete and specific projects which can then be run prior to mainstream funding being allocated once a concept is proved. Secondly, a reduction in the ability to fund pro-active partnership operations tackling emerging or seasonal crime concerns. It is important to reiterate that the BCUF was created to foster additional activity among local partnerships and to fund the development of innovative approaches. As such, the fund was not available for mainstream activities or for police overtime.

17. For 2011/12 the MPA has changed the administrative procedures for allocating the MPAPF to the boroughs. The overall funding level of £1.6m and the requirement to generate individual borough spend plans remains. However, Borough Commanders were notified in March 2011 that the Fund will be held in the MPA budget (as opposed to the MPS budget) to ensure that the MPA can more effectively manage the Fund throughout the course of the year and also reallocate unspent funds more quickly and effectively.

Conclusion

18. Over recent years, both the BCUF and the MPA Partnership Fund have provided valuable sources of funding for a wide range of local activities. Discontinuance of the BCUF is likely to put greater reliance on the MPAPF despite that fact that this is the much smaller fund. This funding is directly linked to the following Met Forward strands: Met Streets, Met Partners and Met Connect.

19. It is clear that BCUF has been used to fund various posts required to deliver projects and the additional activity generated by the availability of the Fund. Boroughs are reporting that alternative funding is being identified in some cases but not in all. It is an unavoidable conclusion that some areas of work will not continue. Boroughs will continue to carry out those joint activities which have proved most effective and will have mainstreamed activities that were developed with BCUF support. The loss of the BCUF makes the future development of such initiatives more difficult. It is important to emphasise that boroughs have always been encouraged to ensure that BCUF projects have clear exit strategies as it was never intended simply to be used for ongoing mainstream activity but rather to stimulate the innovative, additional activity which can have long- term benefits.

20. In addition to the new and innovative activities, there are several initiatives with a proven track record which have come to rely significantly on BCUF. This category would include Junior Citizens, volunteer police cadets, Kickz and work tackling domestic violence. Each of these activities will need to find alternative funding.

21. The following sections deal with equality, financial and legal implication. There are no environmental or risk implications to be considered in this report.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity 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. On the contrary, as the profile suggests the funding has been used in a variety of positive ways to build relationships with minority communities, to reduce crime affecting minority communities and to build confidence among these communities. While it is difficult to fully to assess the impact on communities of the discontinuation of BCUF, it is clear that the impact is likely to be felt areas that have attracted the greater amount of funding from this source; for example some aspects of domestic violence work.

2. The categories against which this report has presented the returns would suggest that funding is being used to support diverse communities. For instance, the Peace Week initiative which has run for 10 years, reaches an increasing proportion of the population each year. Through initiatives such as the Peace Awards individuals and groups gain recognition for their work. However, more importantly, the local activity which often brings together Safer Neighbourhoods teams with minority communities they serve has been greatly assisted by this funding stream. This may be particularly true of the MPA Partnership Fund which has traditionally been used by a large number of boroughs to support small-scale local projects established in and by minority communities.

Consideration of Met Forward

3. With regard to Met Forward, this paper is relevant to three main strands: Met Partners, Met Streets and Met Connect. For Met Partners perhaps the link is obvious in terms of this being about partnership funding. As such, it is also about effective service delivery by partnerships. For Met Streets the linkage is in the area of Safer Neighbourhoods activity and pro-active operations planned through joint tasking processes. Finally, Met Connect is relevant as a number of projects are concerned with community engagement and raising awareness. It is the intention of this report to make clear that the loss of the BCUF has potential negative implications for each these strands.

Financial Implications

4. Details by borough of total expenditure against budget for 2010/11 are provided at Appendix 1 (Basic Command Unit Fund) and Appendix 2 (MPA Partnership Fund). The MPAPF underspends identified were added to reserves to allow for carry-forward and re-allocation in 2011/12, subject to the submission of approved spend plans.

5. The loss of the BCUF will result in £7.929m of funding not being directly available to support partnership initiatives in 2011/12. Included in the 2010/11 BCUF budget were 8 Police Officer posts with a budget of £448k, and 3 MPS Police Staff posts with a budget of £140k. The reduction of both the Police Officer and Police Staff posts has been accounted for in the TP Medium Term Financial Plan for 2011-14.

6. With regards the MPAPF, each borough will still be allocated a nominal £50k for 2011/12. However, if individual borough spend plans are not sufficiently robust or do not propose projects with a total planned cost of £50k, consideration may be given, by the MPA, to bids of greater than £50k if accompanied by a suitably strong business case.

7. The Partnership fund is £1.6m in total and the full sum has been allocated at a rate of £50 000 per BCU. BCUs were advised that consideration would be given to bids in excess of £50 000, but it has not been possible to support any of those bids at this time. As is usual practice, Link members will have been engaged in the process and will have provided feedback as appropriate and a summary report has been provided to the Chair of the Authority before being fully signed off by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Spending against the partnership fund budget will be monitored on a quarterly basis and payments made quarterly in arrears. In previous years some boroughs have under spent against this fund and this being the case, further consideration will be given as to the rate of spending against the fund in October 2011, which might identify funds that may be reallocated to meet the over-programmed activity.

Legal Implications

8. 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.

9. 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. The spend plans submitted by the boroughs are all fully compliant with the funding criteria.

10. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 made partnership working a statutory duty and was reaffirmed by the Police and Justice Act 2006 and Regulations in 2007. Hallmarks of effective Community Safety Partnerships (formerly CDRPs) are described as:

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.

11. These two funds have been provided to assist in the delivery of these objectives as 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 primarily needs to demonstrate that it supports the borough’s work to increase the public confidence in the police and local authority services to reduce crime and disorder. A requirement of the spend plan submission was the linkage between each allocation of funding and at least one confidence theme. This is dealt with in the main body of the report.

Environmental Implications

12. No significant environmental impacts have been identified.

Risk (including Health and Safety Implications)

13. No significant risk impact have been identified.

D. Background papers

• None

E. Contact details

Report authors: PS Andrew Bayes TPHQ-SN OCU, MPS

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1

BCUF by Borough

Note: * Spend covered VPC activity which had a pan London benefit, so not aligned to borough spends.

Appendix 2

MPA Partnership Fund by Borough

Note: Total funding 2010/11 includes draw-down from reserves holding prior year underspends

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback