Update on the development of the MPS Anti-Violence Strategy

Report: 9
Date: 14 October 2010
By: Assistant Commissioner, Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report summarises progress in furthering the development of the MPS Anti-Violence Strategy, commenting on measured progress in the delivery plan and the engagement of wider strategic partner support in the concept of a pan London Strategic Violence Board.

A. Recommendation

1. That members note the contents of this report and endorse the strategy.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPS Anti Violence Strategy has been developed through a cross-Business Group approach involving Territorial Policing (TP), Serious Crime Directorate (SCD) and Strategy and Improvement Department (SID). The strategy has been developed since April 2010 when the Management Board approved the Corporate Strategic Assessment (CSA) for 2011-14 and subsequent MPS/MPA Corporate Business Plan. The CSA changed the Corporate Objectives around ‘Safety’ from a crime type approach to analysis to a victim-offender-location approach. Therefore the strategy is the first to drive forward the shift from crime-type to person-centric intelligence-led policing. As such, the MPS is in the process of changing its intelligence processes and structure to accommodate this refocus in problem solving methodology.

2. The strategy was signed off by the MPS Anti Violence Board (AVB) in August 2010. The Board has approved the strategic outcomes for the MPS around violence, developed to provide a platform for the creation of a London-wide anti violence board to facilitate work with strategic partners.

3. These outcomes are:

• the level of violent crime is London is reduced;
• victim care and satisfaction is improved;
• the criminal justice outcomes (appropriate to the police) are achieved;
• public perception of safety is improved; and,
• the cost of violent crime in London is reduced.

3. The MPS is now moving into the implementation phase of the project. Activity is underway in three areas:

• Implementation of a ‘Reassurance; Intelligence; Prevention; Enforcement (RIPE)’ delivery plan with work-streams reflecting the acronym’s component parts;
• development of an anti violence performance management framework; and,
• engagement of strategic partners in the development of an anti-violence strategy for London

Draft Delivery Plan Progress

4. The RIPE model is established within the framework of the National Intelligence Model (NIM) and was selected by the anti-violence working group as a suitable means to divide the work streams identified to deliver the strategy.

5. Since the strategy was signed off work has commenced with work stream leads in order to deliver a coordinated project plan for the implementation of the strategy.

6. It is clear that there are significant interdependencies with other corporate change programmes, most notably the TP Development programme - including the pan MPS Intelligence and Performance Review programme which are crucial to realising the anti-violence strategy’s outcomes.

7. In order to undertake Prevention, Enforcement and Reassurance policing, the building blocks within the Intelligence work-stream need to be in place. This work-stream encompasses the changes in approach across the MPS Intelligence units from crime type to victim-offender-location. TP and SCD leads are working to establish clear timescales, responsibilities and ownership for this work, however progress towards delivery will ultimately be determined by the time frame set for delivery of the emerging products of the Intelligence & Performance Review programme. A key risk which has been identified at an early stage for incorporation into the risk register is the question as to whether the MPS has the present ability to fully map the landscape to accurately identify its most vulnerable victims, most dangerous offenders and riskiest locations.

8. Mapping the landscape of threat and harm is complicated; MPS systems were not designed to incorporate automated processes which identify repeat victims and therefore at present this can only be accomplished through the employment of data mining tools. This however is only part of the problem as it is known that some of the most vulnerable victims, notably those subject to systemic violent abuse including domestic violence, often do not report matters to the police for some time if at all.

9. In respect of offenders, the MPS is clearly able to place some reliance upon the conviction histories contained within the Police National Computer (PNC); records of Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs); and, records of Potentially Dangerous Offenders (PDOs) managed otherwise through Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). However even these mechanisms together provide an incomplete picture of risk. Each is reliant upon knowing that an individual is resident within or a regular visitor to London before their potential can be assessed. Further it does not readily account for records which may be held elsewhere - notably, in a City as cosmopolitan as London, the offending and intelligence histories of its transient and immigrant populations would potentially have a significant bearing on any overall threat assessment.

10. It is factors such as those reported above which emphasise the importance of developing enhanced partnership data sharing arrangements.

11. The lead for both the ‘Prevention’ and ‘Reassurance’ work-streams is Commander Crime and Customer Focus Strategy - Steve Rodhouse. The ‘Intelligence’ work-stream is to be led by Commander Covert Policing and Intelligence - Peter Spindler, whilst the ‘Enforcement’ work-steam will be the conjoined responsibility of Deputy Assistant Commissioners TP and SCD, respectively Lynne Owens and Sue Akers.

Overview of Benefits

12. The primary benefits of the anti-violence strategy are:

• Co-ordination - activity across the MPS is coordinated and complementary, minimising duplication and providing operational police with clear common goals.
• Person-centric - enabling a more holistic and so more effective management of vulnerable victims, harmful offenders, and key locations.
• Cost-effective - the MPS is being asked to do more with less. The strategy is the first to drive forward the shift from crime-type to person-centric activity. Police operations will target core problem areas and offenders who cause the most harm to Londoners.
• The provision of a joint platform with partners for analysis, response and evaluation thereby enabling delivery of sustainable problem solving to meet necessary performance improvements.

Strategic Partner Support

13. The strategy provides a platform for the creation and implementation of a pan-London multi-agency anti-violence board and strategy. Through refocusing on victim-offender-location, the MPS is better able to share intelligence with partners and coordinate activity. On the 1st September AC McPherson and AC Dick hosted a meeting for key strategic partners in order to engage them on the subject of a London Anti Violence Board, Professor Sir George Alberti (currently leading on the Health input) also gave a short presentation. Present were senior representatives of the Greater London Authority (GLA), London Councils, London Criminal Justice Partnership (LCJP), London Safeguarding Board, London Probation, National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the London Serious Youth Violence Board (LSYVB).

14. The need for a regional board that could bring added value to the coordination of services and management of the most vulnerable victims, most dangerous offenders and the most risky locations and times was agreed. London is one of the safest cities in the World, however the current economic situation will bring new challenges. As well as reduced resources available to all agencies, the profile and demographics of London are expected to change over the next five years. The largest increase anticipated being in young people from BME communities; significant statistically as contributors both as victims and as the perpetrators of violence.

15. To progress the creation of a London Anti Violence Board a half-day workshop for key stakeholders will be held in November 2010. A working group, with representatives from key agencies is being convened to further develop and structure the event, the objectives of which will include:

• developing the strategic aims and outcomes for a London Anti Violence Board;
• debating the use of the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition of violence;
• further developing the Anti Violence Delivery plans developed by all agencies to identify areas potentially suitable for coordination and possible themes and work streams where a regional body could add value; and,
• commencing development of a performance framework.

Anti violence performance management

16. The MPS already undertakes performance management around violent crime. Performance and tasking occurs at Borough and pan-London level and performance is also reported within the MPS KPI pack that goes to MPA Strategic and Operational Policing (SOP) Committee.

17. The Anti-Violence Board has outlined an intention to focus on strategic improvements to MPS performance. Tactical and operational decisions are already processed through the Corporate Tasking mechanism. The Board will monitor the performance of police inputs as well as outputs and outcomes, identifying areas of core policing processes for improvement.

18. To this end, the MPS is developing a new performance package for the Board that draws on both performance analysis and operational context. This package will be concise and strategic in focus, but enable detailed examination of key areas, where possible drawing on the existing mature suite of existing products to mitigate production costs.

19. It is anticipated that the MPA’s London Crime Reduction Board could deliver overarching oversight and scrutiny of outcomes to ensure these have been achieved in a way that provides value for money to the people of London.

Serious Youth Violence

20. A person-centric approach enables the MPS to better understand the risk to victims, but also the risk to young offenders who may be on the cusp of a criminal career or escalating their offending. By removing the artificial constraints of the crime-type focus, both local police and pan-London units can more holistically assess the risk posed to individuals and prioritise them accordingly.

21. One of the key elements of MPS activity will be linkages between the MPS Youth Strategy and the Anti Violence Board to identify young people most vulnerable to joining gangs in the future. This early year’s work is central to combating the continuum of offending that leads to the most serious crime. We will adopt a joint delivery plan that sits across both the AVB and MPS Youth Strategy.

22. The work of the London Serious Youth Violence Board (LSYB) is scheduled to come to an end in December 2010, whilst its work-plan is timed for completion at the end of the Financial Year in 2011. It is anticipated that the work of the LSYB will be subsumed by the emergent work streams of the London Anti Violence Board.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. It has been agreed that the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) will continue to be developed as a high level document for the purposes of the strategy. A substantial body of evidence exists and continues to be developed through analysis which demonstrates that some communities are disproportionately represented as the victims of, or as those suspected of violent crime. By example young males feature within both categories. The emergent EIA at strategic level seeks to describe the anticipated pan London impact as well as the MPS internal impact of the implementation of the strategy with reference to age, disability, faith, gender, race, sexual orientation and beyond. Consideration will be given to the impact of the strategy upon those communities to ensure that it is neither inappropriate nor unjustified. Consultation has commenced and to date has involved the Communities and Police Engagement Group (CPEG); Black Police Association (BPA) and Territorial Policing’s Chief Officer Group. The EIA will provide an evidence base on which to develop appropriate and timely plans to mitigate any identified adverse consequences. As individual strand leads for the delivery plan develop their work streams further they will be required to commission detailed EIAs focussing on the specific issues which will arise through the transition from a new strategy, through implementation and into the delivery phase.

Consideration of MET Forward

2. The anti-violence strategy directly supports the MPA Met Forward goals. It particularly impacts on Met Streets, Met Specialist and Met Partners

3. Met Streets - the anti violence strategy has been crafted to deliver against the VOLT model. This will see intelligence led activity prioritised on delivering greater safety and better outcomes for the most vulnerable of victims, and tackling the offenders who pose the greatest threat including violent members of gangs and those that possess guns or carry knives. The strategy will also drive policing and problem solving activity into those locations where there is the greatest risk of harm and see the level of policing activity better attuned to the problem. In simple terms, delivering more officers (and members of the wider policing family) when they are needed most.

4. Met Specialist - the Anti Violence Strategy has been jointly developed and will be jointly delivered through all operational Business Groups. It is tied with governance, accountability and performance management being drawn together through a single Board. This will ensure that activity is both coordinated and efficient. The strategy itself is widely drafted, specifically encompassing Serious Sexual Offences where specialist skills are often routinely required. The MPS, through the Intelligence and Performance Review programme, is reviewing the process for coordinating activity against prolific and harmful offenders to improve the interaction between local interventions and pan-London operations.

5. Met Partners - a detailed scoping exercise has been completed in the development of the strategy thus far to establish the holistic picture of partner engagement from statutory to third sector in prevention activity. Whilst this is merely a snapshot in time it demonstrates the true magnitude of support provided in this work domain at a tactical level. As reported above, it is the aspiration of this project that ultimately a London wide AVB should be established in cooperation with strategic partners to ensure efficient delivery against a shared agenda in delivering London as one of the most if not the safest major City in the World.

6. Met Connect - Violent crime is repeatedly identified as one of the most significant concerns of people in London. The Anti violence strategy is in part a recognition of this in drawing all dimensions of policing activity together, using shared police and partner intelligence in a new and enhanced way to drive the most efficient use of resources in tackling violence. A communications plan has been developed to ensure that as the Strategy metamorphoses from document to delivery, the public and partners are kept informed of progress. Outcomes will be reported in the shape of both performance outcomes and newsworthy successes in the fight against violent crime.

Financial Implications

7. Central to the work of an MPS Anti-Violence Board is the achievement of efficiencies through greater operational co-ordination across business groups and units impacting upon violence. The Board will extend such efforts across all statutory and third sector organisations that have impact upon violence in London.

8. More effective services, delivered whilst achieving efficiency savings will continue to be a key objective for all public services over the coming years.

9. As the AVB develops it will then be possible to identify the financial impact associated with the Board and its Delivery Plan. It is anticipated that all activity will be delivered and managed within existing MPS budgets, but if additional budget was required then this would be subject to the normal business planning process.

Legal Implications

10. The Local Government Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State the power to specify by regulation performance indicators and performance standards. None of the MPS’ obligations to report to any other body will be affected by the activity proposed within the Delivery Plan of the new AVB.

11. The MPA and the MPS have statutory and non-statutory duties to report internally and externally, and the the Police Act 1996 requires all police authorities to publish annually a report including an assessment of the extent to which the local policing plan for that year has been carried out. The establishment of the AVB is likely to assist the MPS in fulfilling that obligation.

12. This report is submitted as part of the governance process and does not create any specific legal implications.

Environmental Implications

13. There are no known environmental implications of this report.

Risk Implications

14. A risk register has been commissioned to support the move from a developing strategy into tangible products of delivery. As yet the register is inchoate however it is anticipated that this will be developed into a meaningful product in a fairly short time frame. One clear and obvious risk which has been identified for inclusion relates to the organisation’s current ability to accurately map those individuals who represent the greatest risk particularly as perpetrators but also as victims of violence. The reasons for this are complex, but for example include the variety of systems and indeed organisations which hold data; and the diversity of London’s population including visitors and economic migrants about whom often little offending history is known until they interact with UK law enforcement through arrest for the first time.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Darren Curtis, Detective Superintendent - TP Crime OCU, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback