Update on Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMS)

Report: 8
Date: 3 September 2009
By: Head of Planning and Performance on behalf of the Chief Executive

Summary

This report provides an update on development of the Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMs) joint problem solving process, between the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Greater London Authority (GLA), local authorities and partner agencies.

There have been 16 JEMs held to date. All but three of the remaining boroughs are scheduled to participate before the end of December 2009.

A. Recommendation

That members note the content of this report

B. Supporting information

Purpose

1. Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMs) are a mechanism to facilitate joint problem solving work between the police, the local authorities and other partner agencies at a borough level in order to explore local crime and safety issues.

2. The meetings identify long-term, chronic problems on the borough and agree practical solutions along with identifying potential good practice and pan London issues.

3. JEMs are not intended to hold boroughs to account for performance, and the meetings are not intended to replace existing tasking and deployment processes within boroughs. Rather they are intended to focus on developing new solutions to problems, to sit alongside and support existing mechanisms, and to bring together London-wide partners at a borough level.

4. The process offers considerable potential for wide-ranging service improvement across London. It allows for the identification of potential new work and for a wider dissemination of current good practice across partner agencies.

5. Data sources identified and analysed as part of the JEMs have allowed partners to look at community safety issues from a different perspective, review crime hotspots, crime generators and current tactics and consider whether they are working with each other in the most effective way. The current focus for JEMs is serious youth violence, a priority which the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), police, local authorities and partner agencies are committed to working collaboratively on to find solutions. However, if boroughs do not have a significant problem with this issue, anti-social behaviour (ASB), disorder and other issues that impact on public confidence provide the focus of discussion.

Achievements

6. To date, JEMs have taken place with 16 boroughs and a further 13 are scheduled before the end of December 2009. In the main, discussions have been open and frank, with partners fully engaging in the problem solving process, offering ideas and taking on actions.

7. A number of pan-London issues have been identified, including:

• Problems in sharing Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) intelligence cross border. It has been suggested that a pan London database of young offenders and truants is required.
• Further analysis needed on flows of young people and transport requirements related to school routes.
• Cross border co-ordination of response in relation to YOTs and youth courts and the need to review standards and protocols.
• View that some ASB perception may be due to intolerance of young people. There is a need to change how young people are perceived by some members of the community.

8. Good practice identified to date includes:

• A 'virtual' licensing board allowing members to convene at short notice and respond quickly to licensing issues.
• Leap Confronting Conflict, a national voluntary youth organisation, providing support for friends of young people murdered.
• Setting up a gang symposium that enabled knowledge sharing among partners.
• Family Support Panels being held every six weeks, with all constituent panel meetings being held on the same day in the same location, ensuring a better co-ordination between relevant activities.
• A Young and Safe action plan to tackle youth violence.
• Development of systematic processes to tackle cross-border issues with neighbouring boroughs.
• Cross border activity to track those Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs) in the 16-24 age group cross and their engagement with services.
• ‘Weeks of action’ and ‘days of action’, ensuring all partners are involved in problem solving and undertaking action within community.
• A joint police and council communications strategy that is focused on reassurance and safety rather than alarming messages that create fear.

Review and development

9. The JEMs process has been continually developed and improved since the meetings were initially piloted in late 2008. In May 2009 all partners who had taken part were asked for their feedback on the process and any details of how it could be improved.

110. Positive comments received from participants included:

• That the concept of bringing partners around the table, to share the responsibility for solving local problems at a strategic level was worthwhile and that the involvement of the various organisations ensured that there is shared ownership of the agenda.
• That it provided a good arena to debate and explore issues as an extension to local partnership discussions and with additional partners (e.g. Transport for London (TfL) and British Transport Police (BTP)).
• The focus on Serious Youth Violence (SYV) was topical.
• That it enabled accountability, transparency and tested the robustness of systems.
• Resulting action plans ensure continued improvement in areas under focus.
• The informal nature of the meeting allowed for a full and frank discussion in a non threatening way, especially when areas for improvement were being discussed.
• The meetings are well chaired.
• The slides contain some valuable intelligence and background information and enable an in depth look at the issues of most concern.

11. Partners provided many suggestions for how JEMs could be improved, some of which have been tioned and some of which the MPA and partners are currently working on. These are listed in table 1.

Table 1: Suggested improvements to the JEMs process and actions taken to address

12. In addition, discussions and attendees are now more focused on those operating at a strategic rather than operational or tactical level. It has also been useful to offer local authorities and borough commanders the opportunity to observe a JEM in order to secure their engagement with the process.

13. The JEMs have continued to be chaired, in the main, by Kit Malthouse, Deputy Chair of the MPA, assisted by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) of TP and the relevant local authority lead (for example, leader of the Council or Chief Executive). The Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU) commander also attends, as well as other key relevant partners including TfL, BTP, London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) and Youth Justice Board (YJB). There are plans to include other partners in the future. There is of course flexibility about attendees, should key personnel not be available to attend the meeting.

Follow up processes

14. Systems to follow up on actions, good practice and pan London issues identified during the meeting have been developed by the MPA. A document containing an action plan together with identified potential good practice and pan London issues is emailed to all JEM attendees after the meeting.

15. Borough attendees are asked to provide regular updates on action plans and a formal report on this after six months. Action plans for each non-borough attendee of JEMs are also produced at regular intervals containing all the actions that they own. A similar update is requested to that outlined for borough attendees.

16. JEMs actions are also collated into the MPS TP recommendations database. Link commanders and the TP DAC have access to this database, giving them further information when they are holding the police to account though DAC Reviews and Key Performance Review Meetings. The TPPU have offered to assist with chasing actions and providing support to boroughs in implementing changes.

17. A process to collate and verify potential good practice from the meetings has been developed and is being implemented. Where relevant, further information on those practices that are deemed significant will be sought. Different options for implementation and dissemination of good practice will be considered, from policy, protocol and standard operating procedure changes to publication of good practice guides.

18. It is proposed that pan-London issues resulting from SYV themed JEMs be raised with the SYV board together with any other significant issues or actions resulting from JEMs. Similarly issues from ASB themed JEMs could be raised at the London ASB Board.

Current responsibilities

19. Following a review of resources the MPA is now responsible for overall coordination of JEMs. This includes engagement with local authorities, the MPS, and other partners as well as the overall follow-up process and development of output from JEMs.

20. The JEMs slides are produced by the MPA Planning and Performance Unit. However, partner organisations provide additional information. Key contributors include the London Analyst Support Site (LASS) analyst at the GLA, intelligence analysts at the BOCU, the local authority Community Safety Team, and staff at the LCJB and TfL.

21. The MPA Planning and Performance Unit produces a comprehensive brief on the community safety and partnership issues within a borough for the JEM chair. The Community Safety Team and the Government Relations Team at the GLA contributes information on the political composition of the borough as well as any relevant demographic and population issues. The MPA Engagement and Partnerships Unit (EPU) provide information on current good practice and initiatives along with issues that could affect performance in the borough.

22. The EPU continue to develop their role in JEMs. As well as contributing to the supporting brief for each meeting, the relevant EPU link officer will engage with local authorities and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) on each JEM. They also assist the Planning and Performance Unit to book and schedule in meetings and provide information and advice to the local authority.

Schedule

23. A schedule for JEMs is being established that will offer all boroughs the opportunity to take part by the end of the year. Table 2 below shows the most current timetable. Those meetings that are shaded grey have already taken place.

Table 2: JEMs schedule

C. Race and equality impact

This process is likely to highlight differential offending and victimisation rates for crimes and satisfaction rates. It is important that any learning from the process is disseminated to minimise future equalities impact.

D. Financial implications

JEMs are resourced largely by the MPA Planning and Performance Unit. The main costs are opportunity costs. There are also costs of approximately £185 in changing the room layout for each meeting.

E. Legal implications

No legal implications are noted.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Jane Owen, Head of Planning and Performance, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback