Future management and disbursement of the MPA Partnership Fund

Report: 5
Date: 3 February 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

In 2003 the Authority created the Partnership Fund, which annually allocates £50 000 to each borough operational command unit (BOCU). At the end of its third year of operation members have asked that the arrangements for the Fund be reviewed. The purpose of this report is to put forward a number of options for the future management and disbursement of the Partnerships Fund.

A. Recommendations

That

1. members agree arrangements for the provision of partnership funding at the borough level to commence 2006/07; and
2. note officers recommend option 3 as the preferred model of arrangements.

B. Supporting information

The need for review

1. At its meeting on 28 July 2005, the full Authority resolved that officers should explore more flexible and effective systems for the application of the Partnerships Fund, including steps to ensure that link members are more fully involved in decisions on the application of the funds at borough level.

2. Members expressed the following concerns:

1. that a considerable proportion of the fund (17.5%) remained unspent at the end of the 2004/05 financial year as was the case in 2003/04
2. that it was unclear how some of the uses of the fund were related to the work of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP)
3. that the current framework for liaison between BOCUs and link members was inconsistent and several members had not been consulted.

In addition, a number of other issues have made a review of the current arrangements necessary:

4. With the roll out of Local Area Agreements the use of CDRP funding (Safer And Stronger Communities Fund) will be overseen by local strategic partnerships who, under certain circumstances, will have the ability to vire funds between the ‘Safer and Stronger Communities’, ‘Children and Young People’, ‘Healthier Communities and Older People’ and ‘Economic Development and Enterprise’ strands. This could have implications for the Authority’s investment of the Partnership Fund, which need to be considered, particularly given that the Authority is not a member of local strategic partnerships as a matter of statutory right though a small number of members attend in another capacity.
5. The MPA does not have funding to support initiatives that it identifies as beneficial to boroughs, whether they are borough-based, cross-border or pan-London.
6. The MPA Partnership Fund was devised to meet borough commanders’ need to have additional resources to bring to bear on CDRPs as a way of gaining more equal status with local authorities. Borough commanders have now achieved greater parity within CDRPs and now also have access to the BCU Fund.

3. Officers feel that the other key limitation is that the information the MPA receives about the use of the fund is in most cases retrospective. This is partly due to a lack of clarity about procedures, but this hampers the Authority’s ability to ensure the fund is used as intended.

4. A second matter on which officers seek guidance from members is the use of the fund to support statutory and/or direct service provision i.e. the funding of posts, the administration of local services or to meet shortfalls in operational budgets.

Consultation

5. In light of these concerns, officers have consulted with BOCUs to seek their views.

6. All BOCUs were invited to attend an MPS BOCU seminar held at the end of November, at which an MPA presentation highlighted Members’ concerns. All BOCUs have since been invited to express their views on the future of the Partnership Fund and responses have been received from 6. Notably all have highlighted how valuable this additional funding is to their partnership work, particularly in the outer London boroughs, which receive more limited mainstream funding than their inner London counterparts (for BOCUs the Partnership Fund is equivalent to 65% of their BCU Fund allocation). These respondents have also emphasised the need to retain a flexible system that is not overly bureaucratic or time-consuming to operate.

7. Overall the feedback received at the seminar and in the written responses is strongly in favour of retaining the current system. There is also a widespread reluctance to consider contributing any portion of the Fund towards pan-London initiatives.

Options for change

8. This reports asks members to consider the following elements they may wish to introduce for the forthcoming financial year:

1. Re-issuing information to all partners about the purpose and administrative arrangements for the fund
2. Setting out guidance on how the Fund should be used and any exclusions, in so doing tightening up on the flexibility of its use
3. Creating a clearer system involving link member approval
4. Requiring an indicative spend profile at the beginning of the financial year to give advance notification of how the fund is to be used and to encourage partnerships to maximise use of the fund
5. Requiring spend plans for certain disbursements. We are aware that the need for a spend plan would introduce additional bureaucracy, but there are various ways this could be applied. e.g. a) for all spends, b) projects above a certain threshold such as £10,000, c) spending on staffing costs or d) an allowance of say £10,000 is given for boroughs to use without MPA liaison but the rest is subject to a spend plan
6. Top-slicing the funds given to each borough and holding this within a central MPA Regional Fund to be used to support agreed pan-London initiatives with the potential to positively contribute to the work of all CDRPs.

Option 1 - No change

9. Retain the current system whereby £50 000 is allocated to each borough commander for disbursement within existing parameters (see Appendix 1).

Strengths

10. The current system provides a very flexible and relatively unrestricted source of funding that is not subject to the same constraints as other partnership funds, and can therefore be used to support virtually any kind of partnership activity and to date this has often involved projects that would not otherwise have been considered of sufficient priority to receive funding. In addition, subject to the submission of a spending plan, funds can also be carried forward from one year to the next.

11. The current system operates within the same accounting parameters as the BCU Fund, which is managed by Territorial Policing Headquarters, and does not therefore add any additional bureaucracy (other than the need to consult the Link Member), which is welcomed by BOCUs.

Weaknesses

12. The flexibility of the current funding scheme means it is heavily reliant on consistent liaison with the Link Member in making funding decisions. However, as already discussed, the level of member-BOCU liaison is variable and in some cases this has had an impact on the Authority’s ability to influence expenditure decisions.

13. The current guidance states that the fund should be used to support projects that relate to local priorities. However, it is not always immediately evident from the information that is currently received by the Authority as to how the MPA Partnership Fund has effectively contributed towards crime reduction and community safety.

14. It is incumbent upon all public authorities to be able to demonstrate value for money and in the light of future inspections of CDRPs the Authority also needs to be able to effectively demonstrate its contribution to local partnerships. However, the current system does not always effectively fulfil these requirements.

Option 2 – Enhance the current system

15. This would require the provision of more structured guidance in the use of the Fund as set out in Appendix 2. In order to access the Fund BOCUs would be required to provide an indicative spending profile prior to the start of the financial year and to also submit spending plans for approval of all disbursements in excess of £10,000 (See Appendix 3).

16. Expenditure would be reviewed by the MPA every 6 months and at the end of the financial year any unspent funds for which an approved spend plan had not been received would be drawn back into an MPA Regional Partnership Fund (based on 2004-5 expenditure, £280,000 was unspent at the end of the year of which £70,000 was drawn back into the MPS reserve).

Strengths

17. The provision of more structured guidance for the use of the fund would help ensure expenditure is better targeted, while retaining sufficient flexibility to ensure funds can also be more closely aligned to MPA and CDRP objectives as required.

18. The additional requirement for an indicative spending profile would encourage BOCUs to consider likely expenditure at the earliest opportunity, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to enable BOCUs to respond to changing needs and demands as they might arise throughout the financial year. Such an approach would assist in more efficient use of the fund and could reduce the size and frequency of under spends. The requirement for spending plans for expenditure in excess of £10 000 would also strengthen liaison between BOCUs and members.

Weaknesses

19. This option would create some additional work for Members, MPA officers and BOCUs, although this could be easily managed within current resources.

20. This option might improve member-BOCU liaison, but could still result in inconsistencies.

21. The implementation of a £10 000 threshold could stifle innovation if the spending plan process was considered too time-consuming.

Option 3 – Local and regional funding with approved spending plans

22. This would involve an element of top-sliced funds being retained centrally by the Authority to create a Regional Partnership Fund. The suggested retention in the first year would be £2,500 per borough, leaving £47,500 to be distributed to each borough with enhanced spending criteria as set out in Appendix 2.

23. As for option 2 this model would also require BOCUs to submit an indicative spend profile prior to the start of the financial year and spending plans for expenditure in excess of £10,000 (see Appendix 3).

24. The retained budget of £80,000 would then be used to support pan-London crime reduction initiatives (to be identified by MPA officers in line with an agreed set of criteria and approved by Members) that would specifically contribute to the work of all CDRPs. This could, for example, enable the Authority to make a positive contribution to pan-London initiatives, such as the London Problem-Solving Awards, which supports the development and recognition of good practice across all BOCUs, or the London Analysts Support Service, which provides multi-agency analytical data to all BOCUs.

25 Funds would be reviewed every 6 months with the same arrangements for carrying funds forward into future financial years and for the reallocation of funds to the MPA Regional Partnership Fund as for option 2.

Strengths

26. The benefits of the provision of more structured guidance for the use of the Fund and of the requirement of indicative spending profiles and for spending plans for large disbursements have already been discussed (see paragraphs 14 and 15).

27. The provision of a central resource to target particular issues at the pan-London level as befits a regional body, would achieve better economies of scale and would help to raise the Authority’s profile, whilst still adding value at the local level.

Weaknesses

28. Again this option would involve some additional administration, but this could be managed within existing resources.

29. BOCU consultation has indicated that this would be perceived as a move away from localisation towards re-centralisation of the MPA Partnerships Fund and would therefore be unpopular. In addition, Members should note that any top-sliced funding would potentially have a greater impact on those boroughs with smaller overall budgets.

List of abbreviations

BOCUs

Borough Operational Command Units

CDRP

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

LAA

Local Area Agreements

MPA

Metropolitan Police Authority

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

C. Race and equality impact

1. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 places a responsibility on all public authorities to have due regard to the need to tackle racial discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. As one of five statutory partners the Authority has an equal responsibility to ensure the general duties are met within the context of CDRP activities.

2. In this regard the Authority works with CDRPs across London to promote the consideration of race and equality impacts in the development and implementation of local community safety strategies.

3. The Fund has supported a breadth of small local projects and groups and if agreed, the new requirement for spending profiles will enable the Authority to better monitor whether the Fund is being disbursed across diverse communities and how much is being used to engage with under-represented groups.

D. Financial implications

The MPA has allocated £1.6m equally amongst the 32 BOCUs each year since 2003. This report has no specific financial implications, but the implications of implementing the options may require the reallocation of existing resources. In addition, if a new framework is agreed there may also be a need for transitional arrangements to be agreed with BOCUs before full implementation can be achieved.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Natasha Porter and Guy Beattie

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Letter to all BOCU Commanders

15 May 2003

Re: Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) role of in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in London.

Lord Harris, the Chair or the MPA wrote to you on 11th March outlining how the Authority intended to carry out its new duties as a ‘responsible authority’ in CDRPs. I enclose another copy of his letter for convenience.

I am writing now to confirm that the Authority has made available to each BOCU a fund of £50,000, to demonstrate the Authority’s commitment to partnership and to enable you to make a tangible contribution to your local partnership’s programme of work in the year ahead. This funding is now contained in your budgets for the current financial year.

The following ground rules will apply to the funding:

• You should involve and consult closely with your MPA Link Member in the selection of projects to receive support.
• The fund should be used for projects that arise out of and support your local CDRP Strategy and Action Plan, and that reflect the priorities of the Partnership.
• You should seek to agree the selection of projects to receive support with the Partnership, and, so far as possible, you should use the funding so as to leverage other support in cash or kind.
• The money will be accounted for in the same way that BOCUs account for the BCU Fund. This process will be managed by TPHQ and a return expected twice a year for TPHQ

We have deliberately made these ground rules uncomplicated, so as to allow you flexibility and not to bog you down in bureaucratic accounting procedures. What the Authority is aiming for is to make it possible for innovative and effective partnership projects to be taken forward, that otherwise might not happen.

If you have not already established contact with your MPA Link Member about CDRP business, it will be helpful if you would do that as soon as possible.

The Authority will be appointing a small specialist CDRP support team who will develop the Authority’s Partnership role and support MPA Members in their role on the local Partnership, and identify and disseminate good practice. They will also liaise with the relevant departments of the MPS, Local Authorities, G.O.L and other relevant partners. I will let you have more information about that Team in the future.

If you have any enquiries in the meantime please contact me on the above number or Mr Keith Dickinson on 020 7202 0215.

David Riddle
Deputy Clerk

Appendix 2: Draft Guidance for the Use of the MPA Partnerships Fund

1. MPS/MPA liaison:

1. BOCUs should keep MPA Partnership Support Officers informed of uses when requested (through whatever process required) and, as necessary, liaise with these officers to obtain the link member’s agreement to further expenditure.

2. Areas in which the MPA would particularly promote use of the fund:

1. Crime and disorder reduction activity to support the borough’s crime and disorder reduction Strategy.
2. To pilot and evaluate new initiatives linked to crime and disorder reduction.

3. Areas the fund should not finance:

1. Posts and services that should be funded through local mainstream funding (i.e. those that are the statutory responsibility of other agencies). Exceptions may apply to short-term, temporary posts for purposes of leverage, evaluation and critical infill, but this should be supported for no longer than one year.
2. Similarly, other costs such as overtime, equipment and other goods that are normally funded through mainstream budgets will not be deemed appropriate use.

4. Contribution to joint CDRP costs:

1. Where CDRPs require a contribution to joint costs from statutory agencies, e.g. for printing, events, publicity, consultation costs etc, the MPA will agree that its contribution is taken from the £50,000. If the £50,000 has already been earmarked, the MPA will not be in a position to contribute to these additional costs. It is hoped Borough Commanders, with CDRPs, will identify such joint costs likely to arise in any year at the year’s start.

5. Aligned funds:

1. Where partnerships seek to draw together all funding streams under a single management structure, the MPA fund can be aligned within this process. In relation to Local Area Agreements, the MPA fund may be aligned to the Safer and Stronger Communities strand, but may not be pooled into the larger LAA funding streams or vired between strands . In agreeing to MPA funds being aligned with other funds, link members will be seeking reassurance that budgetary processes are fully accountable.

6. End of year / long-term commitments:

1. Under spends will only be carried forward from one financial year to the next in exceptional circumstances and on the basis that a spending plan for the sum to be carried forward has been devised and approved by the MPA link member. If no spend plan has been agreed, the fund will be rolled into the MPA regional partnership fund.
2. The fund cannot be guaranteed to continue every year and so commitments for over one year need to be considered carefully in consultation with the MPA Partnership Support Officer and approved by the MPA Link Member.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback