Contents
Report 8 of the 4 September 2008 meeting of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee, providing an overview of the distribution of the MPA Partnership Fund for the 2007/08 financial year.
Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).
See the MOPC website for further information.
Use of the MPA Partnership Fund 2007/08
Report: 8
Date: 4 September 2008
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 2007/08 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 through which Borough Command Units (BCUs) 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 BCUs 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 07/08 period based on the year fund (£1.6 million) plus the underspend carried forward from the 06/07
period. There then follows a more detailed breakdown according the categories identified by 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 BCU in the financial return. It is clear that in many cases projects will be crosscutting in respect of 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.
3. Fund totals for the year 07/08
| Fund totals for the year 07/08 | |
|---|---|
| Annual allocation 07/08 | £1,600,000 |
| 06/07 underspend | £295,851 |
| Total available | £1,895,851 |
| Actual spend | £1,644,994 |
| 08/09 carry forward | £250,857 |
Table 1 - fund totals for the year 07/08
These figures are from data held by MPS Finance Services, which monitors the MPA fund, and records the actual reported spends for each borough.
4. Breakdown according to requested categories
| Breakdown of spend according to requested categories | |
|---|---|
| BME Groups – engagement | £58,500 |
| Other Diversity initiatives | £58,000 |
| Young People – diversion & prevention | £528,000 |
| Witness support | £Nil* |
| Victim support | £122,500 |
| Anti-social behaviour | £29,000 |
| Crime Prevention | £157,600 |
| Tackling hate crime | £18,500 |
| Safer Neighbourhoods related | £109,000 |
| Crime reduction contingency | £98,200 |
| General Consultation/ Communication | £78,800 |
| Knife and gun crime | £152,000 |
| Information sharing | £191,000 |
| Miscellaneous allocations | £44,894 |
| Total | £1,644,994 |
| *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. | |
Table 2 - Breakdown of spend according to requested categories
Examples of projects supported by allocations across the 32 boroughs
5. The intention here is to provide a series of examples for the categories presented in Para. 4. In this way, members will get a sense of the range of activities supported by this fund.
BME groups
Funding to support Refugee Week. This was a weeklong initiative celebrating the contribution of new (refugee) communities to contemporary culture in the UK. (Harrow).
Young People
Diversion & prevention: The Junior Citizen scheme again benefited from allocations in several boroughs. In addition, many other diversionary schemes received funding, including a cricket academy (Harrow). There was also an allocation to support the development of a fixed site ‘life skills’ centre, for the delivery of Junior Citizens and other projects.
Victim support
Domestic violence advocacy scheme providing access to services and support for victims of domestic violence (Kensington & Chelsea).
General consultation/communication
Several boroughs have made allocations to support community communications via TVs in public spaces.
Tackling domestic violence
Several boroughs made allocations to domestic violence projects, including the appointment of fulltime workers to coordinate activities.
Safer Neighbourhoods related
Various allocations to Safer Neighbourhoods initiatives, including crime prevention training and various communications and consultation initiatives.
Information sharing
Allocation to ‘Greenwich observatory’, a borough based information system accessed by all partners.
Crime prevention
In addition to the purchase of various target -hardening products and crime prevention literature, one borough allocated £3000 to designing out crime from a children’s playground. Another borough provided bogus caller awareness training for its neighbourhood watch coordinators.
Knife & gun crime
The ‘five boroughs’ gang project received allocations from this fund in each of the participating boroughs.
London Week of Peace
Peace Breakfasts, lectures, conferences, musical events and others activities within Peace Week (various boroughs)
Diversity projects (LGBT & faith community)
Funding for a borough chaplain who is also responsible for coordinating Street Pastors (Bexley).
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 2007/08, a total of £250,857 was carried forward into the following financial year.
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, which benefit from this fund is substantial and should not be overlooked, as the total of 322 separate 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 localise 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(s): Steve Bloomfield, 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