Crime and disorder strategies and partnerships

Report: 6
Date: 28 July 2000
By: Clerk

Summary

This report seeks to inform Members about local crime and disorder partnerships and strategies in London. The report also describes how the Authority may fulfill its statutory duty as a ‘co-operating body’.

A. Supporting information

Legal requirements

1. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) specifies how the police and others should seek to reduce crime and disorder locally. A summary of the 1998 Act (as it relates to crime and disorder partnerships) follows. The Act is supported by a Home Office document ‘Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships’.

2. The 1998 Act defines the local authority and the Commissioner as the ‘responsible authorities’ for each borough. The responsible authorities must formulate and implement a three-year strategy for reducing crime and disorder. Before formulating the strategy, the responsible authorities must:

• review the levels and patterns of crime and disorder in the area (the ‘crime and disorder audit’);
• prepare an analysis of that review;
• publish the results of that analysis;
• obtain the views of persons or bodies on the published report.

3. In formulating a strategy the responsible authorities must have regard to the analysis of the review and the views obtained. The published strategy must include:

• Details of the review, report and co-operating bodies;
• Objectives to be pursued by the responsible authorities or other bodies,
• Long-term and short-term performance targets for measuring the extent to which the objectives have been achieved.

4. The responsible authorities must monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and make any changes that appear necessary or expedient. The guidelines suggest that an annual report should be produced and provide advice on the format of that report.

5. In carrying out the duties listed in paragraphs 2 to 4 above the responsible authorities must co-operate with any police authority, probation committee or health service within the area (plus other persons or bodies prescribed by the Home Secretary). There is a reciprocal duty on the same persons or bodies to co-operate with the responsible authorities.

6. Over-and-above the duty to co-operate, there is an obligation on the police authority (in the exercise of its various functions) to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area. The same obligation applies to local authorities.

7. The Home Secretary can require the responsible authorities to submit a report on matters connected with their duties (in a form of his/her choosing) and may also require that report to be published.

8. Organisations may disclose information to police authorities, local authorities, probation committees, health authorities or persons acting on their behalf if such disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the 1998 Act.

Current position

9. Crime and disorder strategies came into operation on 1 April 1999 and run to 31 March 2002. The main priorities across London’s partnerships (as described in the MPS Policing and Performance Plan 2000/01) are listed at Annex A.

10. In 1999 both the Audit Commission and HMIC carried out assessments of how the MPS was meeting its obligations. Both bodies concluded that the Service had made a good start but that, across 32 different partnerships, there was wide variation in performance and quality. The report by the Audit Commission will be circulated to Members and the conclusions are described at Annex B as ‘issues for action’. The issues identified by the Audit Commission have been supplemented by ‘issues for consideration’ as discussed at a briefing session for Members held on 18 July 2000.

11. Crime and disorder partnerships are regarded as critical to the success of the Government’s (five year) National Crime Reduction Strategy and Vehicle Crime Strategy launched in November 1999. The main strands of these strategies are described at Annex C.

12. The national strategies are intended to help improve performance locally and progress will be monitored using Best Value Performance Indicators. As part of the Crime strategy the Home Office commissioned a national survey of all crime and disorder partnerships in April 2000. Summary findings are expected to be published in August 2000 and detailed findings are to be passed to the new Regional Crime Director for London.

13. There is an expectation that national strategies will be reflected in the development of local crime and disorder strategies. The audit, analysis and consultation process to develop three-year local strategies commencing April 2002 should start in the summer of 2001.

Role of MPA

14. The guidelines to the 1998 Act state that the Authority’s role is at the ‘very heart of local efforts to tackle crime and disorder’. However, within the spirit of partnership and co-operation, the matter of representation is a matter for local negotiation. It is regarded as vital that the Authority’s policing and performance plans complement local crime and disorder strategies.

15. The Association of Police Authorities (APA) describe four types of police authority involvement nationally: no involvement; as a consultee; as a partner; or as chair.

16. Given that there are 32 partnerships and it has only 23 Members the Authority will wish to discuss and agree the type of involvement desired and any support requirements from officers. The Committee may wish to note that the Authority meeting on 28th July will have considered a report seeking the identification of ‘link members’ for each Borough. The initial stages of the audit process commencing in summer 2001 include forming the local partnership and this would be a natural point for the MPA to seek engagement (if it had not done so already).

17. The Authority may also wish to consider how best to engage with any pan-London steering and/or co-ordinating body. A Joint Steering Group comprising key stakeholders has met on a regular basis since June 1998. In line with the views of the Audit Commission, the members of that Group have agreed to review its remit and terms of reference.

B. Recommendations

1. That the requirements for local crime and disorder strategies and the duty of co-operation placed on all partners be noted.
2. That Members hold an internal workshop to clarify the role and desired direction of the Authority prior to engagement with local or pan-London partners.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

D. Review arrangements

The Authority will have a further opportunity to consider this matter after the proposed workshop when proposals are presented on the role of members and/or officers in relation to crime and disorder strategies and partnerships.

E. Background papers

The following is a statutory list of background papers (under the Local Government Act 1972 S.100 D) which disclose facts or matters on which the report is based and which have been relied on to a material extent in preparing this report. They are available on request to either the contact officer listed below or to the Clerk to the Police Authority at the address indicated on the agenda.

• MPS Policing and Performance Plan 2000/01
• Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships

F. Contact details

The author of this report is Derrick Norton.

For information contact:

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

Annex A: Local crime and disorder priorities

From the MPS Policing and Performance Plan 2000/01 (p11). The five highest priorities in inner and semi-inner boroughs were:

• Burglary;
• Behaviour of young people, particularly truancy;
• Street crime;
• Youth offending;
• and Jointly vehicle crime, drug related crime and racially motivated crime.

In outer boroughs, the five highest priorities were:

• Burglary;
• Motor vehicle crime;
• Repeat victimisation;
• Jointly street crime and racially motivated crime;
• and Youth offending.

Annex B: Issues for action

Reported by the Audit Commission to the MPS Management Board in September 1999:

• consultation had not always engaged with hard-to-reach groups;
• resources were not always allocated in line with crime and disorder priorities;
• 'cultural' differences in a significant minority of partnerships;
• BOCU commanders had an appetite for greater support (eg: IT, training, HR);
• BOCU commanders sought more co-ordination of partnerships across boroughs;
• evaluations of success (of partnerships) by the MPS, rather than with partners, may create barriers to progress;
• tensions between ‘bottom up’ local priorities and 'top down' corporate priorities;
• action on some issues is best taken jointly by the MPS and its partners.

Issues for consideration

Discussed at Members’ briefing session on 18 July 2000

Engagement with local partnerships

The MPA may wish Members and/or officers to represent MPA interests within local crime and disorder partnerships. However, with 32 partnerships across London this is potentially a significant commitment in time and effort. In any event, there will be a need to negotiate involvement in a spirit of co-operation and partnership. The MPA may wish to consider whether it should help discharge its responsibilities by funding specific local initiatives to reduce crime and disorder (a practice seen in some other police authorities). Members may wish to consider the view that local engagement issues should be resolved in time for the next audit process (commencing in summer 2001). Current strategies are effectively in place (and can be reflected in the 2001/02 policing plan) and involvement in next year’s audits would allow the MPA to co-operate with local partnerships at the very start of formulating strategies for 2002-2005.

Engagement centrally

The MPA may wish Members to play a role in resolving pan-London issues with either the: MPS; Joint Steering Group (or its replacement body); Regional Crime Director for London; GLA and/or Mayor. The Mayor’s Office has recently indicated an interest in engaging with local partnerships to help progress the Mayor’s manifesto.

Monitoring local performance

The MPA may wish access to progress and performance information for all 32 strategies. However, since different strategies use different performance measures and targets, data collation and comparison needs to reflect local decisions. In any event, where the MPS has the lead for a local objective, the MPA may wish to assure itself that targets are being met via cost-effective use of MPS resources. The MPA may also wish to ensure good practice is replicated wherever possible and these considerations suggest the MPA may require information on:

• Demand - the level and pattern of work;
• Input - the type and level of MPS resources committed;
• Process - the use made of those resources;
• Output - the immediate measures of progress towards objectives and/or targets;
• Outcome - the actual benefits derived (in terms of agreed performance indicators).

Good practice suggests each partnership will have conducted its first annual review by the time the MPA is established. In any event, progress and performance information should be collated by the Home Office national survey (findings expected in August 2000). Planning alignment If local (three year) crime and disorder strategies and the (annual) policing and performance plan are to be truly complementary then budgeting, service planning and consultation processes all need to be realigned. Interim arrangements are being developed for producing next year’s plans and will be developed further as a result of the Best Value Review of Consultation.

Annex C: The Government’s national crime reduction strategy

The main themes outlined in the strategy are:

1. Raising performance (of the police and local crime and disorder partnerships):
   • Five year targets to be set for each police force and partnership for vehicle crime, domestic burglary and street crime;
   • Partnerships to submit a progress report;
   • New national Crime Reduction Taskforce and a Regional Crime Director in every Government Office for the Regions to scrutinise and support partnerships;
   • Crime statistics to be published for every police division (borough in MPS);
2. Reducing burglary and property crime;
3. Tackling vehicle crime;
4. Dealing with disorder and anti-social behaviour;
5. Dealing effectively with young offenders;
6. Dealing effectively with adult offenders;
7. Helping victims and witnesses.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback