Metropolitan Police Service involvement in Local Area Agreements

Report: 7
Date: 25 May 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report sets out the current position in respect of Local Area Agreements (LAA) as the phase 3 boroughs begin the planning process. In particular, the report sets out a series of issues identified as having specific implications for the MPS arising out of the LAA process. In accordance with the original request, this report contains the comments of the Authority’s own officers in respect of issues with significance for the Authority.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the report be note; and
2. the guidance to be given to borough MPS staff in relation to Local Area Agreements (LAAs) be noted.

B. Supporting information

LAAs: rationale and application

1. The information provided in this section is drawn largely from the various guidance notes published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) over the past year. Full details of these documents are given below (see background papers).

2. The ODPM prospectus for LAAs suggested that these agreements ‘will offer a real opportunity to improve the relationship between central and local government by providing a framework for sustained and informed dialogue between central and local government, and its major delivery partners’. These agreements form part of the Government’s 10-year strategy for local government. They must be seen in the context of national Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and floor targets and are to be outcome based.

3. LAAs are intended to be outcome focused locally developed strategies supported by clear indicators and targets in the blocks as defined but with an encouragement to identify crosscutting priorities to tackle those broader and longer term priorities. The guidance notes define an outcome as ‘a high level aim, reflecting national and/or local priorities for improvement’. Furthermore a target is defined as ‘a clear time bound milestone for achieving the outcome’.

4. The expectation is that ‘local authorities and their partners’ will negotiate the LAA with their respective Government Office. The primary responsibility for negotiating the LAA, together with the subsequent delivery of outcomes and performance management rests with the local authority operating through the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). The concept of the LAA has evolved from the earlier rounds of Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) which saw local authorities negotiate a range of targets against which a reward grant was set. From the outset it was intended that LPSAs should form an integral part of the LAA.

5. In line with Government manifesto commitments as part of a policy of developing the communication between central and local government, it has been agreed to continue the phased roll out of LAAs. This means that a further fifteen London boroughs will sign LAAs for commencement in April 2006 the remaining fifteen will sign agreements in April 2007. Together with the two pilot boroughs this will complete the roll out across the Capital. Full details of the pilot boroughs and the Phase II boroughs are contained in Appendix 1.

6. In June 2005, ODPM issued guidance for the second phase rollout. This guidance strengthened the requirement for local authorities, together with their LSPs, to ensure that consultation was sufficiently broad, bringing in stakeholders not currently within the LSPs. While there is a clear drive to extend consultation, it is worth emphasising that one of the aims of the process is ‘to streamline, simplify and integrate existing performance managements into one area-based framework’.

7. In the main the LAA outcomes are to be grouped into four blocks: Children and Young People, Safer and Stronger Communities, Healthier Communities and Older People and Economic Development and Enterprise. As part of the ongoing development of these agreements, a number of ‘high performing’ boroughs have been identified as ‘single pot’ boroughs. In these areas – as the name implies – funding will be received as a single sum that must be distributed across the full range of priorities that fall within the scope of the local authority and its partners. A key feature of the single pot is that there is no requirement to group outcomes or funding streams into the four blocks previously identified. However, where a particular funding stream carries mandatory outcomes these will need to be included in the single pot LAA.

8. Guidance also indicates that second generation LPSAs will be negotiated as part of the LAA. Although the LAA will not of itself be based on the notion of stretch targets, where an LPSA is negotiated within it, there will be targets attracting pump-priming funding to achieve stretch, ultimately attracting a reward grant if reached or exceeded.

9. Reward grants will be based on twelve priorities to which negotiated outcomes will apply. According to guidance, these priorities must be ‘the most important priorities for improvement locally’. The guidance does not then specify the mechanism for assessing the criterion of importance. It remains to be seen whether, in the light of the apparent success and ongoing rollout of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme, there will be a tendency to identify community safety priorities within these twelve priorities comprising the reward element. The LAAs will invite applications for freedoms and flexibilities sought by the partnership reflecting particular local needs or the requirements of specific and innovative projects.

10. Particularly relevant to the MPS, and the Authority, is the Safer and Stronger Communities (SSC) Block. Again, turning to the ODPM guidance, the purpose of this block is ‘to help partners [to address] priorities around crime, drugs, anti-social behaviour, improving public space, making public services more responsive, empowering local communities…and encouraging greater active citizenship’. The SSC Block carries mandatory outcomes relating to reductions in crime and harm caused by illegal drugs, reassurance and anti-social behaviour, together with empowering local people to influence local decision making.

11. While the SSC block is clearly broad ranging in its application, it is necessary to be aware of the implications of the other blocks for the MPS and its CDRP partners. To take one example, the Children and Young People’s Block is required to take account of the Every Child Matters programme, one element of which is to ‘stay safe’. This is an area in which specific outcomes affecting the police and its partners may be set or there may be scope for the sort of crosscutting outcomes that the Government is keen to encourage in the LAA process. Such opportunities for cross-cutting priorities may be found throughout the four blocks.

Experience of the pilot LAAs

12. In total there were 20 pilot LAAs nationally, of which two were in London. These were in the London Borough of Greenwich and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. ODPM has published a full evaluation report covering all the pilots and have used the findings to create an LAA Toolkit. It should be noted that the pilot agreements began in April 2005 and the evaluation report appeared two months later. As a consequence the evaluation deals almost entirely with the negotiation and development phases rather than the delivery stage.

13. It is necessary to point out that a number of the pilots were in two-tier authorities, reducing the value for guiding London boroughs. The evaluation report further recognised the broad range – from ‘very good’ to ‘surprisingly weak’ – among the pilots, at the same time noting that ‘the evidence base is generally implicit and difficult to judge’. The identified strengths include the integration of local and national priorities, while for the obverse it notes that ‘details for funding, indicators and targets are often lacking sufficient detail’. A potentially important conclusion relates to the need to recognise that each LAA will need to reflect the diversity of local authority areas, there is not a one size fits all model.

14. The evaluation report concludes that the ‘LAA process has the capacity to help to build stronger and more effective partnerships’, and has begun to strengthen LSPs. However there is a divergence relating to the perceived achievements of LAAs ranging from the government offices, which tend to be more enthusiastic and positive than the pilots, and with the local authorities which are more optimistic than partners about the achievement of LAAs. This may be accounted for simply in terms of the knowledge of the aims of LAAs and their potential benefits which will take time to reach all those concerned. With this in mind, it seems that a proper assessment of LAAs will need to wait for at least two to three years. In addition, as a number of people have suggested, the first round of agreements will necessarily be fairly tentative and will be subject to revision in due course.

15. It has been suggested in the pilots that the LAA process leads to an increase in the number of partnership meetings without there necessarily being a tangible increase in the benefit. For those boroughs where the MPS is already properly engaged with the LSP this may not appear to have a significant impact on existing practice. In one case it was felt that with the local authority and the LSP driving the process the opportunity effectively to influence the agreement was to some extent limited. In addition, it was felt that real change would only be effected through the reallocation of mainstream funding. For one pilot borough the impression is that the LAA has had little or no impact on community safety funding or on crime reduction.

16. In the early stages of the LAA process pilots have also noted that there is an inherent reluctance among some partners to pool funding. This reticence stems from a concern about the ability of the respective partner agency to meet its own commitments, upon which it continues to be measured, without full control of the resources at its disposal. An example of this might be found in the willingness or otherwise of a chief officer of police to pool the Basic Command Unit (BCU) Fund. In this context some partners preferred to align funds rather than pool them. The consequence of which is to acknowledge the contribution made be a particular agency through the given funding stream while allowing that agency to retain full control over the funding. There is a sense in which this runs somewhat contrary to the spirit of the LAA.

17. London pilots have noted the need to appoint an LAA lead for the BOCU, not necessarily the borough commander. Furthermore it is necessary – as the evaluation and subsequent toolkit suggest – to ensure that there is a strong project management regime within the partnership. It is possible to see in this a parallel with the recent Audit Commission report on the management of partnerships which also emphasised the need for strong and clear leadership in partnerships.
18. With regard to potential barriers in the process, one London pilot highlighted the apparent inability to bring forward funding from subsequent years where there is a requirement for additional spending in the early stages of the project. A similar difficulty is identified in terms of the restrictions relating to carrying over funding surplus.

Implications for the MPS

19. The main issues arising out of LAAs for the MPS may be summarised as follows:

1. Arrangements to safeguard funding for community safety activities, in particular, crime reduction initiatives within the context of pooled funding.
   This may be illustrated with reference to the Basic Command Unit Fund (BCUF). As the ODPM guidance indicates this funding stream may not be pooled centrally. In other words it will not be part of any combined funding pot going out to the boroughs. However, it may be pooled locally at the discretion of the borough commander and with the approval of partners and the Government Office which is required to sign off any spend plan. It is clear from Phase 2 agreements that boroughs are taking different views in respect of this issue and there is a desire to retain the freedom – where appropriate – to align rather than pool this funding. There is a need to conduct some corporate analysis of the agreements; this is in hand through the TP partnership team.
2. The extent to which LAAs accurately reflect the MPS contribution to achieving outcomes that are not directly and exclusively crime and disorder related, in other words, those outcomes under the headings other than SSC.
   This relates to the possibility that the police contribution may become implicitly restricted to the ‘Safer and Stronger Communities’ block. While this is clearly the main focus of police activity, contributions will be made under each of the other blocks. An example may be provided in the work of schools officers who combine a more traditional role with an element of (citizenship) education. Likewise the thirty MPS Cadet units comprising 900 young people engaged in a range of positive activities should be reflected in LAAs under the Children and Young People block.
3. Implications for the Service in relation to the inflexibility of commitments connected with reward grant targets made over the lifetime of an LAA.
   The issue here is not new territory for the MPS, which has been actively engaged in a range of partnerships, within which specific commitments have been a common feature, for many years. The reason for raising the issue here is to note that LAAs, as a result of the breadth of consultation and engagement they aspire to, coupled with the decisions associated with the distribution of any resulting Reward Grant, will necessarily create additional pressures in respect of the contributions of key agencies including the police. These features of the agreements create an imperative for the MPS and arguably the Authority to be closely involved in the negotiation of draft agreements both locally and centrally.
4. Balancing corporate needs in the context of locally shaped partnership agreements.
   In a sense this point is an extension of the previous issue. The LAAs are intended to be locally designed. However they must also acknowledge the wider duties of key partner agencies. While it is clear that the mandatory indicators under the Safer and Stronger Communities block are based on PSA 1 and 2, there is a need to ensure that other targets and priorities – particularly where these attract a reward grant – do not distract from the crime reduction priorities.
5. Requirements to provide corporate guidance/policy in respect of LAAs. This includes policy for boroughs as well as agreements between the MPS, MPA and GOL in relation to negotiation and ongoing monitoring of agreements.
   The various issues raised highlight the need for a corporate MPS policy on LAAs. To date the aim has been to offer guidance in the form of workshops and presentations. These have been delivered jointly and individually by the MPS, MPA and GOL. A workshop has been booked for the fifteen Phase 3 boroughs on the 27 of June. By which time these boroughs will have begun the negotiation process but will not have draft agreements. It is intended then to develop more formal policy based on the usual process of consultations and drawing on the experiences of the existing LAA boroughs. The aim would be to publish a policy with Standard Operating Procedures in April 2007.
6. In addition to the matters outlined above, it is necessary to bear in mind that alongside the phase 3 agreements now in the early stages of negotiation, there is the process of refreshing those agreements made to date. This process is covered by guidance from ODPM and will be the subject of further corporate guidance.

Implications for the MPA

20. The role of the MPA in the pilot boroughs and Phase 2 boroughs has not been as robust and standardised as that of other key LAA stakeholders. This is partially due to lack of guidance specific to the MPA as a stakeholder. The MPA does have a clear stakeholder position due to its statutory role as a relevant authority on the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership. In addition, the MPA maintains its corporate role to ensure an efficient, effective and fair police service. This means there are direct implications for the MPA overseeing the engagement, delivery and outcomes of the MPS within LAAs. It is here that there are real opportunities for the MPA to ensure that MPS corporate policy is developed with associated standards that allows for there to be a clear pan London overview of the delivery outcomes of LAAs for the MPS. This corporate policy should also reflect consideration for MPA key priorities such as race and diversity implications of LAAs and community engagement.

21. There are also immediate specific areas of focus for the MPA now within Phase 3 boroughs. There is a need for the MPA to advocate at CDRP level to ensure that the key community safety strategies are reflected in the Safer and Stronger Block of the LAA. The MPA is also in a position to identify and negotiate for where associated reward grants should be allocated to those strands of work. There is a role for the MPA to ensure that MPS work remains focused on core MPS business in the context of partnerships. Further, the MPA should lobby for recognition of MPS contributions across the four blocks of the LAA, in addition to the reward grants that are allocated to these strands.

22. Finally, the MPA as a pan London Authority is in the position to lobby to Government and seek clarification on policy and the legislative implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 review findings, now embodied in the Police Justice Bill. As yet it is unclear how these proposals impact on LAAs.

C. Race and equality impact

1. Local Area Agreements will be subject to the same challenges as any other initiatives that depend on broad consultation and engagement. The lessons being learned through the CDRP audit and strategy process as well as through the Safer Neighbourhoods implementation are of value in this regard. It is essential that boroughs consult widely within their communities in drafting the LAAs. This will need to continue as the agreements are refreshed each year.

2. Outcomes expressed in LAAs will need to take account of the diverse need of communities within communities. In this context it will be important to ensure that funding streams are appropriately directed taking account of the needs of relatively small sections of the community. It will be the responsibility of GOL to monitor the Race and Equality impact across the boroughs. However an aspect of MPS corporate monitoring should include the Equality Impact Assessment where the outcome relates to policing and community safety.

D. Financial implications

1. There is an impact in terms of partnership meeting time which is acknowledged within the LAA pilot evaluation report. The bulk of this will fall to borough commanders and BOCU partnership leads. It is emerging good practice for the borough commander to nominate an LAA lead from within the Senior Management Team.

2. As outlined above, the agreements contain a reward grant element – in effect incorporating the former LPSA process. There is greater freedom in terms of the selection of reward grant targets than under the LPSA system. However, guidance indicates that it should relate to ‘the most important priorities’, although guidance does not provide criteria for assessing the relative importance. In addition to the reward grant based on the success achievement of targets, there is the related issue of pump priming moneys available to achieve stretch targets. There is a need to ensure that both pump priming and reward grants are appropriately distributed among the agencies contributing to the achievement of the targets. From the phase 2 boroughs, this appears to be attracting a variety of responses and should perhaps by a subject addressed through corporate guidance/policy.

3. A fundamental feature of LAAs is the ability or encouragement to pool funding; an original objective being to simplify funding. This pooling may take place centrally or locally. Notification has been given as to the funding streams that are pooled centrally and those which may be pooled locally. The Basic Command Unit Fund (BCUF) falls into the latter category. However an alternative to pooling funds is to align them. This means that funding is allocated in accordance with LAA priorities but the allocation remains the task of the recipient agency – the police in the case of BCU fund. There is a dual responsibility arising out these arrangements: on the one hand, those within boroughs charged with responsibility for financial management need to have a clear understanding of the process and where specific responsibilities fall in relation to funding; and on the other there is the requirement to ensure that those projects currently benefiting from funding do not get lost in the broader LAA process. It is intended to address these issues through the guidance and policy being produced by the MPS.

E. Background papers

• Local Area Agreements: Guidance for Round 3 and Refresh of Rounds 1 and 2, March 2006
• The Local Area Agreement Toolkit,  June 2005
• A process evaluation of the negotiation of pilot Local Area Agreements: Final Report, June 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Alfred Hitchcock

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Phase II Boroughs

The Following fifteen boroughs will be required to negotiate Local Area Agreements for commencement in April 2006:

• Barking and Dagenham
• Brent
• Camden
• Croydon
• Enfield
• Harrow
• Hounslow
• Islington
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Kingston
• Lewisham
• Redbridge
• Tower Hamlets
• Waltham Forest
• Westminster

Of these boroughs the following six will be classed as ‘single pot’ LAAs:

• Brent
• Croydon
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Lewisham
• Westminster
• Kingston

Pilot boroughs

• Hammersmith and Fulham
• Greenwich

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback