MPA response to 'Time for Action'

Report: 6
Date: 4 December 2008
By: the Chief Executive

Summary

On 3 November 2008 the Mayor of London launched his youth plan ‘Time for Action’. The plan provides an opportunity to build on and develop existing projects and initiatives to tackle youth crime. It is a holistic response targeting a number of different risk factors concurrently. In taking forward the projects outlined in the plan the MPA will need to consider how the Mayoral plan relates to existing and upcoming MPS strategic frameworks.

A. Recommendation

That Members endorse this paper as the Metropolitan Police Authority response to the Mayor’s ‘Time for Action’ plan.

B. Supporting information

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) welcomes the Mayoral ‘Time for Action’ plan. The Mayoral proposals are well-timed and correspond with similar frameworks recently launched by the MPA and the Government. It is particularly pleasing that the focus of the Mayoral plan is to provide young people with opportunities which can help to address the ‘poverty of aspiration’ amongst a small minority of young people.

2. The MPA recently undertook a youth consultation which looked at the causes, effects and impacts of young people's involvement in crime as victims, witnesses and offenders and how this influenced their interactions with the police. Throughout the youth consultation, it became increasingly clear that addressing ‘poverty of aspiration’ was crucial. The MPA learnt that young people, who placed a disproportionate emphasis on post codes, respect, and whose friendship associations were built on territorialism, were at risk of becoming offenders or victims of crime.

3. The Mayoral plan recognises that alongside providing opportunities for young people there is also a need to tackle social exclusion and poverty. Intervention and diversionary projects will not work in isolation unless they are supported by robust regional and national policies which address deprivation.

4. In taking forward the projects outlined within ‘Time for Action’, the following issues should be taken into consideration:

• whether all the projects should be rolled out concurrently or whether it would be more effective to begin with one or two projects and use learning from these to develop other strands;
• how current and existing good practice will inform the development of the Mayoral projects;
• how the Mayoral plan will relate to existing strategic frameworks in particular: the current MPS strategy, the cross government Youth Crime Action Plan, the London Criminal Justice Board’s youth strategy, and the work of the London Youth Crime Prevention Board; and finally,
• the role of MPA link members in promoting and assessing the impact of the plan at a borough level.

5. The projects outlined in the plan are ambitious. The breadth of strands indicates that a holistic approach, which targets a number of different risk factors concurrently, is key to preventing serious youth violence. The MPA welcomes this approach but in order to ensure real tangible success it may be useful during development to prioritise particular projects over others. For example, the Mayor’s office may consider beginning the programme of work with Project Oracle. Project Oracle aims to identify, evaluate and disseminate information on what works in tackling youth crime. Collating and disseminating best practice examples of what works is not just a useful end in itself but would also provide the Mayor’s office with a sound foundation to build the remaining Mayoral projects. Information sourced through Project Oracle would ensure that the projects were targeted and met a predetermined need. It is also essential that Project Oracle draws together existing good and promising practice audits recently undertaken by partners.

6. At the recent London Summit on Serious Youth Violence delegates welcomed the rationale behind Project Oracle. Many stated that boroughs are often subjected to numerous initiatives and that an evidence based database which highlighted a handful of provable intervention projects would ensure that scarce resources were used effectively.

7. In order to ensure buy in from local authorities and the third sector it is critical that ‘Time for Action’ builds on existing and planned programmes of work. The youth crime field is a crowded one and the implementation of the cross government Youth Crime Action Plan proposals will require local authorities to change and adapt current practices. The Mayor’s office can add real value by ensuring that the projects complement and support the required Home Office changes.

8 The following issues could be considered during the developmental stages of this strategy:

• Significantly the needs of young victims of crime. There is growing evidence, outlined in research undertaken by the University of Edinburgh and Victim Support, that there is a strong correlation between victims and offenders and rather than victims and offenders being two distinct groups often they are the same group of young people. Research indicates that risk factors which result in young people becoming involved in offending behaviour can also result in victimisation. It is important therefore that the Mayoral projects not only serve to prevent and deter potential young offenders but support those who are vulnerable to being victimised.
• Connected to the above, whilst keeping young people in education clearly tackles a key risk factor, the plan should also consider the reasons why some young people become frequent truants. Work undertaken by Beatbullying from the Anti Bullying Alliance highlighted that on a daily basis 170,000 young people absent themselves from school due to bullying. Therefore Mayoral initiatives to address truancy should also focus on the needs of victims.
• ‘Time for Action’ recognises that young people need to find schools attractive places to be. This is particularly relevant for young people who are being schooled at Pupil Referral Units. Over the last 18 months, the London Youth Crime Prevention Board has focused on looking at how provision within Pupil Referral Units can be enhanced and improved. Learning from this scheme of work may be useful in the development of Project Brodie.
• It is critical that young people themselves play a key role in defining and shaping the proposed projects. Throughout the MPA youth consultation young people and adults who work with young people told us that in order for young people to engage fully in projects they needed to have a sense of ownership and the ability to shape and direct projects. This was particularly relevant in regards to youth provision. There is also recognition at a central level, ‘Aiming high for young people: a ten year strategy for positive activities (July 2007) – HM Treasury and the Department for Children, Schools and Families’, that young people should be involved in the development of youth provision in their boroughs and neighbourhoods.
• In the initial stages the Mayor may wish to look at existing innovative programmes of work. For example, St Giles Trust is providing opportunities for ex young offenders to work with young offenders as part of their overall strategy to tackle recidivism.
• It is also important to acknowledge the innovative work that is being undertaken by pan London strategic partnerships and regional organisations. The victim focused approach adopted by the London Criminal Justice Board alongside their piloting of the triage method in the London boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich is noteworthy as it precedes proposals outlined in the cross government Youth Crime Action Plan. The MPS youth strategy is also notable in that the MPS have endeavoured to balance an enforcement approach alongside an engagement one. In particular their recognition of the importance of early intervention approaches has been key in raising the profile of both early years’ intervention and intervention when risk factors are initially recognised. A promising example of this is the development of the Merlin reporting system to capture information on all five Every Child Matters strands.
• In his capacity as the Chair of the MPA, the Mayor should consider how ‘Time for Action’ relates to existing MPS/MPA strategic planning frameworks. In particular the following strategies/plans should be taken into account:
  • the MPS youth strategy;
  • the MPA youth scrutiny recommendations, of which the policing recommendations will inform the development of the revised MPS youth strategy action plan;
  • MPS and MPA responsibilities in regards to Every Child Matters;
  • Safeguarding responsibilities
  • the annual MPA/MPS policing plan; and finally
  • the Prevent strand of the Counter Terrorism programme of work.
    As stated earlier, ‘Time for Action’ will add value to the strategies listed above by ensuring that it complements and supports the work currently being undertaken by the MPS.
• Consideration should also be given to how the impact of the projects will be measured. It may not be possible for the Mayoral office to measure the success of its projects. In a crowded ballpark with a number of complementary initiatives and projects, it will be difficult to quantify how subsequent positive impacts on youth crime can be traced back to the Mayoral projects. However, this should not be considered problematic. Criteria used to measure the success of projects listed in Project Oracle could also be applied to the Mayoral projects. In addition, the MPA as a statutory member of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships can assess and feedback on the rollout of projects via link members.

9. Finally the Authority welcomes the proposal that the functional bodies, in partnership with the Mayor’s office, deliver the six strands. It is appropriate for the delivery of Project Titan to be led by the MPS and supported by the MPA. The aim of Project Titan is to encourage young Londoners, particularly those vulnerable to crime, to participate in positive disciplined activities that help build character, responsibility and mutual respect. Further detail on Project Titan and its implementation will be presented to Members at the earliest opportunity.

C. Race and equality impact

1. All research to date has highlighted that those young people who are from the poorest backgrounds, who live in the most deprived environments, who come from communities where there are high levels of employment and who have low levels of educational attainment are the most likely to be impacted on by crime, as either offenders, victims or witnesses. This is recognised within the ‘Time for Action’ plan. This picture of social deprivation and social exclusion has been further complicated by the events of 2007 and 2008. It appears that there has been a shift in youth crime, with a small cohort of young people who are more likely to respond violently to grievances and who are prepared to use serious violence whilst committing criminal offences.

2. MPS data also indicates that there is an ethnic disproportionality in teen homicide victims. 22 of the teenage murder victims in 2007 were identified as African or Caribbean. Information on the 28 youth homicides in 2008 indicates that 21 are of African or Caribbean appearance.

3. In taking forward the Mayoral projects it is essential that the young people who are most at need of this support are targeted. Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) should be undertaken on each project. Each EIA should aim to determine:

• Which group of young people is most in need of each project?
• How each project strand will be adapted to meet the needs of particular groups of young people, for example female gang members?
• How young people will be targeted and encouraged to take part?
• How young people will benefit from taking part?

4 The Mayoral office should closely monitor the implementation and impact of the plan. If it is found that those young people who are most impacted on by youth crime is not being involved in or taking part in projects the Mayoral office will need to respond swiftly and look at reasons why and consider how these concerns can be addressed.

D. Financial implications

1. The ‘Time for Action’ plan is currently out for consultation. A final version of the plan which will incorporate changes highlighted in the consultation period and which provides more detail on each project strand, including how they are likely to be resourced, will be available in Spring 2009. A paper outlining resourcing implications and how these will be met by the MPA will be discussed at the May 2009 meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Hamera Asfa Davey, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback