Scrutiny report - Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

Report: 10
Date: 30 January 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

This report shows the findings of the scrutiny on the MPS contribution to and effectiveness in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs). It also considers how best the MPA could fulfil its forthcoming statutory responsibility in CDRPs. Members are asked to support the recommendations made in the report on the latter point.

A. Recommendations

1. That members note the attached scrutiny report and agree recommendations 1 to 30.
2. That members agree the recommendations made with regard to the forthcoming MPA involvement in CDRPs (recommendations 32 and 33), subject to budget being made available to implement them.

B. Supporting information

1. In February 2002, members of the former Professional Standards & Performance Monitoring Committee agreed to choose CDRPs as the next scrutiny topic. The scrutiny panel included 8 members and was co-chaired by Cindy Butts and Richard Sumray. The project started in April and was completed in December 2002.

2. An executive summary and a list of the 35 recommendations made are attached in appendices 1 and 2. The full draft report has been circulated to members and is available on request.

3. The scrutiny focused on the MPS’ contribution and effectiveness in CDRPs across London. It looked at the staff and financial inputs made by the MPS in CDRPs, at CDRP partners’ satisfaction with the MPS, at CDRPs’ structures and membership and at the barriers to delivery encountered by CDRPs.

4. When conducting this scrutiny, the panel also considered how the MPA could best fulfil its forthcoming statutory responsibility in CDRPs. The 2002 Police Reform Act made police authorities ‘responsible authorities’ in CDRPs. Responsible authorities have the duty to jointly formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in each borough, along with other responsible authorities. The MPA has to implement its new role by April 2003.

5. The panel considered different options for the MPA involvement. The report makes recommendations on how the MPA could best fulfil its statutory responsibility in CDRPs. The Authority’s agreement on recommendations 32 and 33 is sought before the report is published.

6. Members should be aware that recommendations 32 and 33 enable the MPA to fulfil its statutory role. If those are not agreed, alternative ways to fulfil this responsibility will be required. Recommendation 33 supports recommendation 32 and provides members with staff to support them in their involvement in their link CDRP(s).

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no identified equality and diversity implications outside those highlighted in the scrutiny report.

D. Financial implications

The implementation of the recommendations made in this report has significant cost implications, both for the MPS and for the MPA. The MPA Finance Committee and the full Authority have agreed to include in the draft 2003/04 budget submitted to the Mayor a sum of £238,000 to implement the recommendations made with regard to the MPA involvement in CDRPs.

E. Background papers

Draft scrutiny report

F. Contact details

Report author: Claire Lambert, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Executive summary

This report gives the findings and recommendations from the MPA scrutiny on the contribution the MPS makes to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and the effectiveness of this contribution across London.

The MPA decided to carry out a scrutiny in this area as members had heard differing reports of the effectiveness of CDRPs and felt the Police Authority could provide useful assistance in improving performance across London. Secondly, the 2002 Police Reform Act made police authorities ‘responsible authorities’ in CDRPs. From April 2003 police authorities will have the same role in CDRPs as the police forces and the local authorities. Hence, by conducting this work on CDRPs, the MPA also sought to establish the best means by which it could fulfil its forthcoming statutory role.

The scrutiny panel collected evidence from a wide range of individuals and organisations, using a variety of methods: postal questionnaires, face to face interviews, and hearing sessions during which individuals were invited to talk about their experience in front of the panel.

As well as listing examples of good practice made by the MPS in CDRPs, this scrutiny report makes a number of recommendations. It is difficult to assess the performance of the MPS in CDRPs in isolation from other partners, but the recommendations focus mainly on the MPS’ contribution, this being the area over which the MPA has responsibility.

The main findings of the panel are as follow:

MPS contribution to CDRPs:

The input of MPS officers in CDRPs varies widely across boroughs. The turnover of MPS officers involved in CDRPs is too high and these officers rarely receive any training to develop their ability to work in partnership. The lack of devolution of resources does not enable borough commanders to contribute financially to their CDRP. It was also felt that partnership work is not high enough on the MPS agenda, and that it is not fully endorsed by all ranks within the MPS. Overall, the is a need to set minimum standards for the MPS’ contribution to CDRPs. The panel is aware of the importance of local flexibility and these minimum standards are not intended to further control the MPS’ involvement, but to ensure greater consistency across CDRPs.

Working with partners:

Barriers to effective partnership work were brought to the attention of the panel. Statutory and non-statutory partners are not equally committed to crime and disorder reduction. Partners’ ability to share data and information is limited, and concerns around data protection need to be addressed to enable effective partnership work to take place. Notwithstanding the aforementioned weaknesses and frustrations, CDRP partners at local level are overwhelmingly satisfied with their working relationships with the MPS officers involved in their CDRP. In addition, having multi-agency and joined-up police local-authority community safety units helps overcome the cultural differences between partner agencies and reduces the barriers to data and information sharing.

Structures and membership of CDRPs:

Some CDRPs encounter difficulties in finding an effective structure, and the structures they adopt rarely favour accountability and ownership. Community and voluntary sectors representation in CDRPs is weak. CDRPs should benefit from further joint-work with Drug Action Teams and Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels.

Reducing crime and disorder:

The panel found that setting up priorities and targets generates tensions within CDRPs. Consultation with the local communities upon these priorities is not always representative. Disorder and anti-social behaviour are not addressed as much as serious crime. The bidding system by which CDRPs gain grants to finance crime and disorder reduction initiatives was found to be time consuming, disparate and lacking in flexibility. Doubts were widely expressed by CDRPs regarding the extent to which they reduce crime and disorder. CDRPs find it difficult to evaluate and monitor their progress.

MPA forthcoming responsibility:

Many CDRP partners are not aware of the MPA’s forthcoming statutory role in CDRPs. CDRPs have requested help on the matching of national, London-wide and local priorities and targets, the provision of data and monitoring of performance. Help has also been required in sharing best practice, and CDRPs would like better co-ordination of the pan-London agencies involved in the field of CDRPs. Many agencies, especially the Government Office for London (GOL), are involved in this area and the MPA is keen to avoid duplication of work.

Key recommendations are made regarding MPA involvement in CDRPs. The needs of CDRPs are felt to be best addressed by having MPA members sitting on the CDRPs of their link borough, and by recruiting a team of MPA staff dedicated to CDRPs to support MPA members.

Appendix 2

List of the recommendations

Recommendation 1:

Borough commanders should nominate an officer at inspector rank or above to be dedicated to CDRP issues in their BOCU. The responsibility of this officer should include conducting and co-ordinating all projects on community safety and crime and disorder in the BOCU on the borough commander’s behalf.

Recommendation 2:

The MPS should carry out a review on how tenure can be improved for the key officers involved in CDRPs (borough commanders, BLOs, and dedicated officers). The scrutiny panel recommends that a minimum tenure be established for borough commanders.

Recommendation 3:

The MPS should develop mechanisms to enable effective succession planning for borough commander’s positions, including proper handover and potential shadowing.

Recommendation 4:

A superintendent should be nominated as the borough commander’s deputy for CDRP matters in each BOCU to enhance the continuity of the MPS’ contribution to the CDRP when the borough commander is unavailable or changes position.

Recommendation 5:

The MPS should explore opportunities and structures to develop the skills, responsibilities and career progression of police officers conducting CDRP work. The National Competency Framework could provide help on this matter.

Recommendation 6:

The MPS should set clear guidance on the roles and responsibilities of officers working in CDRPs, and should develop appropriate minimum standards.

Recommendation 7:

One corporate-level unit within the MPS should keep an overview of partnership work. The head of this unit should remain an officer of ACPO rank.

Recommendation 8:

The corporate community safety and partnership unit in the MPS should define its aims and objectives to include collecting and disseminating good practice on the MPS’ contribution to CDRPs, and bringing forward partnership work within the MPS. This unit should have an advisory, supportive, and proactive role to MPS officers at all levels with regard to their work with CDRPs, and should be able to demonstrate the contribution it makes.

Recommendation 9:

The corporate community safety and partnership unit should set up a mechanism to monitor, compare and contrast the MPS’ input in, and contribution to, CDRPs across London. It should work jointly with GOL where appropriate when undertaking this task.

Recommendation 10:

Working with the MPA and GOL, the MPS should develop and maintain a comprehensive central database of all CDRP strategies, targets and performance. This should also be used to inform local and HMIC borough inspections.

Recommendation 11:

Training courses should be developed for MPS officers involved in CDRPs, which reflect their needs. These courses should cover the following: working in partnership; transforming data on crime and disorder into useful information; problem solving on crime and disorder; and other partnership issues as appropriate. These courses should also provide officers with the skills they need to carry out the MPS’ roles and responsibilities in CDRPs, which recommendation 6 requires the MPS to define.

Recommendation 12:

That the MPA considers as high priority allocating annually an additional £40,000 to £50,000 to each BOCU for partnership work.

Recommendation 13:

The training for officers joining the MPS should include information on partnership work, how the MPS benefits from and contributes to it, and how individual officers can contribute to it when conducting their daily activities. Officers’ awareness of positions in local authorities’ community safety units should also be raised. This training should be supplemented by borough induction courses.

Recommendation 14:

The MPS should link centrally with other London-wide agencies including GOL to set up minimum standards and guidance on data sharing in CDRPs.

Recommendation 15:

All CDRPs should have a protocol on information sharing with the relevant partners. This protocol should be based on the corporate guidance and minimum standards that should be developed as a result of recommendation 14. This protocol should also detail the purposes of data and information sharing and how that information will be used by the CDRP. It could also detail what data and information should be shared and by which agencies. Commitment to confidentiality and data protection should be made clear by all partners to enable mutual understanding and to ensure that the objectives of data sharing are achieved.

Recommendation 16:

The MPS should include in its IT strategy measures to improves its IT capabilities with regard to the collecting and sharing of data on crime and disorder and for mapping crime hotspots.

Recommendation 17:

If project LION itself proves to be unworkable, an alternative should be developed.

Recommendation 18:

Local authorities’ Community Safety Units should take responsibility for supporting all multi-agency projects and partnership work with a community safety element, including the CDRPs, Drug Action Teams and Youth Offending Teams.

Recommendation 19:

Consideration should be given to joined-up and co-located police and local authority’s Community Safety Units. Where MPS officers dedicated to multi-agency and partnership work are in post, they could be located in such joint CSUs.

An evaluation of the two models (co-located and non co-located police and local authority CSUs) should be carried out.

Recommendation 20:

As part of its new statutory responsibility in CDRPs, the MPA should develop good practice case studies on CDRP structures to be distributed to all CDRPs in London. This task should be conducted jointly with the MPS corporate community safety and partnership unit.

Recommendation 21:

As part of its new responsibility in CDRPs, the MPA should encourage each CDRP to have in place appropriate performance monitoring arrangements for its strategy.

Recommendation 22:

Local CDRP strategies and their implementation should be co-ordinated with the work of the LSP and other partnerships in the borough so that appropriate recognition is given to the CDRPs’ priorities.

Recommendation 23:

Each CDRP should find appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that the communities and key voluntary organisations are represented in the partnership. The MPA should assist in helping to fulfil this aim, including helping to identify appropriate community representatives.

Recommendation 24:

The MPS central support and co-ordination unit for MAPPPs should devise a corporate framework within which links between CDRP and MAPPP in each borough can be formalised. The framework should be flexible in respect of accommodating local needs and also include systems to monitor, evaluate and feedback any identified best practice.

Recommendation 25:

The MPA should establish a process and publish timescales for CDRPs to show how local CDRP, force and national policing plans fit together. The MPA and MPS should be transparent to CDRPs in respect of how objectives are set and how these relate to local crime and disorder issues.

Recommendation 26:

The MPA policing plan should include a section on local anti-social behaviour and disorder and should encourage the setting of local targets in this area, within a corporate framework.

Recommendation 27:

The MPA should develop good practice consultation guidance for CDRPs to improve representative community consultation.

Recommendation 28:

The MPA recommends the problem oriented policing model as good practice for boroughs and CDRPs. It recommends that the MPS evaluate how the model works in those boroughs where it has been implemented and considers how it can be developed for use in all London boroughs.

Recommendation 29:

The number of funding streams should be reduced so that less time and effort is spent in completing numerous funding applications. Funding streams should be transparent, co-ordinated under one central government department and should give CDRPs enough flexibility to set their own initiatives under the funding and appropriate timescales. To facilitate long term planning, funding streams should have a minimum life of 5 years. The MPA supports the Home Office in its work to simplify the funding arrangements.

Recommendation 30:

CDRPs should have dedicated analytical capability to assist in the audits, the consultation exercises, the development of strategies and the monitoring of targets. These CDRP analysts should be supported by the MPS centrally through the provision of crime and disorder data and interpretation to assist in evaluation of CDRP initiatives.

Recommendation 31:

The MPA should provide CDRPs with information on its overall roles and responsibilities. It should also ensure that all CDRPs and pan-London agencies understand the reasons for its involvement in CDRPs and how it will fulfil its statutory obligation.

Recommendation 32:

MPA members should sit on the board of their link CDRP(s). To ensure a consistent approach across London, the MPA should establish minimum standards relating to the MPA link members’ role on CDRPs.

Recommendation 33:

A team of MPA officers should be created. Its responsibilities would include supporting MPA link members’ involvement in CDRPs, assisting CDRPs in consulting with their communities, and collecting and disseminating examples of good practice across CDRPs. This unit should work closely with other pan-London agencies and help to address CDRP needs at a strategic level.

Recommendation 34:

To avoid duplication, the MPA should ensure that it understands and takes account of other pan-London agencies’ roles in CDRPs when undertaking its new responsibilities.

Recommendation 35:

The MPA should ensure that the key agencies with an input in CDRPs at a pan-London level co-ordinate their actions and agree on a common way forward.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback