MPA Partnership funding

Report: 10
Date: 6 December 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

The report provides an overview of the distribution of the MPA Partnership Fund for the 2006/07 financial year. The breakdown of allocations contained within this report is in accordance with the commissioning brief and therefore shows allocations to set categories, thus providing an account of the use of this fund in the areas of most interest to members.

A. Recommendations

That members note the content of this report as to the distribution of the MPA Partnership Fund across the 32 London boroughs.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA Partnership Fund continues to be a valued source of funding from which BOCUs are able to support a wide range of partnership activities. Furthermore, this allocation is assisted by the flexibility built in to the spending criteria; thereby enable BOCUs to make multiple, small allocations to projects or small numbers of sizeable allocations according to local need.

2. This report begins with some headline figures showing the totals available for the 06/07 period based on the year fund (£1.6 million) plus the under spend carried forward from the 05/06 period. This is followed by a detailed breakdown according to the categories identified by the Authority. It should be noted that there is no double counting in the categories as the methodology is based on categorising according to the primary purpose of the project as identified by the BOCU in their financial return. Many projects will be crosscutting the categories used in this breakdown. This report takes the form of a summary of the funding allocations as it not practicable to do otherwise, given the very large number of allocations across the 32 boroughs – over 400 separate funding allocations summarised in the following way.

Fund totals for the year 06/07

3. The fund totals for the year 06/07 are:

Annual allocation 06/07

£1,600,000

05/06 underspend

£273,367

Total available

£1,873,367

Actual spend

£1,575,350

Carried forward 07/08

295,851

Unallocated funds

£2,167

These figures are from data held by MPS Finance Services which monitors the MPA fund and records the actual reported spends for each borough.

Breakdown according to requested categories

4.     The breakdown according to requested categories is:

BME Groups – engagement

£54,070

Young People – diversion & prevention

£511,300

Witness support 

£Nil*

Victim support 

£116,070

 Anti-social behaviour

£67,280

 General consultation/communication

£267,800

Tackling hate crime

£6,000

Safer Neighbourhoods related

 £111,860

Crime reduction contingency

£80,873

 Information sharing

£71,100

*The nil return in this category indicates that there are no explicit references to witness initiatives in the returns. It does not mean that witness support is not a feature within funded projects that have another stated primary focus.

Additional categories

5. The following categories were not identified in the Commissioning Brief, however they are sufficiently significant issues with relatively large allocations such that they warrant reporting as separate categories.

Crime prevention

£113,309

Gun crime

£56,115

London Week of Peace

£23,380

 Diversity projects (LGBT & Faith community)

£60,260

Total spend across these categories

£1,538,417

6. The total spend figure shown at Para. 3 does not agree with the figure at Para. 5 because the latter is based only on the identification of projects falling clearly within these categories. In addition, there are some situations where BOCUs have exceeded their Partnership Fund allocation and have made up the shortfall from other sources; in effect, this is match funding. There are other small allocations that fall outside the categories shown above, these relate to training and to partnership support. A small amount of the fund (£2,167) remains unallocated. The rest of the sum carried forward has been set against identified projects to be supported in the 07/08 financial year.    

Examples of projects in each reported category

7. The intention here is to outline a project as an exemplar for each of the categories for which allocations are being reported. In this way, members will get a sense of the range of activities supported by this fund:

• BME groups – engagement: multi-agency cultural awareness training organised by the Turkish Police Association, arising out of specific, identified local need (Hackney).
• Young People – diversion & prevention: Junior Citizen scheme – experiential learning for primary school children covering a range of community safety related topics (Redbridge).
• Victim support – Domestic violence advocacy scheme providing access to services and support for victims of domestic violence (Kensington & Chelsea).
• Anti-social behaviour – Street drinkers and town centre ASB reduction work in and around Woolwich town centre (Greenwich)
• General consultation/communication – funding for posters, leaflets, venues and related costs associated with community consultation work (Richmond)
• Tackling hate crime – Enhanced role (with training) for the Independent Advisory Group in dealing with critical incidents with specific aim of reducing gun and hate crime (Lewisham)
• Safer Neighbourhoods related – Various allocations to the Safer Neighbourhoods Annual Challenge (SNAC) project, aimed at raising self-esteem amongst young people developing greater community (Hammersmith & Fulham)
• Crime reduction contingency – Funding to support Op Blunt, Op Shield and other campaigns aimed at reducing crime in and around schools, particularly involving violence on young people (Southwark)
• Information sharing – Secure website project (Xtranet) for exchanging information between partners (Camden)
• Crime prevention – Purchase of tamper proof number plate fixings to combat identified local problem (Redbridge)
• Gun crime – ‘hip-hop’ dance classes to divert youngsters away from gun crime (Wandsworth)
• London Week of Peace – Peace Breakfasts, lectures, conferences, musical events and others activities within Peace Week (various boroughs)
• Diversity projects (LGBT & Faith community) – capacity building in the Lambeth LGBT Business Forum; Assistance with funding for a small community group to provide a Ramadan celebration

8. In addition to the examples shown above, there are many other interesting and innovative projects including graffiti removal schemes, training in combating cyber bullying (‘Jenny’s Story’) and a variety of arts and culture events designed to enhance community engagement and cohesion.

C. Race and equality impact

1. It is argued here that the equality and diversity implications of the funding allocations are broadly positive. The fund is widely used to support local minority ventures that would otherwise struggle for funding. It is also apparent from the breakdown according to the requested categories that a very broad spectrum of communities and activities benefit from funding.

2. Indeed, There are no indications of any negative impact on minority groups arising out of the allocation of any of the MPA Partnership Fund. Furthermore, it should be noted that all aspects of diversity have been addressed through this funding, with projects based on race, faith, gender, sexual orientation and ability differences.

D. Financial implications

1. For the year 2006/07, a total of £295,851 was carried forward into the following financial year. However, as noted above, the bulk of this carry forward was set against identified projects, leaving only £2,167 unassigned.

2. The current changes to the Local Area Agreements and the related changes to partnership funding – including the possible loss of the Basic Command Unit Fund – will significantly affect the amount of funding available to borough commanders to support partnership projects. In this environment, the MPA Partnership Fund will assume even greater significance. The number of local projects across all 32 boroughs that benefit from this fund is substantial and should not be overlooked, as the total of over 400 funding allocations would seem to suggest.

3. Mention has already been made of the flexibility within the spend criteria; this is a factor in minimising the cost of managing this fund. As a result it is possible for small allocations to be made to localised projects in a way which enable the MPS to provide tangible support in the very heart of the communities it serves.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Acting Detective Chief Superintendent Martin Stevens, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback