Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership update

Report: 7
Date: 7 April 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report summarises developments in London’s 32 crime and disorder reduction partnerships during 2005. It also outlines MPA involvement with these partnerships and how it has fulfilled its duty as a ‘responsible authority’. The report invites members to discuss and report on their link member role, particularly in relation to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership involvement . In identifying some of the key developments impacting upon CDRPs and the recent review of the Crime and Disorder Act, the report recognises the need for the Authority to hear the views of members on future arrangements for borough-level partnership working.

A. Recommendations

That Members

1. Note and comment on the report, and advise on how the MPA should take forward its role on CDRPs in 2006/07;
2. Report back on their involvement with CDRPs.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA is a statutory partner on the 32 Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships (CDRPs) in the Metropolitan Police District. The Authority asked for regular reports so it could discuss its work with CDRPs. This report

1. Summarises MPA activity with CDRPs in 2005 and outlines some of the main developments for CDRPs in the past year.
2. Asks members to report back on their experiences and to raise any matters/issues arising from their involvement with and on behalf of their CDRPs.
3. Asks members to consider how future MPA involvement in CDRPs should be delivered. This is prompted by
   • the recent publication of Crime and Disorder Act Review, and
   • the recommendation of the Planning, Performance and Review Committee to close the set of recommendations arising from the MPA scrutiny on CDRPs (2003) in order to move to a new phase of work which fits with recent developments.

Review of 2005

Audits and strategies

2. A third round of 3 year crime and disorder strategies were published in April 2005, for the period up to 2008. The quality of the strategies vary but most represent a better co-ordinated multi-agency approach and reflect improved partnership working. The Government Office for London (GOL) has commissioned a review of the strategies.

3. The MPA, through both its officers and members, took an active role in advising upon the content and direction of the strategies and action plans. This included ensuring key MPA interest areas such as hate crime, safer neighbourhoods, anti-social behaviour (the MPA signed up to a regional ASB strategy) and diversity issues were addressed in the strategies. In some boroughs, processes for the development and the consultation activity leading to the strategies were funded by the MPA’s Partnership Fund. Recognition of the MPA as a primary joint partner on CDRPs can be evidenced through the MPA logo, member signatures and a profile of the MPA appearing in the published documents of many strategies. There still remains a discrepancy in the synchronisation of national and regional as well as local community strategies with the 2005-08 period covering the crime and disorder strategies.

Structures

4. The streamlining and fitness of purpose of partnerships is an on-going concern for CDRPs. Typical structural changes have reflected a new landscape which includes improved linkages with local strategic partnerships, and the segregation of the strategy/commissioning focus from the management and delivery of action plans at board level. Transport for London representation features more widely now within CDRP membership lists and GOL have appointed a Transport Advisor. Agendas and new structural processes have also encompassed the need for improved performance scrutiny.

5. The MPA continues to participate fully at board level through attendance at meetings by members and the CDRP team. There were over 160 CDRP meetings in London during 2005, of which there was MPA attendance at more than 80% of these. Members attended nearly 50% of these, although this is an average figure comprising members able to attend a majority of their link borough meetings and those unable to attend so regularly. Previous year issues regarding whether MPA attendance at some CDRPs was relevant have been resolved although advance agenda distribution and forward diaries are aspects of partnership management that could be improved in some boroughs to assist MPA involvement. The key structural issue raised by the MPA and one which has received greater attention within partnerships is that of community accountability and engagement. This matter is covered in greater detail within the MPA’s Community Engagement Committee’s agenda and is an area of on-going development.

General developments

6. A number of developments have impacted upon the work of CDRPs and their arrangements. Details of the matters below have mostly been brought to members attention in other MPA reports and briefings, so are not covered in any detail here but the main developments include:

7. Safer Neighbourhoods. The phased roll out has been greeted by CDRPs and awareness of this initiative now appears high amongst partners through it featuring on most CDRPs agendas during the year. Notable examples of multi-agency use and integration with safer neighbourhoods policing can be cited across London and the widespread demand for complete rollout as soon as possible testifies to its popularity and success.

8. The Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO) scheme. After the development of lists of offenders, management steering groups have been set up in all boroughs to oversee this work. Progress on the ‘prevent and deter’ and ‘rehabilitate and resettle’ strands varies and organisation difficulties within the National Offenders Management (formerly Probation) Service has often been cited as a constraint to this further development.

Performance priorities and issues

9. Whilst crime has continued to fall in several key areas, many CDRPs are experiencing significant rises with certain offences. Some of the growth is in comparison to good reductions achieved last year and/or may involve low actual numbers of offences (i.e. where percentage figures on their own do not reflect the situation). Others indicate trends common around London e.g. gun and violent crime. The partnerships are routinely and actively considering such performance concerns and discussing joint ways of addressing these. As evident from partnership agendas and discussions, a high level of concern persists around anti-social behaviour, alcohol-related crime, the night-time economy, transport crime and drugs. Community reassurance and the fear of crime remain a concern too – both general community safety reassurance as well as that relating to the terror incidents during the year.

MPS partnerships work

MPA Scrutiny in CDRPs 2003

10. The Performance, Planning and Review Committee received an update of the MPS progress against the MPA’s scrutiny recommendations in December 2005. The committee agreed that the MPS overall had moved significantly in its work with and priorities towards CDRP work since the scrutiny. The committee was informed that the MPS’ modernisation programme was taking some of the recommendations forward and so it was agreed that this should be the last such report, and that the work now be carried forward by relevant committees.

Service review and modernisation programme – partnerships theme

11. One of the strands covered in the MPS service review in 2005 dealt with partnership working. This reviewed current arrangements and requirements for partnership working generally and sought views from stakeholders. The MPA contributed £5000 to this review and briefly seconded an officer to the project team. Its recommendations were considered by the MPS Management Board and the work has now been subsumed into the MPS’ Modernisation Programme.

MPA contribution to CDRPs

CDRP scrutiny

12. The Planning, Performance and Review Committee has received regular reports on the progress against recommendations set out in the MPA’s CDRP Scrutiny report 2003. At its last meeting on 8 December 2005, the committee commended the progress achieved against these recommendations. It recognised the MPS’ cultural shift towards partnership working that has been achieved following the scrutiny. It also agreed that it was time to move forward from the scrutiny as the landscape around CDRPs has now changed significantly and that new areas of interest and priorities may have emerged for the MPA to pursue.

MPA partnership fund

13. The MPA repeated its annual contribution of £50,000 to each CDRP. The fund remains an important statement of the MPA’s commitment to partnership working and fulfilment of its statutory responsibility. At its meeting of 3 February 2006, Co-ordination and Policing Committee tightened the arrangements for use of the fund but approved the conrtinuing general usage and principles.

Community engagement

14. The MPA’s strategy on borough-level consultation is continuing to evolve. This has been based both upon emerging local developments and anticipated legislative change that may promote neighbourhood policing and greater local policing/CDRP accountability. The MPA has been in dialogue with local partners about proposed new ways of collaborating on this issue.

Sharing good practice

15. It has been difficult identifying a structured way of sharing the practice of different boroughs that the MPA gains from its overview of London. In response to this, the MPA, in partnership with the MPS and Safer London Foundation, has launched a problem-solving award for London. At time of writing this report, 14 nominations have been received from a range of boroughs for initiatives which have used the problem-solving approach to neighbourhood crime and disorder issues. As well as selecting a London champion to put forward to the national Tilley awards, the project will produce examples and case studies of successful initiatives across London. This will introduce web site examples sharing what works across CDRPs.

Pan London oversight of CDRP work

16. The Service Review recommended the development of a regional crime and disorder partnership. The Crime and Disorder Review may build upon this, but in the meantime the London Crime Reduction Delivery Board is being revamped towards providing a greater co-ordinating role. The MPA has been and will remain one of the key agencies fronting this Board.

17. The London Race Hate Crime Forum, the multi-agency forum with lead support provided by the MPA, has continued to meet with and receive presentations from a number of partnerships on their race hate crime work. This has provided an opportunity for both the MPA and partnerships to learn from the widespread work to address hate crimes.

18. Members and officers also have used the opportunity of MPA representation at pan-London working groups to feed in issues raised at CDRPs into London-wide project groups and strategies. These include groups dealing with transport crime, anti-social behaviour and gun crime.

MPA Chair’s visits to boroughs

19. The Chair of the Authority has continued meeting with CDRPs on an individual basis. As at the close of 2005 he has visited 19 boroughs. This is the third programme of meetings between the MPA Chair and CDRPs and these have once again proved useful in establishing a dialogue and giving boroughs the opportunity to discuss their issues with the MPA. The meetings have covered progress on safer neighbourhoods, hate crime, community engagement and general performance matters. Some other areas of detailed discussion have included the use and rewarding of volunteers, the disposal and modernisation of the police estate, proposed LAA freedoms and flexibilities, community reassurance, abstractions and resource allocation (including the Resource Allocation Formula, support staff numbers, specialist support teams and funding of other local resources).

20. Each borough has also presented an outline of the development of warden services and their links with PCSOs and safer neighbourhoods. CDRPs also took the opportunity to discuss areas of notable practice and cross-border issues.

21. The MPA’s proposals on community engagement have also been summarily discussed. The need for greater clarity and dialogue on this matter has been raised.

22. One area of advocacy that boroughs continue to look for MPA support is in lobbying for greater linkages between the CDRP and criminal justice agendas, including improvements with the NOMS service and of magistrates understanding of CDRP and/or community issues.

23. A specific report will be produced once the programme is completed. The Chair may wish to give a verbal update at the Authority’s meeting.

Member involvement

24. The Link Member structure has generally worked well in enabling the MPA to fulfil its duty. It is estimated that members have attended around 45% of CDRP meetings. Many members have been more active locally in liaising with borough commanders and engaging in CDRP and other local initiatives. The difficulty often remains with members who are linked to more than one borough and clashes of commitments. Members may wish to review the link member core role as expectations around CPCG/community safety board attendance and LSP involvement grows. Also, the majority of CDRPs meet every two or three months; a minority are now meeting monthly, which places a greater demand upon the link members; a few others hold executive meetings less frequently, e.g. twice a year, which presents a different difficulty of engagement.

25. Local officers have proved inconsistent in liaising with members on the use of the Partnerships Fund but the new arrangements for the disbursement of funds, mentioned in para 13, is expected to remedy this.

CDRP team support

26. For reasons highlighted in the section above, the MPA’s CDRP Team has continued to help support members, and the MPA, to fulfil the CDRP function of the MPA’s work. Through deputising on members’ behalf, the MPA has achieved over 80% attendance of 160 plus meetings. Members appear to have welcomed the briefings, research, local liaison and forward planning support that the team has provided to enable them to engage as actively as possible. The team has also engaged as fully as possible with other CDRP processes during the year including strategy development, target setting, best value and other reviews.

27. Over the course of the year, the team’s other activities have included arranging briefings and information sessions for members and staff covering issues such as the work of the Clubs and Vice Team, Street Pastors scheme, LAAs, police reform etc.

28. It has promoted and maintained liaison with key pan-London partners, with whom it meets on a regular basis, including GOL, GLA, Association of London Government, the Safer London Foundation as well as the MPS Partnerships Team and other MPS units. This has ensured good information flows and networking between the MPA and these agencies.

29. The team has supported each of the Chair’s borough visits. It also provided borough briefings to support Mayoral visits, GLA sub-regional visits and briefing for other ad hoc information requests for borough events.

30. Through the team, the MPA has also fully participated in London-wide working groups as well as conference planning including the Safer Neighbourhoods Conference last January and the planned Global Policing Conference in February 2006.

Where next?

31. In noting this report, it is hoped Members agree that:

• the MPA continues to be a full and active member of all 32 London CDRPs;
• it is an opportune time for the MPA to review its arrangements for and key interests in partnership working at a borough level, as well as its oversight of the MPS;
• there is much work needed for the MPA to keep pace with the developments impacting upon CDRPs and that it may be useful to arrange an event whereby members can receive and consider the developments as these affect the MPA in greater detail; and
• Members are asked to note the report, to feedback on their own experiences and involvement with CDRPs during 2005 and to comment on how they would like to see the MPA’s work and arrangements with CDRPs develop in 2006/07.

Drivers for change

32. The following factors are changing the landscape for CDRPs and may have a bearing upon the approach to be taken by the MPA.

33. Police reform: this will encourage CDRPs to take a more concerted approach to neighbourhood and ASB issues. A shift in emphasis towards neighbourhoods may require the MPA to consider how it fits into supporting CDRPs at a neighbourhood level and the development of local Police Boards.

34. The National Community Safety Plan: this could shift the balance away from regional plans towards both local and national priorities, so impacting upon the role of the MPA at CDRPs if the regional plan becomes less significant.

35. Local Area Agreements: These are being rolled out in phases to different boroughs by 2007/08. The agreements aim to set out a new basis for both the relationship and funding arrangements between local and central government. They comprise agreed local targets and common Public Service Agreement targets that will contribute to a national 15% crime reduction target by 2007/08. The MPS have established a process to ensure that a correlation between MPS-wide/policing plan targets with local targets is achieved: discussions are held between key local partners and then proposed targets are negotiated through the MPS’ Star Chamber’. It is evident that PSA and local targets are becoming a key focus of the performance framework used within partnerships. The degree to which CDRP partners, including the MPA, are involved in this process varies by borough. A number of MPA members have sought greater clarity of the process and its timescale. LAAs have also raised the profile of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and the need for effective linkages between LSPs and CDRPs. LAAs will increasingly set the strategic direction and funding for the ‘Safer and Stronger Communities’ work that CDRPs will be charged to deliver by LSPs. How should the MPA engage with LSPs?

36. Public Service Agreements: these are now key determinants in shaping the local target setting framework for policing services and CDRPs. The MPA’s performance planning process needs to work in tandem with this.

37. Corporate Performance Assessments: The Audit Commission has introduced a new performance assessment framework for local authorities. A key component will be an assessment of how well local authorities, and CDRPs in partnership with councils, are citizen-focused. The MPA’s work on improving community engagement can support CDRPs to achieve a more citizen-focused approach.

38. Trigger mechanisms: through a process designed to address long-standing community crime and disorder concerns, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are looking at giving greater powers to ward councillors to take forward such concerns. Councillors could be given the power to seek a response from CDRPs that will address or at least investigate/scrutinise these issues. The process could allow for a proliferation of scrutinies and a change in day-to-day policing priorities. The MPA, as a CDRP partner, would want to have a right of representation on these scrutinies but this work could become a substantial resource demand.

39. Local Policing Summaries: Under provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, police authorities will have to publish annual "local policing summaries" to all households in London from 2006. The Home Office is yet to issue regulations defining what information has to be provided. It will be a significant new task for MPA and MPS.

40. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act: The GLA may become bound to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act by which it will then be required to consider the crime and disorder impact of all its plans and policies. This could increase the need for the Mayor and GLA to liaise/consult with the MPA, MPS and CDRPs on Mayoral plans and policies.

41. Crime and Disorder Act Review: The Home Office recently published its review if the Crime and Disorder Act which will have clear implications for the MPA if it translates into legislation.

CDA review - structures

42. The review proposes splitting the strategic and operational decision making responsibilities of CDRPs. The benefits to CDRP performance of splitting their strategic and operational functions are such that all should adopt this approach. The review concluded that given the important role that CDRPs will play in delivering the Safer and Stronger Communities block of the LAAs, CDRPs’ strategic functions should rest at Local Strategic Partnership level. In order for a CDRP’s strategic and operational functions to be discharged successfully, the right people need to be at the partnership table. Although the Review does not dictate who should represent the individual agencies it highlighted how important it is that those attending partnership meetings have the seniority to take decisions and commit resources on behalf of their organisation. Thee Home Office intends developing national standards for partnership working that amongst other things will outline the role and responsibilities of each partner in helping to deliver community safety. Who should represent the MPA on LSP and on CDRP? Has the Authority the capacity to meet those commitments?

CDA review - delivery

43. Intelligence led decision making is seen at the heart of effective delivery. Every CDRP will undertake an intelligence led, problem-solving and outcome orientated approach to community safety. The police National Intelligence Model will be adapted to fit the principles and practices behind strategic direction, accurate allocation of resources and management. Strategic intelligence assessments will be undertaken at least on a six-monthly basis and will be used by all those discharging strategic and operational community safety functions. Is there a training implication for the MPA re NIM? What can the MPA do to support a problem solving approach to community safety?

Governance and accountability

44. The Review reported that community safety matters greatly to local people and CDRPs play a crucial role in delivering this for local communities so the intention is that CDRPs should be both more visible to the communities they serve, and more accountable to them. Thus the aim is that CDRPs continue to engage with local people and actively encourage and empower them to be involved in improving their quality of life. The Crime and Disorder Act required CDRPs to consult with a range of local agencies and people on the findings of their three year audits; that will continue within the NIM framework. CDRPs must provide regular opportunities for local people to raise their concerns and provide valuable community intelligence.

45. CDRPs will no longer be required to provide the Home Secretary with annual report the implementation of their three year strategies, but instead will produce regular reports to their communities. It is essential that local people help inform decisions over local community safety priorities and are able to see how the partnership is performing in order to hold it to account.

46. There is an intention to extend the powers of local authority Overview and Scrutiny Committees to encompass the work of CDRPs. A form of ‘scrutiny plus’ involving the partner agencies will allow scrutiny committees better to reflect the multi-agency nature of community safety work. In addition, the Home Office intend for a mechanism for triggering action whereby communities will be able to secure a response from partners to a particular community safety issue that has not been adequately addressed. The local ward councillor will play a key role in securing a response but the local authority scrutiny committee will be used to look at cases that cannot be easily resolved.

47. Local councillors will act as the conduit at neighbourhood level for relaying local concerns to community safety partners and encouraging local people to get involved in local governance. National standards will also reflect the determination to build on the active involvement of elected community safety portfolio holders in the strategic community safety decision making processes.

48. In addition it is likely that a newly constituted Criminal justice Inspectorate will inspect and assess CDRPs, including the performance and contribution of each of the individual partners. How can the MPA ensure it plays, and is seen to play, a full and effective role as a partner?

Mainstreaming and national standards

49. Section 17 of the CDA has worked on the rationale that the socio-economic and environmental causes of crime and disorder can be impacted on by a range of agencies working in the locality and therefore they should regularly consider this in all their operational and strategic delivery decisions. The intention is to broaden the definition of s17 to require agencies to also take account of anti-social behaviour, behaviour adversely affecting the environment and substance misuse.

50. The guidance that accompanied the CDA in 1998 was intended to provide a framework within which agencies could decide how they best worked together at a local level to deliver on community safety. The Review sees a need for a set of standards that clearly sets out what is expected of each partnership and the roles and responsibilities of the individual partners, whilst at the same time not prescribing how they meet these standards. Compliance with these national standards will be compulsory and will cover a range of key issues. Thus the MPA may have to be more explicit in how it meets its duty under section 17.

C. Race and equality impact

1. An MPA generic equality scheme is currently being developed. Specific consideration needs to be given as to how the MPA uses its role to ensure the work and policies of CDRPs have a positive and fair impact on all communities. Comments from members are welcome on how the MPA could effectively exercise this role in collaboration with our partners.

2. Many new powers for making communities safer may have a bearing upon citizens’ rights e.g. orders dealing with anti-social behaviour, controlled zones, prolific and prolific offenders scheme etc. Their impact on specific communities needs to be carefully considered. In many cases, the MPA has received reports from the MPS on these new powers but the application of these needs to be continually reviewed.

D. Financial implications

1. None arising specifically from the report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Keith Dickinson, Head of Policing policy and Partnerships, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback