The London Race Hate Crime Forum

Report: 7
Date: 31 January 2008
By: the Chief Executive

Summary

• This report discusses the work of the London Race Hate Crime Forum (LRHCF), which was set up and is hosted by the MPA, and has been mainly funded by the MPA. It asks Members to decide how the work should be taken forward from 2008 onwards.
  It suggests five options for consideration, all of which can be achieved within budgeted resources of c £85,000 for 2008/9. The options regarded as most viable are :-
• Retain the existing Forum, revise its constitution and governance to make it more accountable to the MPA, and develop a forward work programme to reflect the MPA’s interest in other forms of Hate Crime.
• Undertake the scrutiny of race and other hate crime into the MPA’s staff organisation as core business, retaining the involvement of the present partners as an advisory panel.
• Relaunch the present Forum as a new London Race Hate and Hate Crimes Forum with a commensurate wider scope, and with clearer accountability to MPA.

The Authority is asked to decide on a preferred option as the basis for further work.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Authority decide on its preferred option for the future from options A to E set out below;

2. Chief Executive consult existing partners in the course of developing detailed proposals to give effect to the preferred option; and

3. further and firm proposals be reported to Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board (EODB) for approval.

B. Supporting information

1. The London Race Hate Crime Forum (LRHCF) has been in operation since 2004 as a multi agency partnership. It aims to help reduce and prevent race hate crimes, improve the confidence and satisfaction of victims in reporting crimes, and to promote consistent service across London. It seeks to improve co-ordination between the key agencies responsible for dealing with victims of race hate crime and to improve the effectiveness with which perpetrators of race hate crimes are brought to justice.

2. At its inception LRHCF committed to undertaking a scrutiny of each of the 32 Boroughs and BOCUs. By the end of 2007 the LRCHF had completed that initial programme of scrutiny.

3. Apart from the MPA, the only other body to provide funding for the LRHCF since 2003 has been GOL, but that funding ceased in 2006/7. Despite efforts by the Chair of Forum, Peter Herbert, none of the statutory partners in LRHCF have offered financial support or any tangible contribution in kind such as staff secondment. In 2007/8 the MPA is the sole funder of LRHCF. The estimated cost for 2007/8 is £79,000 covering two staff members who are employed by MPA on fixed term contracts, and core administration costs. There is provision of £85,000 in MPA budget for 2008/9 to cover those costs on a continuing basis if the MPA decides to maintain its support.

MPA responsibilities in relation to hate crime

4. The MPA’s responsibilities in relation to race hate crime derive from a number of legislative sources, the main ones being summarised in Appendix 1

5. Other legislation (Housing Act 1996, Young Persons Act 1998, Children and Young Person Act) reinforces the responsibility of local partnerships to positively address problems of harassment and anti-social behaviour, among others.

MPA methods for oversight and scrutiny

6. The MPA currently has a variety of methods of fulfilling its oversight and scrutiny role in relation to MPS performance, including:

1. Scrutinies: these are major MPA examinations of key areas of MPS performance, usually led by business Units within the Corporate Development and Strategic Oversight Directorate. Current Scrutinies include Talent Management and Succession Planning and Crime Recording Data Scrutiny.
2. Audits: these are major inspections of key areas of MPS performance led by Internal Audit as part of its statutory functions.
3. Mini-reviews: these are reports requested from the MPS by MPA Committees on either specific areas of activity or on a particular Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs) or Operational Command Units (OCUs).
4. Control Strategy Meetings (CCSM): these are MPS performance management meetings to which the MPA is invited which using COM Stat, analyse MPS performance.
5. Multi-agency scrutiny activity: these are performance-focused meetings organised by the MPA examining an area of key interest e.g. the Race Hate Crime Forum, the MPA Domestic Violence Board (DVB) and the Stop and Search Review Board and Community Monitoring Network.

The London Race Hate Crime Forum

7. The MPA was instrumental in the formation of the London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum (LRHCF) as a multi-agency partnership of statutory and not for profit organisations that play a key role in responding appropriately and effectively to racist crime. The Forum was launched in May 2003 and started work actively in 2004.

8. Responding strategically to recommendations from the Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, the Forum was intended to be a multi-agency partnership working to establish a consistent and effective approach to dealing with cases of race hate crime by statutory and voluntary agencies, and to influence service providers and the criminal justice system. The establishment of the Forum was a landmark event in the capital and the first of its kind in Europe.

9. Over 20 organisations were originally involved in developing the Forum’s terms of reference, its aims and objectives. The core aims of the RHCF are to:

1. Improve the co-ordination between the key agencies responsible for dealing with victims of race hate crime;
2. Improve the effectiveness with which perpetrators of race hate crime are brought to justice;
3. Support the reduction and prevention of race hate crime;
4. Improve the confidence and satisfaction of victims in reporting crimes; and
5. To promote consistent service across London.

10. The Terms of Reference of the Forum and details of its current membership are at Appendix 2. Mr Peter Herbert is currently the Chair of the LRHCF.

11. When founding the LRHCF, the MPA was advised that it would operate independently and that the cost of its activities would be borne by partners, with a contribution from the MPA of the order of £30,000 a year. In the event, other partners (with the exception of GOL) have not delivered financial support, and the funding of the forum has been provided largely by the MPA. In the current year 2007/8, the MPA alone has provided funding, to the order of c£80,000. GOL made grants over three years but was unable to continue support in 2007/8. Other partners have made non-financial contributions, such as the GLA which hosted an international race hate crime conference for the Forum in 2005.

12. The LRHCF has presented its previous annual reports to EODB. The Annual Report for 2006/7 is not yet finalized. For ease of reference, the report from the Forum Chair to EODB on 12 July 2007 is at Appendix 3.

13. The LRHCF, in partnership with AGIS Reducing Hate Crime in Europe Project, commissioned independent research from Essex University, to examine the LRHCF structure with the view of establishing the LRHCF structure and method of scrutiny, as a good practice vehicle, which could be adopted in those European countries the Probation Service and AGIS have targeted. The research was completed and identified four specific elements as the drivers for the success of the LRHCF. These include:

1. Preparation and audit
2. Presentation and performance
3. Challenge and critique
4. Action and support.

14. The Forum is a unique partnership that has worked as such for over four years. Nothing like it exists elsewhere in the UK, in light of the history of UK racial murders and crimes. This is of itself an achievement. In addition, the work of the Forum fits with Articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, read together with article 14.

15. Some of the other major achievements of the LRHCF have included:

1. To publicly scrutinise of all 32 boroughs on their initiatives and work around race hate crime
2. Establishment of the Hate Crime Coordinators Group – a network of local authority hate crime co-ordinators
3. Organising an International Conference on race hate crime in November 2005 at City Hall attended by over 150 people
4. Ability to connect high-ranking chief executives and borough commanders with the reality of victims’ experiences and get them to set agreed action plans
5. The experience to form a model interactive strategic body to tackle race hate crime that can be exported to other parts of the country and beyond. The Home Office has noted the model of the RHCF and is exploring using it as a basis for scrutinising and monitoring race hate crime in Northern England
6. Proactively requesting all London boroughs to produce a response in the event of a terrorist incident a full 12 months before July 7 2005 which may well have contributed to reduce hate crime in the aftermath of terrorist incidents in London as compared to other parts of the UK
7. Support of the Heartsone Project: this is a photographic project using images of racist graffiti as a discussion learning tool for young people.
8. The Chair and Project Officer of the Forum visited Atlanta USA in 2007, as guests of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to share expertise on hate crime and gave evidence to the Georgia legislature in respect of establishing hate crime law. The visit also facilitated discussions on internet hate crime and exchanged information and knowledge with the US Department of Justice.

16. Though it is not possible to demonstrate a direct causative effect the Forum has had in the rise in sanction detection rates of race hate crime (increased from 18.3% to 35.2% in 2007), anecdotal evidence would suggest that the Forum operates as a catalyst for positive change. It remains one of the persistent challenges for the LRHCF to demonstrate that as a result of its interventions it has added value to the work of MPS boroughs and local authorities.

17. Statistical data indicate that the levels of race hate crime are falling. There is debate about the reliability and robustness of this data; in addition, if there has been a fall, it is unclear what are the key causative factors. There are still issues of under-reporting to be addressed. Information suggests that only 1 in 20 incidents are reported.

18. The Forum has been described as a body that is ‘MPA-led’ rather than ‘MPA-owned’. This ‘independent’ status affords the Forum some manoeuvrability in terms of responding to issues. However the Forum is now entirely funded by the MPA: salaries and on-costs for the project, Project Manager and Project Assistant are met in full by the MPA; the LRHCF is supported by the Equalities and Diversity Unit; is line-managed on a day-to-day basis by the Head of Equalities and Diversity Unit (HEDU); and can fully access all business Units within the MPA. The perception of it not being MPA owned may actually work against the Forum from time to time by depriving it of the ability to claim the full authority of the MPA in its work.

19. The focus of the Forum, at its inception, was on race and faith hate crime. Over the last 2 years, it has also examined homophobic hate crimes as part of its scrutiny process. It has not as yet considered disability hate crime in any real depth but the last few scrutiny meetings in 2007, have included data and information on disability, following the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The 2006-2007 Annual Report also refers to issues for those experiencing hate crime due to their disability and the work recognised as required to develop the business in this area.

20. There are potential opportunities for the activities of the RHCF to link up and feed into some of the major MPA and MPS corporate initiatives and change programmes. This potential may be more fully realised if there is clarity about the status of the Forum vis a vis MPA.

21. There has been a lack of clarity about the process for organisations to become Forum members, and, as stated above, there is so far no readiness by statutory organisations in membership to provide resources to support and advance the LRHCF’s agenda. Apart from support-in-kind, the only financial assistance received by the RHCF from other statutory agencies (other than GOL) was £15,000 from the GLA to support the International Conference in November 2005. Some of the support statutory agencies could provide include:

1. Funding to support the Forum’s work and activities
2. Provide greater leadership and input on its work programme
3. Ensure that representatives are of sufficiently high status to make and affect decisions emanating from the Forum
4. Commit to the Forum in terms of attendance or arranging suitable representation
5. Ensure effective contributions to the Forum and not merely take information away
6. Ensure that information they do take away is disseminated throughout their organisation.

Options

22. The MPA Senior Management Team tasked the Head of Equality and Diversity to carry out a review of the work of the Forum and the views of existing stakeholders, to inform the SMT’s judgement. This report draws on that review, but the particular options identified are the responsibility of the SMT. Looking to the future, there appear to be five broad options for consideration.

23. The Chair of the Forum was invited to comment on the options at a draft stage of this report. His comments are inserted below in italics.

OPTION A: WITHDRAW MPA SUPPORT FOR THE LRHCF

24. In this option, the LRHCF, having completed a scrutiny of all boroughs, would be disbanded unless another statutory partner comes forward to host and fund the work. A four-year cycle of borough scrutiny has been completed, and EODB could henceforward maintain routine oversight and scrutiny of MPS performance, but there would be no formal multi agency scrutiny mechanism. There would almost certainly be adverse reputational impact for the MPA and the MPS, along with a risk of loss of trust and confidence amongst BME communities. There would be a risk that a reduced level of visible scrutiny could result in lowered focus from MPS on race hate crime performance. There would also of course be no meaningful scrutiny of local authority performance or of the performance of other partners, and a reduction in the support for local authorities with their action plans.

25. The financial implications would be savings of between £90K in the MPA budget, to be reallocated to other priorities.

26. The equality implications would be a weakening of the ability of MPA to demonstrate it meets its legal commitments under various heads of equalities legislation. Disbanding the LRHCF could be expected to cause concern amongst communities as well as key partners and stakeholders.

27. While it seems right to identify this option for consideration, it clearly has little to commend it. Whilst acknowledging the limitations and areas for improvement for the RHCF, dismantling it at this time – and not filling the vacuum with an appropriate replacement scrutiny/review/oversight mechanism – would be likely to cause concern amongst Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities and a potential loss of community confidence.

Forum Comment

The suggestion to disband the Forum would be a false economy to both the MPA and the wider community. For the MPA this would mean an alternative means of ensuring the MPA met its legal obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and for the community there would be a significant impact in terms of the seriousness with which hate crime offences are regarded and policing monitored. The cost calculations of each incident of hate crime, based on calculations from GOL, equates to £5,122 per incident. An estimated cost of hate crimes to the Metropolitan area in 2006-2007 is £52,651,468.00 based on 9,962 offences. This figure could be easily doubled based on what we know about the under reporting of hate crime and also does not include cautions/warnings etc. that do not proceed to court, neither does it cover those cases that do not progress to court or where there insufficient evidence to go to trial.

OPTION B: CONTINUE TO FUND THE EXISTING LRHCF AT PRESENT LEVEL

28. This option, in effect to maintain the status quo, is identified but not commended. The LRHCF has completed its initial programme of borough-based scrutinies. A decision is needed now by partners in any event how to build on that work and develop a programme of scrutiny for the future. Thus status quo, in terms of function, is not open. Moreover, assuming the MPA remains the only willing funder of the Forum, it is entirely appropriate - and necessary - to revisit the constitution, purposes and working methods of the Forum to ensure that there is proper accountability to the MPA and that the expenditure produces value for money for the MPA.

Forum Comment

The Forum has completed its initial scrutiny of boroughs in order to establish a base line of borough partnership activity in relation to hate crime. It recognises that this is where some of the real work needs to begin in terms of influencing policy more directly and performing more detailed analysis of what works.

The Forum has been accountable to the MPA EODB in reporting back on its business successes and challenges throughout its 3 years. There should be no question about the Forum demonstrating value for money? This is particularly where boroughs are now reassessing and revising their hate crime strategies and requesting support from the Forum.

There is a great deal of expertise in the current Forum staff and membership. This puts it in best placed to move forward from the initial scrutiny and to expand its knowledge and work more closely with other units within the MPA. Some discussions have already commenced with the Engagement and Partnership Unit officers (who to some extent have already been involved for some time) to take lead to ensure that hate crimes remain on borough agendas. Boroughs are asked, at the time of their presentation, to develop action plans that incorporate the advice given following the identification of issues of concern through the scrutiny process. The on-going work of the Forum would involve a review of borough strategies and action plans to ensure the advice has been captured in the development of local policy. EPU officers would be an integral part of this process and the Forum would identify a select sub group to meet with boroughs (in their own location) where issues of concern are apparent.

OPTION C: RECONSTITUTE THE RHCF AS AN MPA OWNED SCRUTINY PARTNERSHIP

29. In this option, the existing LRHCF would be maintained as a multi-agency partnership, while recognising that as long as the MPA is the sole funder, then there has to be effective accountability to the MPA. So in this model, the LRHCF would be ‘re-badged’ as an MPA-owned initiative and would be revamped in terms of its review and scrutiny functions, constitution, terms of reference and buy-in from key stakeholders. The MPA would highlight its responsibility to monitor and scrutinise MPS performance, and maintain an oversight role in relation to activity by local authority partners. The LRHC Board would maintain its principal focus on race hate crime but would be expected to actively develop its interest and processes to cover other forms of hate crime, over a period of time. The staff team supporting the LRHCF would become part of the MPA permanent staff (in the Equalities and Diversity Unit or the Oversight and Scrutiny Unit) and the LRHC Board and Executive would operate with a clearer line of accountability to the MPA.

30. The advantages of this option would include maintaining momentum from the previous work and learning, while providing opportunities for further development in practice and scope. It would be relatively straightforward to maintain, and enhance, relationships and good practice with police and local authorities. It would resolve issues of ownership and accountability of the LRHCF.

31. The disadvantages would be possible friction with existing partners as the role and remit of the work changed, and from the need to refocus the primary work of Forum, given the four-year borough scrutiny cycle has been completed. There is an assumption that if the remit of RHCF is widened it will provide a more effective focus for hate crime scrutiny and performance, but this is as yet untested and there is a risk that broadening the scope of the work may weaken the impact of the current single focus on race hate crime.

32. Financially, this option would be neutral, requiring no more or less resources than currently budgeted. Any future development requiring additional resources would be the subject of a business case in the budget process for 2009.

33. In regard to equality Implications, it may lead to better partnership working between RHCF members, and to increased trust and confidence amongst BME communities.

34. As long as the MPA is the sole financial supporter for the LRHCF, then it has an opportunity under this option to use its leverage to direct the work of the Forum, whilst acknowledging the views of its partners. If this option is pursued, there are a number of important details that would need to be settled, in consultation with partners:

• Decide on the parameters of the Board (Race hate crime? Faith hate crime? Homophobic crime? Disability hate crime?)
• Formally agree terms of reference and constitutional rules for the new LRHCF ratified by MPA members.
• Clear procedures for nomination and appointment to the Board .
• Agree priorities, objectives, lifespan and resources for RHCF.
• Levels of representation and decision-making abilities of Panel members.
• Service level agreements with statutory agencies
• Agreed level of expectations with local authorities and voluntary agencies.
• Agree annual review of LRHCF by MPA members.

Forum comment

The Forum would positively support this option as it would deliver a comprehensive service, linked with CPS, MPS and other statutory partners.

The Forum has brought on stream the local authorities as part of the scrutiny process. No other area of the business has been able to engage with local authorities in this way. This should be recognised by the MPA and its members.

In terms of the expansion of its remit, the Forum has already begun this process over the last 2.years and has engaged with the MPS LGBT IAG, external LGBT groups, in exploring issues of Homophobic crime and giving consideration to hate crime and its impact on young people through its engagement with the London Councils. The area where no substantial work has taken place has been around disability hate crime, although there has been involvement with the EDU in relation to disability workshops with the Disability IAG that took place during 2006-07.

If the remit of the Forum were to be expanded, bearing in mind the time taken for the initial base-line assessment to be completed, how realistic is it to expand the remit further without giving further consideration to how the current staff will be expected to manage the expansion of the remit. We question what support would be afforded from other areas of the business? An expansion of the parameters of its remit would be somewhat unrealistic without extra resources, in order to be seen not to marginalise other areas of hate crime

OPTION D: DIRECT AND MANAGE THE SCRUTINY AND OVERSIGHT FUNCTION OF RACE HATE CRIME PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ENGAGEMENT & PARTNERSHIP UNIT OR THE CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT AND OVERSIGHT UNIT

35. In this model, scrutiny and oversight would be mainstreamed within MPA scrutiny and performance management activity, reporting to EODB and PPRC. The work would be pursued between meetings of the Panel by liaison with the MPS through its Crime Control Strategy meetings (CCSMs). BOCU and local authority performance would become part of the responsibility of the Engagement and Partnership Unit who would support link members to ensure that race hate crime is prioritised within CDRP agendas as a means of exerting influence over partnership action. The LRHCF would be reconstituted as an Advisory Panel for MPA, meeting in private on a quarterly basis.

36. The advantages could include opportunities for mainstreaming race hate crime activity and wider learning across all MPA programmes, and in local partnerships; and stimulating high level MPS ownership through CCSMs which have an overt focus on performance. It is also possible that meetings held in private would be conducive to a more robust and open dialogue with MPS and other partners.

37. The disadvantages include loss of expertise if existing RHCF staff leave; possible weakening of oversight if there is dependence on the CCSM-model, as this is MPS-led, and lacks public scrutiny and accountability.

38. Financial Implications are, again, most likely to be broadly neutral in the short term, though there will be scope for economies resulting from fewer meetings of the advisory panel and in the longer term there may be scope for staffing savings if the monitoring activity at corporate and BOCU levels can be effectively integrated with other performance management duties.

39. As regards equality Implications, this model may lead to broader understanding and ownership across the MPA, and more intensive involvement of link members in borough level action plans. If work is led by EPU, it may be will provide an opportunity for MPA to exert a degree of visible leadership at borough level as well as regionally. BME communities may perceive the loss of visible profile of the present LRHCF adversely.

Forum comment

This option, suggesting the Forum becomes an advisory function for the MPA means it will have no power or authority. This would be a backwards move and would undermine the achievements and support gained from the wider community. There would be no access to victims of hate crime and the Forum would become a ‘Talking Shop’. The membership is likely to fall away and cease to be a decision making body.

The suggestion of meetings taking place in private and not maintaining a level of open accountability would further undermine the Forum achievements and would lose its ability, as has been evident, to engage with community based organisations, reflecting on and feeding back community perspectives. This would create substantive dialogue only with the MPA and MPS and reduce the engagement and transparency with the communities concerned. If meetings with statutory bodies are held in private, there would be a need to sanitise any information/discussions that take place if they are shared with the wider community. This would undermine the trust and the expectations of the public and have a negative impact on the good work and relationships established over the last few years.

It is equally doubtful whether the involvement by MPA Members will increase. Many attempts have been made over the years to ensure members are kept informed and included in the process. This includes being invited to attend scrutiny meetings. Very few have taken up the opportunity to engage and the few that have engaged, have taken the challenges made to boroughs as personal criticism rather than a useful process for Members to follow up in their day-to-day borough engagement (not withstanding Member commitments). The exception to this was the excellent work done by John Roberts in relation to the borough of Lambeth both prior to at the borough presentation.

OPTION E: TRANSFORM THE LRHCF INTO AN MPA RACE HATE AND HATE CRIMES FORUM (RHHCF)

40. Over the past two years, the MPS has produced a number of hate crime strategies in relation to Violent Crime, Serious Crime and Youth. Yet, outside of the formal committee structure, the MPA has no formal mechanisms for monitoring and overseeing the progressions of these strategies, nor measuring their impact on MPS performance at central or borough levels. In addition, the syngergies and outcomes between all these crime strategies and the MPS Single Equalities Scheme has been challenging for the MPS to successfully demonstrate and the MPA to accurately assess. There is an opportunity to meet this need by widening the sphere of activity of the LRHCF.

41. Under this model, a new multi agency body designed to cover all forms of hate crime would replace the existing LRHCF. It would be tasked to examine, monitor, scrutinise, review and oversee MPS performance, performance management, strategies, systems and policy development of race hate and hate crimes, including (but not limited to) disability hate crime, faith hate crime, homophobic crime and crimes against ‘vulnerable people’ including children and older people (elder abuse). Its work would include an examination of the MPS’ contributions to CDRP/LAA responses to hate crime at borough-level.

42. The new MPA RHHCF would seek to build on the legacy of the RHCF by creating an open, transparent and publicly accountable scrutiny mechanism, which supports and challenges the MPS’ delivery of hate crime policy, strategy and performance. In keeping the ‘race hate’ element in its title, the MPA would be acknowledging the significance of the founding of the LRHCF and its past achievements, retaining its ‘laser-like specificity’ on race hate crime, whilst responding to the challenges of successfully policing hate crimes in the 21st century. It is proposed that the MPA RHHCF retains a (realigned) multi-agency approach will be supported by the activities of the HCCG that will enable information from local authorities to contribute and inform MPS practice.

43. Through the MPA RHHCF (as per the MPA Domestic Violence Board), responses and representations on behalf of the MPA would be made to both local and central Government.

44. Permanent staff in the Equalities and Diversity Unit within the Corporate Development and Strategic Oversight Directorate would provide staff support for the new Forum. (Subject to normal processes, the existing support staff for the RHCF would be given opportunity to be assimilated into new posts to support the new Forum). Data analysis will be provided by the Planning and Performance Team, and links will be achieved with the Engagement and Partnership Unit who will provide “eyes and ears” at borough level and who will support link members in keeping hate crime on CDRP agendas.

45. The new Forum would report to EODB and PPRC. Either CoP or full Authority will make strategic decisions. The existing sub groups of LRHCF, in particular, the Hate Crimes Co-Coordinators’ Group would continue, subject to review over time. The new MPA RHHCF would meet quarterly, and a meeting of the HCCG would precede meetings.

46. As with option B above, it would be necessary to undertake consultations with existing partners and stakeholders in order to settle terms of reference, a constitution and an agreed modus operandi for the new RHHCF.

47. In regard to equality and diversity Implications, the new RHHCF would demonstrate the commitment of the MPA to tackle the variety of hate crime suffered by different communities, with no diminution of engagement with race hate crime. The new RHHCF would be able to request, access and provide (limited) support to both MPS and local authorities race hate crime action plans, continuing the work done by LRHCF. It would assist the MPA to meet other equality duties and directives in relation to disability, faith, belief and LGBT issues. It would also support the delivery of actions set out in the MPA Generic Equality Scheme and assist progress towards Level 3 of LGES.
48. Financial Implications. In 2008/9, assuming fewer meetings of the new RHHCF than the present body, it should be possible to establish the new Forum and develop a substantial programme within the budgeted resources. Part of the work to be done during year 1 would be the development of a business case for any additional resources for 2009 onwards.

Forum comment

The name change proposed for the Forum (RHHCF) if it were to remain and if the remit were to expand, is likely to be unnecessarily confusing. If the remit was to change and the Forum is re-launched, it would be more appropriate to shorten its name to the MPA Hate Crimes Forum (HCF). This may have implications for the community in terms of the thinking that race/faith hate crime has lost the ‘specificity of focus’, It would therefore require the clarity in its terms of reference to reassure the wider community and our partners that this is not the case.

The current Forum officers have been involved in the examination, monitoring, scrutiny and review of MPS performance, both locally and centrally. The Forum has contributed to the MPS Hate Crime Strategy and Standard Operating Procedures. The close working relationship, which exists between Forum officers and members of MPS VCD, has enabled a level of openness that has supported the scrutiny process.

An expansion of its remit to include vulnerable people and children and elder abuse, would be setting the Forum up to fail by raising expectations where the Forum is not required to deliver. This would form a huge remit where there is a fundamental difficulty with problem identification.

The Planning and Performance Team already work with the Forum in supporting analysis of data. Discussions have already taken place with EPU officers in terms of local accountability and hate crime remaining on the agendas for CDRPs.

In terms of the frequency of meetings, the Forum would hold no more that 6 meetings and no less than 4 meetings per year. Urgent and emergency meetings should be left for the Forum to decide.
It is important to remember that the Domestic Violence Board was set up on the learning gained from the Forum.

Conclusion

49. This report has outlined the options for members to decide as to the best way of managing, scrutinising and overseeing race hate crime performance.

50. As the current oversight and review mechanism, the LRHC Forum has had notable achievements over the past four years. There is however an undercurrent of views that the concept of the Forum needs refinement, without detracting from its uniqueness. For its part, the MPA has to strike a balance between maintaining the existing forum – which no other statutory partner is willing to fund – and using its resources to best effect across the range of community needs and in this case in particular the needs of other minority communities suffering hate crimes.

51. The issue of resources has to be factor in making this decision, but it should not be the determining factor. Other issues should be taken into account such as community trust, confidence, cohesion and reassurance, diversity, equality, partnerships, performance management and the best types of strategic intervention that can be made by the MPA.

52. The status quo is not truly an option, for reasons outlined above. Nor is disbanding the Forum a credible option, given the likely adverse community reaction and impact on confidence.

53. None of the other options described above are necessarily definitive – more work needs to be done on them and variants could emerge. At this stage however, Members are asked to indicate their preferred way forward as a basis for further development of specific proposals. The choices presented by Options C, D and E are essentially:-

3. to retain the existing Forum, revise its constitution and governance to make it more accountable to the MPA, and develop a forward work programme to reflect the MPA’s interest in other forms of Hate Crime. (This is the option favoured by the Chair of the Forum);
4. to take the scrutiny of race and other hate crime into the MPA’s staff organisation as core business, retaining the involvement of the present partners as an advisory panel;
5. to transform the present Forum into a new London Race Hate and Hate Crimes Forum with a commensurate wider scope, and with clearer accountability to MPA.

54. Form should follow function – and once the MPA decides the shape, nature, role and resources to undertake and consistently deliver its scrutiny, then an informed judgement can be made as the specifics in terms of staffing complement and location to drive the scrutiny work forward. At present, two staff are engaged in supporting the existing Forum on fixed term contracts due to expire in April 2008. Depending on the option preferred as the way forward, and having regard to the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, it is unlikely that the MPA could justify continuing to employ staff on FTA’s. So there is a possibility that existing staff may be assimilated into permanent posts but more work will be required to identify the staffing requirement and develop or refine the job descriptions and person specifications, according to the preferred way forward.

C. Race and equality impact

The equality implications of each of the options have been outlined in the relevant sections above.

D. Financial implications

The existing draft budget provision for 2008/9 is £85,000. All of the above options can be achieved within that level of resource. Option A would yield savings to be redeployed to other priorities.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

MPA Responsibilities relating to Race Hate Crime

1. The core duty to secure an effective an efficient police service for London;

2. The duty under section 404 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 to have regard to the need—

1. to promote equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion;
2. to eliminate unlawful discrimination; and
3. to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.

3. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a requirement on local authorities and the police, together with other key agencies and the community, to work together at borough level to develop, implement and monitor strategies for reducing crime and disorder in the area. Section 17 of the Act places a duty on all to ensure that crime and disorder issues is reflected in all policies and strategies.

4. There are a number of relevant articles under The Human Rights Act 1998, which have a direct impact on dealing with race hate crime.

5. The following Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Recommendations provide drivers for the work of the Forum:

• That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms.
• That Codes of Practice be established, to create a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes.
• That all possible steps should be taken by Police Services and other agencies and local communities to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes.
  • That there should be close co-operation between Police Services and local Government and other agencies.
  • That ACPO, in consultation with local Government and other relevant agencies, should review its Good Practice Guide for Police Response to Racial Incidents.
  •  That the MPS review their procedures for the recording and retention of information in relation to incidents and crimes.
  •  That Police Services and Victim Support Services ensure that their systems provide for the pro-active use of local contacts within minority ethnic.
  •  That Police Services should develop guidelines as to the handling of victims and witnesses, particularly in the field of racist incidents and crimes.
  •  That Police Services and Victim Support Services ensure that their systems provide for the pro-active use of local contacts within minority ethnic communities.
  •  That Police Services and the CPS should ensure that particular care is taken at all stages of prosecution to recognise and to include reference to any evidence of racist motivation.
  •  That in creating strategies under the provisions of the Crime & Disorder Act or otherwise Police Services, local Government and relevant agencies should specifically consider implementing community and local initiatives aimed at promoting cultural diversity and addressing racism and the need for focused, consistent support for such initiatives.

Appendix 2

THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE LONDON RACE HATE CRIME FORUM

4.1 Effect policies, protocols and processes that will contribute to the effective and efficient implementation and monitoring of performance of the Race Hate crimes “aspect” of the Crime and Disorder Audits.

4.2 Support the development of strategies by the local partnerships at a Pan London level.

4.3 Engage with key central Government departments and pan London agencies to secure agreement to a pan London Protocol for responding to and dealing with race (and other) hate crimes at local partnerships.

4.4 Secure the agreement among key agencies, pan London and locally, for the sharing of personalised and depersonalised information in order to satisfy agency responsibility under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

4.5 Co-ordinate and disseminate good practice examples in dealing with race (and other) hate crimes across the key statutory and voluntary agencies in London.

4.6 Provide policy and guidance to local Crime and Disorder partnerships in their dealings with race hate crimes.

4.7 Continuously monitor and review the learning gained from developments on race hate, to inform the development of policies, protocols and practices on race hate crime. Ensure racists identified by original agency (MPS) are tracked through the system i.e. Police, courts, prison service to probation.

4.8 Proactively establish relationships with other stakeholders, central Government departments and pan London agencies to ensure that learning is devolved to local borough level.

4.9 In consultation with Ministers, central Government departments, the Association for London Government (ALG), Government Office for London (GOL) and other key agencies, develop protocols and agreements that would hold the partnerships accountable for the delivery.

Co-ordination of implementation and performance monitoring of race hate strategies.

4.11 Influence emerging and published legislation, policies and practices to ensure the “London dimension” is taken into consideration at all stages of all developments. – This will require the active participation of members of the London Race Hate Crime Forum to represent the views of the Group in a range of situations.

4.12 Development of a co-ordinated approach to dealing with Race Hate crimes across London.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE FORUM

Criminal justice agencies

• CPS London
• London Court Service
• London Probation Service
• Metropolitan Police Authority
• Metropolitan Police Service
• Prison Service

Other statutory agencies

• London Councils (formerly Association of London Government)
• Department of Education and Skills
• Greater London Authority
• Government Office for London
• Housing Corporation

Community and voluntary sector organisations

• Black Londoners Forum
• Board of Deputies of British Jews
• Circle 33
• Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) soon to be Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR)
• Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR)
• Hindu Forum
• National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO)
• Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
• Refugee Council
• Searchlight
• The Monitoring Group
• Three Faiths Forum
• Victim Support London (VSL)

Appendix 3

PREVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORT OF LONDON RACE HATE CRIME FORUM 2006/7

Report from London Race Hate Crime Forum

Date: 12 July 2007
By: Chair of the Race Hate Crime Forum

Summary

The purpose of this report is to introduce the London Race Hate Crime Forum (RHCF) Annual Report for 2006 - 07 and to provide members with an update of progress in its third year. The report highlights the importance of the RHCF, its work and how it links with business areas of stakeholders, legislative changes and the Home Office commitment to address hate crime. The report also shares the current crisis situation in respect of the sustainability of the RHCF.

A. Recommendation

That
1. Members note the report

2. Members give feedback to inform the RHCF Annual Report

3. Members consider what support can be afforded to sustain the work of the RHCF.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The RHCF was established in response to recommendations 15 to 17 of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report and commenced its formal business in May 2004.

• The aims of the RHCF are to:
• help reduce and prevent race hate crime, improve the confidence and satisfaction of victims in reporting crime and to promote consistency of service delivered across London.
• improve the co-ordination between the key agencies responsible for supporting victims of race hate crime and the effectiveness with which perpetrators of race hate crime are brought to justice.

3. The work of the RHCF makes a significant contribution to the focus work by the MPS and local authority partnerships in addressing hate crime. In doing so, the RHCF acts not only as a body that scrutinises partnership activity, but also facilitates a consultancy relationship in supporting boroughs to meet the expectations of the Equality Standard for Local Government (ESLG) in respect of hate crime. The ESLG has been developed primarily as a tool to enable local authorities to mainstream age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation into council policy and practice at all levels. It is a voluntary Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) with councils reporting what standard they have reached (there are five levels).

4. The RHCF membership consists of the MPA, MPS, statutory organisations and other voluntary agencies in London including:

• Board of British Jews (BBJ)
• Commission for Race Equality (CRE)
• Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
• Government Office for London (GOL)
• Greater London Authority (GLA)
• Home Office (HO)
• London Councils (LC)
• London Probation Service (LPS)
• Muslim Safety Forum (MSF)
• NACRO
• Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
• Youth Justice Board (YJB)

5. In addition, Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs), Race Equality Councils (RECs) and Victim Support across boroughs are invited to engage with the RHCF to ensure representation from the victim perspective is included as part of the scrutiny process.

MPA key priorities

6. The MPA, through the Equality & Diversity Unit , has a number of major objectives in 2007. Those relating the RHCF include:

• supporting, challenging and enabling improved performance and monitoring in relation to race, faith and homophobic crime.
•  working with borough partnerships to explore how the needs of disabled people in relation to hate crime can be addressed.

7. In its third year, the RHCF has held presentation meetings with nine borough partnerships. Where possible, representation from the local community perspective has informed the process.
These nine borough partnerships include:

• Ealing / Enfield – 17 May 2006
• Merton / Waltham Forest – 19 July 2006
• Wandsworth – 20 September 2006
• Bexley / Haringey – 22 November 2006
• Bromley / Richmond – 27 March 2007

Other activities

8. The Annual Report will share the activities of the RHCF outside of its formal presentation and business meetings. This has included:

1. The Good Practice Paper, agreed in the previous year (2005 – 2006), which sets out an action plan to assess good practice initiatives in London. This was shared with the London Probation AGIS (Attorney General's Information Service) Reducing Hate Crime in Europe Project. The Probation Service, via AGIS, operates in 5 European areas to address issues of race hate crime. The Good Practice Paper was submitted on the basis of identified criteria that could be used to measure projects or programmes submitted by the London Boroughs. It is hoped that the criteria will eventually be agreed with the London borough partnerships, as a means of assessing successful programmes of work.

Research

9. The RHCF, in partnership with AGIS Reducing Hate Crime in Europe Project, commissioned independent research from Essex University, to examine the RHCF structure with the view of establishing the RHCF structure and method of scrutiny, as a good practice vehicle, which could be adopted in those European countries the Probation Service and AGIS have targeted. The research has been completed and identifies four specific elements as the drivers for the success of the RHCF. These include:

• preparation and audit
• presentation and performance
• challenge and critique
• action and support.

Probation Conference

10. The RHCF took part in the London Probation and Reducing Hate Crime in Europe Project Conference on 21 June 2006. The Project acknowledged the support from the RHCF in making the event a success. Recommendations from the Conference will be included in the Annual Report. The RHCF model is seen as invaluable, with the next step being to take the model into Europe.

Support and Advice

11. Several boroughs have requested additional support from the RHCF following presentations in terms of developing their action plans. The Annual Report is currently being finalised to ensure it reflects fully the work and achievements of the RHCF over the year and will highlight concerns and issues that have emerged as well as areas of good practice.

12. The Annual Report will acknowledge the support of the MPA, MPS, other statutory partners and voluntary agencies in enabling the RHCF to carry out its borough scrutiny.

13. The Annual Report will highlight how the RHCF has worked with other partners and make a number of recommendations in relation to improvements and considerations for partnership working, data collection, the sharing of information, third party reporting and issues for engagement with voluntary groups. Other partners include:

• the GLA Black and Minority Cracking Crime Board
• London Councils Local Authority Race Equality in Education and Ethnic Minority Achievement Network
• the Youth Justice Board
• the MPS in relation to community tension monitoring and hate crime reporting within Kurdish, Pakistani, Turkish and Somali communities.

Future work

14. The Annual Report will consider a number of potential areas of future work that includes:

• the 2012 Olympic Games
• Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to improve communication between local borough partners and service providers in respect of hate crime
• combating hate crime in schools and the impact of government legislation relating to Every Child Matters, Change for Children 2004.

Focus of the RHCF

15. The Annual Report will reflect on discussions and challenges around the current focus of the RHCF’s work. Both the GLA and GOL have expressed a clear desire for the RHCF to maintain its specific focus on race and faith hate crime, but the report acknowledges there is more to be done to address other areas of hate crime and discuss a way forward to facilitate hate crimes that impact across other diversity areas.

16. The Annual Report will highlight improvements made by the CPS in relation to the prosecution of hate crime cases over the past three years and the systems being established to ensure hate crime remains high on its agenda. This includes input on faith hate crime in relation to Antisemitic hate crime and its increase in Europe.

17. The RHCF is keen to share examples of good and emerging practice not only from London but also nationally. As such, the Annual Report will reflect on information reported from boroughs on the process of presenting to the Forum, the lessons learned and provide information on good practice initiatives. In gathering this information, the RHCF has enlisted support from the Hate Crime Co-ordinators Group (HCCG).

C. Race and equality impact

1. Hate Crime and Equality Standards for Local Government (ESLG) is a best value tool for local authorities, which helps them ensure council policy and practice at all levels mainstream across all diversity strands: age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief/non-belief and sexual orientation. Therefore, borough performance is also measured in relation to its effectiveness in dealing with hate crime. Borough partnerships are expected to work within the equality planning process, participate in scrutiny and extend knowledge of the Equality Standard within the community.

2. The work of the Forum makes an essential contribution to this process, as it holds borough partnerships to account, makes recommendations for the development of local action plans and engages feedback from voluntary groups and the views of the wider community.

3. The size of the RHCF project team significantly reduces the range of work possible. The RHCF recognises the need to demonstrate equality of focus across all diversity groups and the requirements of both the MPA and MPS to meet the expectations of new legislation. The work of the RHCF has had a positive impact on borough partnerships in terms of being the catalyst for the focus on hate crime issues and for driving action in relation to boroughs reassessing their community safety action plans. Prior to RHCF involvement, some boroughs reported that they had not conducted research and data analysis of hate crime. The impetus for doing so was their preparation for presenting to the RHCF.

4. The current focus on race and faith hate crime excludes work around disability. In exploring this area of diversity, the Equality and Diversity Unit has held discussions to explore how disability hate crime issues can be included as part of the work of the RHCF. If the RHCF continues, we would include disability hate crime as an additional focus area by making appropriate links with disability advisory groups and organisations who can act as advisors in this area. The Annual Report will also make links with the work being done by the Domestic Violence Board and Stop and Search.

D. Financial implications

1. Members may wish to consider the uncertain future of the RHCF which is having a negative effect on the progress of any future planning. Funding has previously been granted from the GOL Home Office Directors Fund (HODA), with match-funding from the MPA.

2. The MPA has agreed to fund the RHCF until December 2007. The Chair of the Forum has been working extensively with the Forum Project Manager to secure funding from key statutory stakeholders who are current Forum members. In parallel to this, MPA members have requested a review of the Forum to consider their options in supporting this project at which point members will be asked their views as to whether to continue funding the Forum. Financial support provided to the Forum by December 2007 is in the region of £79K (pro-rata). This figure, however, merely covers salaries and does not reflect the additional on-costs, which are currently being met in full by the MPA.

E. Background papers

• Every Child Matters, Children Act 2004
• Disability Discrimination Act 2005
• The London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum: a model of good practice for ‘third-tier’ multi-agency partnerships  against race hate crime in Europe, 2006

F. Contact details

Report author: Bennett Obong, Race Hate Crime Forum, Equality & Diversity Unit, MPA

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback