MPA Safer Neighbourhoods Scoping Study

Report: 9
Date: 1 July 2010
By: Hamera Asfa Davey on behalf of the Chief Executive

Summary

This report provides background information on the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study, which is attached as Appendix 1, and provides a summary of the key findings.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members note the content of this report.
2. Members consider the outcomes of the Safer Neighbourhoods Members briefing held on the 23 June 2010.
3. Members consider a subject area for a future MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny.

B. Supporting information

1. In April 2009 the Chair of the Police Authority launched Met Forward, a new strategic work plan for the Authority. This plan made a commitment to undertake a Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny. In considering the proposed MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny, the following issues were considered by Business Management Group (BMG):

• In the last six years much research work has been undertaken into the delivery of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme in London by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Strategic, Research and Analysis Unit. In addition there have been national reviews, including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary inspection into neighbourhood policing and citizen focus in 2008. Work undertaken by the MPA would need to build on this existing research.
• The new Territorial Policing (TP) Assistant Commissioner is undertaking a review of TP which is likely to impact on the way Safer Neighbourhoods operate. Work undertaken by the MPA on Safer Neighbourhoods would therefore have to be relevant to the review of TP and provide information which could support any changes to how Safer Neighbourhoods operate.

2. It was therefore agreed in March 2010 by BMG that an initial scoping study would be undertaken to determine issues for a future MPA scrutiny. The principle focus of the Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study would be: ‘What do partners and partner agencies need from Safer Neighbourhoods policing?’ Within the project scope the four following thematic areas were considered: structure; communication; sharing information, and intelligence and joint working. Further information on the thematic areas can be found in Annex A of Appendix 1.

3. It was agreed that four London boroughs would be considered in-depth: Hammersmith and Fulham; Croydon; Hackney and Harrow. Between six and ten one hour semi structured interviews were undertaken in each of the four boroughs throughout March and early April 2010. A full list of the organisations that contributed to the Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study can be found in Annex C of Appendix 1.

4. In total 57 individuals contributed. This included eight interviews with senior MPS officers and staff based at New Scotland Yard and Territorial Police Head Quarters. MPA officers also attended a Safer Neighbourhoods Panel Chair’s Forum meeting in Harrow and met with Safer Neighbourhoods panel representatives and Community Police Engagement Group (CPEG) representatives in all four boroughs. All four MPA link members also contributed to the scoping study.

5. The full Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study findings can be found in the attached report. Examples of issues that were raised by interviewees are listed below.

• Many positive comments were made by interviewees about the Safer Neighbourhoods initiative. However, many interviewees were keen to explore how Safer Neighbourhoods could be enhanced to better meet the needs of Londoners and partner agencies. In recognition that Londoners did not define their neighbourhoods by ward boundaries, suggestions on ways forward included moving away from a ward based structure to a neighbourhood basis or ward cluster basis. Some interviewees also suggested that in looking at the evolvement of Safer Neighbourhoods, a possible way forward could be to explore how resources could be better shared with Local Authorities (LA). In some boroughs, LAs are already part funding or completely funding additional or enhanced teams and additional officers.
• A variety of issues were raised about the community engagement work of Safer Neighbourhoods panels. This included suggestions that:
  • Safer Neighbourhoods panels needed to meet more regularly;
  • The work and remit of Safer Neighbourhoods panels needed to be better publicised;
  • Safer Neighbourhoods panels needed to be more representative of their wards; and finally,
  • Safer Neighbourhoods Panels and MPA funded CPEGs needed to develop better links with each other.
• In regards to partnership working, the findings indicated that LA and the police were the main and strongest partners in local partnership arrangements. Contributions made by Safer Neighbourhoods panels and CPEGs were the only noticeable exceptions. Little mention was made by interviewees to Small and Medium Enterprises or the role of the third sector.
• Some partners were said to be difficult to engage with. Those that were cited by interviewees were: Primary Care Trusts; Probation and some youth/children services.
• Those partners who were reluctant or unwilling to take part in joint working arrangements were also unwilling and reluctant to share information and intelligence with each other.
• Many interviewees expressed concerns about the limited analytical capacity amongst some partners which resulted in an ineffective use of information and intelligence by Safer Neighbourhoods/police and partner agencies. It was suggested that if Safer Neighbourhoods/police and partners explained why they needed the information and how it would be used, there would be better use of information and intelligence by partners and police. Two particular issues needed to be considered regarding information and intelligence sharing - formalised pan-borough systems and partners collating information in a consistent manner.
• Many good examples of communication between Safer Neighbourhoods/police and Londoners were given but interviewees felt there was room for improvement. It was suggested that a consistent approach was required. In all communications partners needed to consider what was being communicated to residents, why it was being communicated, and finally, how often the communication should be made.
• On 23 June 2010 a Members briefing on the Safer Neighbourhoods scoping findings is to be held. At this meeting, Members will consider the Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study findings and will be invited to consider next steps regarding the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny. Feedback on what was discussed and proposed at this meeting will be raised at 1 July 2010 Strategic and Operational Policing Committee meeting.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equalities Impact

1. Some interviewees expressed concerns that Safer Neighbourhoods teams were failing to engage with certain groups of Londoners, for example young people and commuters.

2. In considering how Safer Neighbourhoods teams can improve community police engagement the work of the MPS Strategic Research and Analysis Unit should be utilised. The Unit’s research highlights that in their community engagement work the MPS must consider those who are prepared to engage with the police alongside those who in fact need the police, and finally, include those who report crimes. In other words, the MPS must not only involve a wide diversity of Londoners but should also ensure that Londoners with the greatest policing concerns and needs are being involved in community police engagement.

Met Forward

3. Undertaking a Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny is a Met Forward commitment. The findings from the Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study will be used to inform the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny.

Financial Implications

4. There are no financial implications to the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study.

Legal Implications

5. There are no legal implications to the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study.

Environmental Implications

6. There are no environmental implications to the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study.

Risk Implications

7. There are no risk implications from the MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Hamera Asfa Davey

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback