Metropolitan Police Service involvement in Local Area Agreements

Report: 8
Date: 7 April 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report sets out the rationale and application of Local Area Agreements (LAAs). It identifies a number of potential implications for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in particular and community safety work in general, in the light of early indications from the two London-based pilots.

In addition the report deals with the preparations for the Phase II rollout, including guidance given to boroughs to date and the proposals for future work in this area. It acknowledges the central role given to government offices in the negotiation and monitoring of LAAs, while also noting the need for continuing oversight on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to assess the impact of these agreements on MPS planning, performance and resource allocation.

A. Recommendations

1. That the Authority should note the contents of this report
2. The Authority should note the guidance given to borough MPS staff to date in relation to Local Area Agreements (LAAs)

B. Supporting information

Rationale and application of LAAs

1. The information provided in this section is drawn largely from the various guidance notes published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) over the past year. Full details of these documents are given below (See background papers).

2. The ODPM prospectus for LAAs suggested that these agreements ‘will offer a real opportunity to improve the relationship between central and local government by providing a framework for sustained and informed dialogue between central and local government, and its major delivery partners’. These agreements form part of the Government’s 10-year strategy for local government. They must be seen in the context of national Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and floor targets and are to be outcome based.

3. LAAs are intended to be concise documents setting out priorities in terms outcomes, indicators and targets in the blocks as defined but with an encouragement to identify cross-cutting priorities to tackle those broader and longer term priorities. The guidance notes define an outcome as ‘a high level aim, reflecting national and/or local priorities for improvement’. Furthermore a target is defined as ‘a clear timebound milestone for achieving the outcome’.

4. The expectation is that ‘local authorities and their partners’ will negotiate the LAA with their respective Government Office. The primary responsibility for negotiating the LAA, together with the subsequent delivery of outcomes and performance management rests with the local authority operating through the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). The concept of the LAA has evolved from the earlier rounds of Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) which saw local authorities negotiate a range of targets against which a reward grant was set. From the outset it was intended that LPSAs should form an integral part of the LAA.

5. In line with Government manifesto commitments as part of a policy of developing the communication between central and local government, it has been agreed to continue the phased roll out of LAAs. This means that a further fifteen London boroughs will sign LAAs for commencement in April 2006 the remaining fifteen will sign agreements in April 2007. Together with the two pilot boroughs this will complete the roll out across the Capital. Full details of the pilot boroughs and the Phase II boroughs are contained in Appendix 1.

6. In June 2005, ODPM issued guidance for the second phase rollout. This guidance strengthened the requirement for local authorities, together with their LSPs, to ensure that consultation was sufficiently broad, bringing in stakeholders not currently within the LSPs. While there is a clear drive to extend consultation, it is worth emphasising that one of the aims of the process is ‘to streamline, simplify and integrate existing performance managements into one area-based framework’.

7. As already noted, the LAAs are to be outcome focused. In the main these outcomes are to be grouped into four blocks: Children and Young People, Safer and Stronger Communities, Healthier Communities and Older People and Economic Development and Enterprise. It should be noted that, as part of the ongoing development of these agreements, a number of ‘high performing’ boroughs have been identified as ‘single pot’ LAAs. In these areas – as the name implies – funding will be received as a single sum that must be distributed across the full range of priorities that fall within the scope of the local authority and its partners. A key feature of the single pot is that there is no requirement to group outcomes or funding streams into the four blocks previously identified. However, where a particular funding stream carries mandatory outcomes these will need to be included in the single pot LAA.

8. Guidance also indicates that second generation LPSAs will be negotiated as part of the LAA. Although the LAA will not of itself be based on the notion of stretch targets, where an LPSA is negotiated within it, there will be targets attracting pump-priming funding to achieve stretch, ultimately attracting a reward grant if reached or exceeded.

9. Reward grants will be based on twelve priorities to which negotiated outcomes will apply. According to guidance, these priorities must be ‘the most important priorities for improvement locally’. The guidance does not then specify the mechanism for assessing the criterion of importance. It remains to be seen whether, in the light of the apparent success and ongoing rollout of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme, there will be a tendency to identify community safety priorities within these twelve priorities comprising the reward element. As with LPSAs, the LAAs will be the subject of discussions relating to freedoms and flexibilities sought by the partnership reflecting particular local needs or the requirements of specific and innovative projects.

10. Particularly relevant to the MPS, and the Authority, is the Safer Stronger Communities (SSC) Block. Again, turning to the ODPM guidance, the purpose of this block is ‘to help partners [to address] priorities around crime, drugs, anti-social behaviour, improving public space, making public services more responsive, empowering local communities…and encouraging greater active citizenship’. The SSC Block carries mandatory outcomes relating to reductions in crime and harm caused by illegal drugs, reassurance and anti-social behaviour, together with empowering local people to influence local decision making.

11. The mandatory outcomes indicated in the SSC block would appear to have a particular resonance with the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme. As the Authority will be aware, it is intended that by April 2007, when the remaining fifteen boroughs commence their LAAs, there should be Safer Neighbourhoods teams in all London’s neighbourhoods. These teams will be delivering local policing against priorities set for them by their communities and they will, as early indications suggest, make a significant contribution to the outcomes – mandatory and otherwise – contained in the LAAs.

12. While the SSC block is clearly broad ranging in its application, it is necessary to be aware of the implications of the other blocks for the MPS and its CDRP partners. To take one example, the Children and Young People’s Block is required to take account of the Every Child Matters programme, one element of which is to ‘stay safe’. This is an area in which specific outcomes affecting the police and its partners may be set or there may be scope for the sort of crosscutting outcomes that the Government is keen to encourage in the LAA process. Such opportunities for cross-cutting priorities may be found throughout the four blocks.

Experience of the pilot LAAs

13. In total there were 20 pilot LAAs nationally, of which two were in London. These were in the London Borough of Greenwich and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. ODPM has published a full evaluation report covering all the pilots and have used the findings to create an LAA Toolkit. It should be noted that the pilot agreements began in April 2005 and the evaluation report appeared two months later. As a consequence the evaluation deals almost entirely with the negotiation and development phases rather than the delivery stage.

14. It is necessary to point out that a number of the pilots were in two-tier authorities, reducing the value for guiding London boroughs. The evaluation report further recognised the broad range – from ‘very good’ to ‘surprisingly weak’ – among the pilots, at the same time noting that ‘the evidence base is generally implicit and difficult to judge’. The identified strengths include the integration of local and national priorities, while for the obverse it notes that ‘details for funding, indicators and targets are often lacking sufficient detail’. A potentially important conclusion relates to the need to recognise that each LAA will need to reflect the diversity of local authority areas, there is not a one size fits all model.

15. The evaluation report concludes that the ‘LAA process has the capacity to help to build stronger and more effective partnerships’, and has begun to strengthen LSPs. However there is a divergence relating to the perceived achievements of LAAs ranging from the government offices, which tend to be more enthusiastic and positive than the pilots, and with the local authorities which are more optimistic than partners about the achievement of LAAs. This may be accounted for simply in terms of the knowledge of the aims of LAAs and their potential benefits which will take time to reach all those concerned. With this in mind, it seems that a proper assessment of LAAs will need to wait for at least two to three years. In addition, as a number of people have suggested, the first round of agreements will necessarily be fairly tentative and will be subject to revision in due course.

16. It has been suggested in the pilots that the LAA process leads to an increase in the number of partnership meetings without there necessarily being a tangible increase in the benefit. For those boroughs where the MPS is already properly engaged with the LSP this may not appear to have a significant impact on existing practice. In one case it was felt that with the local authority and the LSP driving the process the opportunity effectively to influence the agreement was to some extent limited. In addition, it was felt that real change would only be effected through the reallocation of mainstream funding. For one pilot borough the impression is that the LAA has had little or no impact on community safety funding or on crime reduction.

17. In the early stages of the LAA process pilots have also noted that there is an inherent reluctance among some partners to pool funding. This reticence stems from a concern about the ability of the respective partner agency to meet its own commitments, upon which it continues to be measured, without full control of the resources at its disposal. An example of this might be found in the willingness or otherwise of a chief officer of police to pool the Basic Command Unit (BCU) Fund. In this context some partners preferred to align funds rather than pool them. The consequence of which is to acknowledge the contribution made be a particular agency through the given funding stream while allowing that agency to retain full control over the funding. There is a sense in which this runs somewhat contrary to the spirit of the LAA.

18. London pilots have noted the need to appoint an LAA lead for the BOCU, not necessarily the borough commander. Furthermore it is necessary – as the evaluation and subsequent toolkit suggest – to ensure that there is a strong project management regime within the partnership. It is possible to see in this a parallel with the recent Audit Commission report on the management of partnerships which also emphasised the need for strong and clear leadership in partnerships.

19. With regard to potential barriers in the process, one London pilot highlighted the apparent inability to bring forward funding from subsequent years where there is a requirement for additional spending in the early stages of the project. A similar difficulty is identified in terms of the restrictions relating to carrying over funding surplus.

Training and guidance

20. The LAA process is set to have a significant impact on the way that decisions are taken locally. They will affect the CDRPs and all participating agencies. There is a clear requirement to provide guidance and training for all those affected by the LAAs and this need is being met in a number of ways.

21. There is a requirement for Government Offices to take a lead role in all aspects of the LAA process from negotiation to monitoring and assessment. However, there is also a need to address the specific issues raised by LAAs for the MPS and its partners in CDRPs. As a result, it is important that Government Office for London (GOL) and the MPS Partnership Team (TPHQ) work closely together on this project; this is already taking place.

22. During 2005, workshops have been run by the Partnership Team for BOCU staff and GOL have run several briefings for local authority community safety managers and others. In addition, the MPS Partnership Team, in collaboration with GOL, have run a funding conference at which LAAs formed the basis of the agenda and which was attended by senior representatives from every BOCU. The two pilot boroughs were able to assist with this event.

23. It is necessary to keep in mind the fact that the rollout of LAAs will continue with the remaining fifteen boroughs signing agreements for commencement in April 2007. As a result there will be an ongoing process of training and guidance as lessons are learned from the phase II boroughs. It is anticipated that this work will fall within the remit of the TP Partnership Team.

Central collation and assessment of agreements and current policy

24. The LAA process requires local authorities to negotiate their priorities
with partners and then to present proposals, in the form of draft agreements, to government offices. In the case Phase II boroughs these were required by 30 November 2005. There is an opportunity subsequently to make alterations to the agreements which, although running for three years, will be subject to an annual review.

25. Primary responsibility for the collation and assessment of agreements and the priorities within them rests with the relevant government office. However, it is important for the purposes of gauging the impact of LAAs on the community safety arena and in particular for the MPS, that there should be some ongoing monitoring of the agreements specifically the Safer Stronger Communities element. This will again require close working between the MPS Partnership Team and counterparts at GOL. Arrangements have been made for regular meetings to review progress on LAAs.

26. At this stage there is no written corporate MPS policy on LAAs. It is suggested that, given the evolving nature of the programme and the opportunities to understand better the implications of these agreements, following the Phase II rollout, the need for policy should be assessed in the coming months with a view to preparing policy for April 2007 when all boroughs are covered by such agreements.

C. Race and equality impact

1. Local Area Agreements will be subject to the same challenges as any other initiatives that depend on broad consultation and engagement. The lessons being learned through the CDRP audit and strategy process as well as through the Safer Neighbourhoods implementation are of value in this regard. It is essential that boroughs consult widely within their communities in drafting the LAAs. This will need to continue as the agreements are refreshed each year.

2. Outcomes expressed in LAAs will need to take account of the diverse need of communities within communities. In this context it will be important to ensure that funding streams are appropriately directed taking account of the needs of relatively small sections of the community. It will be the responsibility of GOL to monitor the Race and Equality impact across the boroughs. However an aspect of MPS corporate monitoring should include the Equality Impact Assessment where the outcome relates to policing and community safety.

D. Financial implications

1. There is a basic impact on MPS staff time in terms of the additional time required for the negotiation and monitoring of the LAAs. In the main responsibility will fall to the borough commander in conjunction with the partnership lead – usually at superintending rank – and is likely to be additional to existing commitments to partnership working. The impact of this added meeting time was felt in at least one of the pilot boroughs.

2. As outlined above, the agreements will contain a reward element relating to performance against ‘the most important priorities’. It seems reasonable to suppose that community safety and policing priorities will be well represented in this category. That being the case, there will be added pressure on the MPS to meet its commitments in relation to these priorities. It will be necessary to ensure that any available pump-priming money is properly targeted at the agencies primarily responsible for delivery. In addition, it may be the case that careful negotiation will be needed in respect of any earned reward grant.

3. It must be acknowledged that the pooling of funding streams carries an element of risk real or perceived in terms of the control of that funding. There is an obvious difference between the situation in which staff within an agency bid for money over which their agency has direct control and the situation where they find themselves bidding against other agencies for the same pot. However the potential risks must be seen in the light of the potential benefits accruing from a more coordinated approach to planning, resource allocation and outcome identification. These issues will be the subject of ongoing monitoring by GOL and on behalf of the MPS by the Partnership Team.

E. Background papers

• Local Area Agreements Guidance June 2005
• The Local Area Agreement Toolkit June 2005
  A process evaluation of the negotiation of pilot Local
• Area Agreements: Final Report June 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Alfred Hitchcock (MPS)

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Phase II boroughs

The following fifteen boroughs will be required to negotiate Local Area Agreements for commencement in April 2006:

• Barking and Dagenham
• Brent
• Camden
• Croydon
• Enfield
• Harrow
• Hounslow
• Islington
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Kingston
• Lewisham
• Redbridge
• Tower Hamlets
• Waltham Forest
• Westminster

Of these boroughs the following six will be classed as ‘single pot’ LAAs:

• Brent
• Croydon
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Lewisham
• Westminster
• Kingston

Pilot boroughs

• Hammersmith and Fulham
• Greenwich

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback