Police Reform White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’

Report: 10
Date: 16 December 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report sets out a response to the police reform white paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ and outlines a submission on further consultation on reforms to existing partnership working arrangements. Together they amount to an expression of the strategic role the Authority wishes for the future.

A. Recommendation

That members discuss and agree

1. the response to the white paper; and
2. the proposed submission on the consultation over reform to partnership working arrangements.

B. Supporting information

1. The first phase of police reform started in 2001 focussing primarily on specific structural changes such as the introduction of PCSOs to increase reassurance, the creation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to promote public confidence, the DNA expansion programme and the creation of the Police Standards Unit to monitor performance at BCU level.

2. The current round of police reform has its roots in a public perception of rising crime despite record reductions, calls for greater accountability, the need for more customer satisfaction, concern over anti social behaviour and alcohol fuelled violence, and the need to embed the performance culture yet further. The Government’s white paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ sets out three primary aims

• Spreading neighbourhood policing to every community and embedding a genuinely responsive customer service culture
• Workforce modernisation to ensure the service is fully equipped to deliver these changes
• Greater involvement of the community and citizens in determining how their communities are policed.

These are set within the context of four interlinked, overarching themes, each mutually dependent on the others.

Roles and responsibilities

3. The role of the Government will be to

• set the national direction, strategic framework, priorities and targets
• provide resources and powers to tackle crime/anti-social behaviour
• protect public by intervening where demonstrable failure
• ensure coherence/consistency in policing practices/systems in national interest
• build confidence and empower people to keep their own communities safe.

Police authorities and chief officers are responsible for delivering effective, responsive policing to the communities they serve.

Role of the Police Service

4. The police service role

• should continue to be broad based, both to maintain legitimacy and increase trust and confidence with the public
• includes preventing/detecting crime and public reassurance
• must move towards more proactive, problem-solving, intelligence-led policing.

Partnerships

5 Crime and anti-social behaviour are not issues for the police alone. Effective partnerships are vital both

• locally with other criminal justice agencies, local government, health, children’s services, business, voluntary sector; and
• nationally with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Security Services

However, it is not simply a matter for criminal justice agencies. It is also about individuals and communities recognising their responsibilities and a shared undertaking with the police.

6. Future Direction of Policing

• Revitalised Neighbourhood Policing
• Responsiveness, customer service and community engagement.
• A new, modernised police workforce equipped to deliver on the challenges
• Effective links in policing from a local to a national level
• Clearer, stronger tripartite partnership.

Police authorities and Partnership Reform

7. In addition the white paper makes specific proposals relating to police authorities and seeks further consultation on twelve particular aspects of potential reform to CDRPs whilst emphasising the importance of local partnership working in combatting crime, anti-social behaviour and substance misuse. The aim is to ensure that CDRPs are the most effective vehicle for local community safety by reviewing the partnership provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 but they are proceeding on the assumptions that

• Police authorities will take account of local priorities when developing the policing plan
• Police authorities will secure implementation of the community engagement strategy
• Police and local authorities have a joint duty and will put in place arrangements to deliver a range of engagement opportunties and respond to concerns
• The statutory minimum requirement for information to households will be met
• CDRPs will oversee the delivery of neighbouhood level priorities agreed with communities

8. Taken together, the submissions will have a clear impact on the future role of police authorities but it is generally accepted that different approaches for different parts of England and Wales may be appropriate. The submission of the Authority on these issues amount to a statement of intention as to its future role. A fundamental question for the Authority is whether is ought to maintain its current position with regard to CDRPs or

• Assume the responsibilities of a regional body reflecting the national perspective and managing performance (if so, what added value does it bring over others such the Government Office for London or the Greater London Authority? Is such a position tenable given that the Authority is a statutory member of CDRPs?); or
• through link members, add to the regional role and support the move to localism and use the position of the Authority to offer leadership and facilitation.

8. Appendix A outlines a draft reply to Home Office proposals in the white paper. Appendix B sets out a proposed response to consultation on the revision of partnership working arrangements, in which the Authority takes on the latter, broader role.

C. Race and equality impact

The white paper proposes that police authorities should have a duty to promote diversity within police authorities and the police service. Our response welcomes and supports that proposal. Where the white paper considers improving the arrangements for community engagement we support that initiative in the knowledge that the CDRP team are already working with partners to improve BME participation at a local level. We also believe that a new approach to career development and multiple points of entry for the police service will not only help develop and better equip the workforce but will promote and encourage greater diversity.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct costs arising from this report.

E. Background papers

• Home Office white paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’

F. Contact details

Report author: Keith Dickinson, Head of Policing Policy and Partnerships

For more information contact:

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

Appendix A: MPA response to the White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority played a full part in the concept and introduction of the changes consequent upon the first round of police reform. We endorse fully the general thrust and direction of the changes contemplated in the white paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ but wish to add comment and emphasis in respect of several of the proposals.

Neighbourhood Policing and Responsiveness

2. Since its inception, the Authority has done everything in its power to improve relationships between the police and local people. We support fully any initiatives that help the move from ‘policing with consent’ to the active co-operation and involvement of local communities in tackling crime and disorder. We have supported such an approach by developing new ways of engaging with our communities and leading the way in the concept and deployment of both police community support officers and neighbourhood policing. The success of these teams is recognised at all levels, from the people who live in the wards to those who govern the city. Nonetheless, we accept that anecdotal evidence alone is insufficient and welcome the continuing development of Citizen Focus as a measure of police responsiveness.

Workforce modernisation

3. The Metropolitan Police Authority already has a duty to promote diversity by virtue of s.404 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The Authority takes its responsibilities under this duty very seriously and welcomes the extension of a statutory provision of provincial police authorities. The proposals to measure improvement in the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic, female and other under-represented staff are also welcome.

4. A new approach to career development and multiple points of entry for the police service will not only help develop and better equip the workforce but will promote and encourage greater diversity, equality and resonance with the public they serve. We recognise that the stated intention to equip police officers with the necessary leadership skills at all levels is a key element of workforce modernisation but given the existing levels of investment in training, it should be subject to rigorous, high level evaluation to measure its impact on the desired outcomes.

5. Notwithstanding any complementary training for police community support officers, we do not support any further extension to their powers, other than possibly, the right to search a detainee if there is a suspicion that he or she is carrying an offensive weapon.

6. The importance of the role that police authorities play in the appointment of ACPO rank staff is properly recognised and the proposal to extend this to include equivalent police staff is appropriate. However, this forward step is entirely negated by the proposal to limit the role of the Authority to consultee in the shortlisting process. For the MPA this means that the Authority will never actually appoint any members of the MPS Management Board. This proposal denies local people a voice in the nature and style of local policing and as such is strongly opposed. In practice the Commissioner is closely involved in the appointment of all ACPO ranks in the MPS. The Authority would see advantage in formalising this involvement by placing it on a statutory footing and giving chief officers a veto. But the process must continue to be owned by authorities.

7. In a similar vein, the appointment of an individual as the commander of a particular borough is a key factor performance and community confidence so it is an appointment on which police authorities should be consulted; we would therefore wish to be consulted about the proposed mandatory qualification for BCU commanders.

Greater Involvement of Citizens and Communities

8. The proposal for more responsive, citizen-focused policing services accords with the Authority’s own policies and supports it aim of change leading to continual improvement. As part of that we welcome the opportunity for communities to help us meet that challenge and see the provision of information to communities, about local policing, as a useful tool in helping to involve people in identifying areas for improvement.

9. Recognition by the Government of the role local councillors can play as advocates in relation to the concerns of local people about policing or community safety helps locate the wider responsibility for tackling crime and disorder in the heart of the community itself but we seek the opportunity to work with the police service and the advocates to agree protocols on how and the circumstances under which the community ‘trigger mechanism’ will operate.

10. Work the MPA is currently undertaking supports the proposals that answerabilities and scrutiny arrangements should be exercised collaboratively at neighbourhood, CDRP and police authority leve.l It is also proper that police authorities have responsibility for ensuring that robust mechanisms are in place with minimum bureaucracy. If called upon, we will support the national development of that work through our pilot sites.

Ensuring Effectiveness and Police Authorities

11. We concur with the view that the National Policing Plan should be more strategic and concise, and support the need for police authorities to reflect the five strategic outcomes more fully in their policing plans. As indicated above we promote constantly a performance culture within the MPS and will actively support the concept of minimum standards of information that all households should expect to receive, with an emphasis on the provision of local police performance. As part of this performance culture, we are pleased at the prospect of a clearer role for the Authority in holding the MPS to account and see the appraisal of chief officers as a key element which sets the tone for everyone.

12. Proposed changes to the councillor membership of police authorities will not necessarily strengthen them; indeed if the ability to select members on the basis of particular knowledge, skills or abilities is reduced, it may well weaken police authorities. The loss of magistrate members as a discrete entity will neither make it easier for people to understand the composition of police authorities nor raise their visibility. Recognition of the valuable role independent members play and their continued role on authorities should be extended to magistrate members.

13. We similarly believe that any restriction, which limits the right and freedom of a police authority to appoint the Chair, is inherently unfair. As with the appointment of council leaders and ministers, the personal qualities for such posts may be readily identifiable but cannot be sufficiently defined or measured as to be a reliable guide. The appreciation of such qualities can only be ascertained properly over a lengthy period of observation by a group of peers and for this reason we contest the merit of this proposal.

Conclusion

14. In summary whilst we see clear merit in most of the proposed changes, we urge re-consideration of the suggestions that

• The powers of PCSOs should be extended
• The role of police authorities in the appointment of ACPO officers and their police staff equivalents should be limited to consultation on the shortlisting of candidates
• The composition of police authorities should be altered (to the detriment of magistrate members)
• The appointment of the Chair of an authority should be subject to any externally based competency approval.

15. In respect of each of these proposals, the Metropolitan Police Authority would wish to engage in further dialogue to identify changes and improvements that will benefit both the police service and, ultimately, the public we serve.

Appendix B: MPA submission on proposals to reform The Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Are CDRPs the best vehicle for determining strategic priorities for community safety and delivering on them?

1. Crime and disorder problems are rooted in the community and are unique to that community. Workable, effective solutions must be found and delivered locally; a top down approach imposed at a local level is less likely to succeed than that which has local ownership and commitment. Thus a greater emphasis on localised priority setting is to be welcomed, especially as community engagement otherwise becomes superficial and ultimately pointless. The logical progression is for strategic priorities to be informed through the issues identified at a local level. To make this process effective, CDRPs must coalesce the priorities from all sources into a local community safety plan and agree any bespoke targets but it should not be skewed by an emphasis on any one set of priorities.

2. The MPA has a statutory interest in both the local and national priorities but no executive power or resource to deliver either. For that reason our role, as a CDRP partner, should be that of an impartial facilitator, prioritising and synthesising the issues identified locally and nationally. In this role we would translate agency targets into wider partnership targets and build consensus on the priorities taking into account the needs of Government departments, individual partners in CDRPs and the needs of the community. This would complement the duty of the Authority to ensure effective community engagement.

How should CDRPs be held to account and by whom?

3. This question can only be addressed on the premise that any CDRP will only be successful when there is

• a proper fit between the BCU plan and the community policing plan, and
• balance in the commitment of the partnership to national and local priorities.

Division in either aspect will harm overall performance. Bearing this in mind it is important to distinguish between ‘accountability’ and ‘answerability’. BCU commanders and CDRPs are quite rightly answerable to their communities on local performance but the BCU is accountable only to the chief officer, who in turn is accountable to the police authority. That balance should not be disturbed.

4. Presently CDRPs are overseen by the local Government Offices in terms of performance on national targets and, in some cases, locally by the LSP and through the representation of the local authority, to the community in that borough. Some CDRPs also have a process where progress can be reported and they can be held to account by the community. Islington, for instance, has regular roadshows around the borough and the community are invited to comment on crime and disorder issues.

5. However, neither Government Offices nor LSPs are a part of the crime reduction partnership and they are not in a position to manage the performance of CDRPs effectively or to hold them to account. Financial penalties and bad press are the only sanctions against ‘failing’ partnerships; these have negative connotations and are seldom used. Extra resources go towards partnerships on a need basis, not necessarily on the basis of effectiveness. This does not amount to effective performance management and the problem is exacerbated by the duality and potential divisiveness of the national/local approach.

6. There would be an unacceptable conflict of interest and lack of transparency if local authorities, with responsibility for executive action, resources, delivery and a vested interest in CDRP performance, were to hold themselves and other CDRP partners to account.

7. We see greater merit in a system that ensures common standards are defined, agreed and delivered across London so that the performance of all CDRPs is raised to the highest possible level. This is a role for which the Metropolitan Police Authority should be responsible. It is the only body which has

• statutory regional and local CDRP responsibilities
• membership of CDRPs
• no executive power, resources or responsibilities and thus no special interests
• experience of holding bodies to account on crime and disorder
• conducted a Scrutiny into CDRPs and is implementing the recommendations across London through its members and CDRP team eg model CDRP structures, best practice identification/exchange, Londonwide anti social behaviour strategy, strategy development and performance management etc.

8. As members of individual CDRPs, Link Members would be

• Facilitators, helping other partners reconcile national v local issues
• A critical friend to the CDRP
• An internal challenge on performance.
• A direct link into pan London policies and strategies

9. As a corporate body the MPA would fulfil a vital role in

• Performance managing CDRPs
• Holding the CDRP to account over performance (an extension of its existing role with the police service)
• Identifying and spreading good practice
• Using Londonwide policies to inform local strategies and vice versa
• Being a link between the national and local agenda.

10. In this context, the white paper proposal for police authorities to provide more and better information on policing should be extended to include information on CDRP performance as against strategy and targets. In terms of rewarding performance the Authority would allow greater self-determination over priorities and target setting in the local policing plan. Where there was room for substantial improvement the Authority would seek to support the CDRP with the offer of the assistance, such as an interim local delivery manager.

Should CDRPs be subject to inspection?

11. The only form of inspection at present is the self-assessment process. This is hurried and lacks transparency. As a result it is difficult to evidence what a successful CDRP looks like and what it is doing. Self-assessment should continue but layers of answerability should be built into the system

1. individual MPA members as a critical friend in their local partnership (an extension of their existing role).
2. the LSP
3. the MPA for performance management (the local policing plan cannot be divorced from community safety plan0
4. public consultation mechanisms around delivery against annual and 3 year strategy objectives and Local Area Agreements.
5. Statutory audit and inspection. We think joint inspections by the Audit Commission and HMIC coinciding with either BCU inspection or the local authority CPA would be the best approach.

This approach links with accountability and would provide evidence of how CDRPs are performing, which could encourage under performing CDRPs to allocate further resources, review their systems and structures to maximise the benefits.

How best should CDRPs engage and involve local people?

12. CDRP efforts around community engagement are often piecemeal, focussed solely on the audit and strategy consultation and currently fail to reach specific sections of the community. Consultation is still very much an agency initiative specific activity rather than a cohesive exercise. Police authorities have a duty to ensure effective community engagement arrangements and we support the view that this should happen within the context of the CDRP rather the police command unit. The MPA is planning to disband ineffective Police Community Consultative Groups; this will lead naturally into community engagement being undertaken through Community Panels linked into Safer Neighbourhood teams.

13. CDRPs must consult on the audit process and the drawing up of local priorities but only a few continue the engagement process throughout the life of the strategy. CDRPs should have a duty, complementary to that of police authorities, to set out their community engagement framework in their tri-ennial strategy. Police authorities can give guidance on this framework and subsequently ensure that a minimum standard is achieved. For example, the MPA could suggest the publication of annual reports on the outcome of community engagement.

14. Engaging the community, however, is only half of the solution to the problem; communities must know what action has been taken in response to their concerns and the impact it has made. Each CDRP must have the benefit of strong communication with its communities. We believe every CDRP ought to have their own communication strategy to promote their work. It could include Roadshows, open days, newsletters, websites, questionnaires and the Annual Report mentioned above, all of delivered under a single, identifiable CDRP logo.

15. There is a further opportunity to form true partnerships with the community by building on the concept of Safer Neighbourhoods and actively engaging them in crime reduction. For example, community involvement days, where as well as resources from various partners, members of the community are involved in specific projects. These are successful in not only making a difference locally but also engaging the community and keeping them engaged.

How do we get the right people round the partnership table in order to make a difference to delivery on the ground?

16. In general joint operational and tactical working is the best way to foster mainstreaming. Good practice should be promoted rather than introducing penalty regimes. There are several good practice ideas tested to this effect eg co-location of officers across agencies, joint strategies and action plans, pooled funding, multi-agency enforcement initiatives and joint tasking.

17. The emphasis must be on action centred CDRPs so the criteria for inclusion as a statutory partner should be based on defining the problems at hand and gaining understanding of the action partners and potential partners can take. On this basis the main omission seems to be transport authorities but more could be done to promote the role and purpose of the fire service and PCTs; they are relevant and bring important contributions and perspectives to the table. If police authorities were to perform a role of internal challenge, performance management and of holding CDRPs to account, a mechanism that enabled partners to challenge each other would be a significant step forward. Were it a statutory right and duty in the style of Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act, it would encourage all partners to take their responsibilities more seriously.

18. A complementary approach to Section 17 would be the introduction of joint performance indicators. These would be shared across CDRP partners and would encourage greater commitment in all agencies to tackling crime and disorder.

19. The involvement of regional assemblies, in addition to that of police authorities, would detract from the drive to localism by turning local policing problems into regional issues. This would be a retrograde step.

How can we improve the reach and impact of Section 17?

20. Section 17 should be strengthened to change the duty from “shall” to “must”. This will again make it easier to persuade reluctant partners to become involved. It covers local authority education departments but it does not cover head teachers. This leads to some opting out of the crime and disorder agenda; it is a major omission.

21. The adoption and execution of Section 17 by responsible bodies should be examined and audited in the same way as for the Race Relations Acts. The results should directly influence the CPA rating under the new Community Safety element. For example, each body should include in all reports, an assessment of the impact it will have on community safety, in the same way as they assess the report for its impact on diversity or finance.

Two Tier Working

22. Not applicable to London.

Should we compel merger of smaller District CDRPs to remove barriers to delivery?

23

 Whilst this issue does not affect the CDRPs in which the MPA is involved, within London there is talk of some of the smaller CDRPs across London being merged. This would not be a popular move and would detract from the value of ownership and localism that an effective CDRPs take pride in. Whilst it is accepted that there may be economies of scale, the sacrifice of a local approach runs counter to everything we are currently doing. The primary question must be “How can we best deliver local crime reduction for this neighbourhood?” - not this pair of boroughs.

How can we minimise the impact of partners’ different boundaries?

24. Most of the partners in London operate along, or at least recognise, boroughs as the natural boundary. This assists working at a local level. There is a difficulty in that below this level some local authorities have reorganised their services to work at ‘area’ level, which might encompass two or three wards. Ultimately it is a matter to be addressed locally but with the growth of Safer Neighbourhood teams, which are predominantly based on ward boundaries, there will be a natural focus on ward areas.

How can we ensure that CDRPs work effectively with LSPs, YOTs, LCJBs and the wider criminal justice system?

25. The London Crime Reduction Delivery Board acts as the lead mechanism for ensuring that all crime reduction activity across the London is joined up. Reports are heard from the London Criminal Justice Board, London Youth Crime Management Board, London Drug Intervention Programme, Prolific and Priority Offenders and from cluster meetings of representatives from the CDRPs across London.

26. The aim of this Board is to provide a voice for those operating at a pan-London, strategic level on Community Safety. There is a growing emphasis, from central government, on the role of the CDRP. As a result it was important to have a mechanism for coordinating this work across London.

27. Currently the management of YOTs and CDRPs sit alongside each other. Each have their own plans but they do take account of each other. Each also produces annual reports/plans, however, one reports to the Youth Justice Board and the other to the Home Office; each has a slightly different planning cycle.

28. At a Borough level the Chief Officers of the various agencies need to make sure that the different functions of the bodies are coordinated and complement each other. There is also a need to make sure that each of the strategies/plans of these agencies not only takes into account their crime reduction responsibilities but also contributes to the overall crime reduction strategy. Government departments should ensure that any templates or advice to these agencies to generate strategies, plans or reports specifically includes crime reduction.

29. Some boroughs do not have a separate Chief Officer Group for the YOT but use the CDRP system. Whilst there is not one structure that is currently recommended to coordinate this activity, the MPA, MPS and GOL about to start a research project to review current structures across London and make recommendations for improvements.

Drugs and Alcohol - has integration worked?

30. In most cases it has. In some boroughs the work of the CDRP and DATs has been merged or integrated. This has meant closer working between these two broadly similar agendas, which has led to smarter working, and delivery on their objectives. The existing framework should be maintained but CDRPs should not be forced to put undue emphasis on drugs issues. CDRPs bring strengths around prevention and rehabilitation rather than enforcement, though it may be some time before the real benefits of this is felt. Though DATS are on board, PCTs and their treatment services are generally not as integrated.

31. Further partnerships can be encouraged to integrate by demonstrating what systems, structures and mechanisms work and encouraging CDRPs to adopt those that meet their needs. Again, in London, we see the MPA as being ideally placed for this work.

Funding

32. The current system of grants to CDRPs and BCUs can work well, excepting issues of equity between boroughs. The main focus of change should be upon streamlining and reducing bureaucratic requirements of funding regimes. There are a number of examples in London of where boroughs have pooled different funding streams (NRF, BSC and BCU with local funds) to better coordinate and respond to crime and disorder issues. These boroughs will be ideally placed when local area agreements come in to place.

Data Sharing

33. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has published its legal guidance, “Public Sector Data Sharing: Guidance on the Law” in November 2003 together with other guidance on how the public sector should share information more effectively. Existing legislation and that guidance is sufficient for the purpose. The extent to which CDRP partners support and exploit the provisions should be an element of the inspection of CDRPs and of the individual partners such as for the CPA.

34. QUANTA data should be extended and developed to provide multi agency data reports. This would be similar to that of the LASS project at GOL and would provide a data warehouse for a minimum standard of multi-agency data sets against which partnerships can be measured.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback