Race Hate Crimes Working Group

This report was withdrawn from this meeting

Report: 15
Date: 1 May 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

Since it was first implemented in July 2001, the MPA Race Hate Crimes Working Group has made significant progress in mapping and identifying a significant gap in the approaches to the resourcing; monitoring and analysis of race hate crimes by local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and other key service providers in London. Plans and proposals for the next phase of the work to establish a London wide Race Hate Crimes Forum is underway, and this report presents members with an overview of this, as well as highlighting a number of issues concerning the governance of the Forum.

A. Recommendation

That:

1. the arrangements for the formal launch date for the Forum on 13 May 2003 be noted;
2. the options outlined in paragraphs 10 to 15 be noted and the proposal for the work to be located in the GLA Community Safety Unit work be agreed subject to the endorsement of the Coordination and Policing Committee; and
3. the proposals outlined in paragraph 21 for resolving the funding for the local Racial Incident Panels in the boroughs mentioned be noted and referred to the CoP.

B. Supporting information

1. The Board has previously received reports on this issue as has the Coordination and Policing Committee (CoP) as under its terms of reference that Committee acts as the lead Committee for community safety matters. Now that there is a clearer indication of the funding for the work of the proposed Administrator by the working group, work is underway to progress the formal launch of the Race Hate Crimes Forum for London. Victim Support London is coordinating this event on behalf of the MPA and the Group and is working closely with the MPA Communications Unit in administering this event. Roger Casale, the MP for Wimbledon, is sponsoring the launch and will be the champion for this area of work. Invitations have already been sent out to the key partner organisations on the Forum as well as MPA members and other guests.

Funding for the Forum

2. Verbal confirmation has been received from the Government Office for London to support the salary and development costs for the Administrator post, however the Authority is still awaiting the receipt of the £30,000 it applied for. In addition to this sum, partner organisations have pledged funding as well as staff support time to progress the work programme of the Forum. Details of this have been previously presented to the CoP. Since then, the Mayor’s Office has indicated that the Mayor would be willing to contribute financially to the work of the Forum, but this will be on the basis that the person appointed should be based in the Community Safety Unit at City Hall. It is unclear, to date, what the level of the funding will be.

Options for locating the next phase of the work of the Forum

3. As the work has developed over the past 18 months, it has identified a worrying gap in the coordination, monitoring and analysis of race hate incidents and crimes across the various agencies in London. The role of the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships has also been identified as having the potential to play an important role in this area, however, there is little evidence that this is coordinated or monitored. A recent presentation by the Home Office to the working group, confirms this is the case.

4. The Authority’s own role and responsibility with regards to the role it can play has also become clearer over the past 18 months. It has demonstrated that it can play a much needed role in coordinating the key statutory, voluntary and criminal justice organisations that have a key role to play in this area to work together to achieve an outcome that has not been previously addressed. The MPA, together with the other key agencies listed in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report also have a responsibility to see that the recommendations that relate to this area of work are progressed, 10 years on since Stephen’s murder.

5. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report recommended that:

• The Home Office, police services, local government and other agencies create ‘a comprehensive system for reporting and recording all racial incidents and crimes’.
• All relevant local agencies and communities should be encouraged to report racial incidents and crimes. Victims should be enabled to report incidents 24 hours a day and at locations other than police stations.
• All agencies, particularly housing and education departments, should ensure that information about racial incidents is available to all agencies.

6. In June 2000, the Home Office produced guidance for local agencies on how to undertake the recording and monitoring of racial harassment and violence. ‘Cross cutting’ Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) were developed which apply to

• police authorities,
• local authorities, and
• other agencies subject to Best Value:
  • BVPI 174: number of racial incidents per 100,000 population
  • BVPI 175: percentage of racial incidents that resulted in further action

MPA responsibility for the police overview of Race Hate at a pan-London level

7. Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the Authority, as well as many of the key partners, (who are also public authorities) are subject to the general duty of the Act. This means that, in addition to the responsibility that the Authority may have as a statutory partner in the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership for monitoring, analysing and resourcing racial incidents and racial crimes, it also has to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote racial equality and good race relations in the carrying out of their various functions on racial incidents and racial harassment.

8. The Committee also has the responsibility for the overview of the work that the MPS does in this area, and the data for the last two years is attached at Appendix 1, this also incorporates the level of funding that the GOL has provided to all local authorities to support this work, which should include support for the monitoring of race hate crimes.

9. The EODB will need to decide whether it sees the Authority as having a key role in the continued coordination, and resourcing of the developments that are required in this area, and whether it will therefore want to steer the coordination of, at least the first 6 – 12 months of the establishment of the Forum or whether is feels it is more appropriate that another organisation should coordinate this work. The possible options, for members consideration are outlined below.

Option 1 MPA to coordinate the work of the Forum

10 On the basis of the work that is has already achieved, and the confidence that it has already developed with the key partners and stakeholders on the working group. Members may wish to recommend to the Authority that it should continue to play an active role in coordinating work of the Forum, up to the next 12 months, until the Forum is sufficiently developed and an initial monitoring be carried out on the level of work that it is likely to generate and the ‘added value’ to other key partners. The funding received by the Government Office for London other partners will fund the Administrator post and the development work that is required. The individual appointed can be based at the MPA office, or Victim Support London.

11. The Forum will be responsible for work management and supervision and performance management of the individual.

Option 2 Staff appointed by the MPA and located at the office of Victim Support London

12. The Chair of Victim Support London is also the Vice Chair of the working group. The organisation was not in a position to offer cash contribution, however, Victim Support London had indicated very early in the work of the working group that it was prepared to offer office space and initial staff support to the Forum. VSL will be able to provide a member of staff to operate a telephone information service about the work of the Forum, until a permanents appointment has been made. Although the individual will be based at Victim Support London, the Forum will be responsible for work management and supervision and performance management.

Option 3 Staff appointed by the MPA and located at the Community Safety team and the Greater London Authority

13. The Mayor’s Office has recently indicated that it would be willing to contribute financially to the work of the Forum. However, this will be on the basis that the staff appointed be based within the Community Safety Team at the GLA. The Chair of the working group Peter Herbert, a Mayor’s Advisor and GLA officers have held initial discussions about this proposal. It has been verbally agreed that the Mayor’s Office will be interested in ‘housing’ the individual appointed by the MPA at City Hall. The Forum will be responsible for work management and supervision and performance management on the same basis as with victim support.

Race monitoring and the GLA/Mayor’s office

14. Although the Mayor’s Office and the GLA have a clear political role in the level of influence that it can have on the partnership, there is no clear role for the GLA in the CDRPs. Crime and Community Safety is not a key function of the GLA, however, it is a key priority of the Mayor and a great deal of work is being progressed by officers in the Community Safety Unit to influence and progress a number of areas of work in this field. The Mayor’s office has also been instrumental and successful in coordinating the work on domestic violence at a pan-London level, focussing on improving the performance and practice of the key agencies that have a responsibility for policies and services in this area.

15. The Mayor’s Office has been highly successful in accessing funding from the Government Office for London for a range of community safety initiatives, and it may therefore be well placed to leverage the level of funding that will be required, over a period of time, to adequately resource the work that will be required for the Forum.

Funding for local Racial Incident Panels

16. The Home Office provides annual funding for all Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Details are at Appendix 1.

Community and Police Consultative Groups and Racial Harassment/ Incident Panels

17. Although the prime purpose of CPCGs is to consult with and seek the views of the local community on crime and community safety matters, and they have been funded to do so, a small number of Groups (Croydon, Enfield, Islington, Lambeth, Merton and Wandsworth) appear to have played a key role (to varying degrees) in coordinating and progressing the work of their local racial incident/harassment panels.

18. The MPA was advised in July 2002, that it should ensure that the funding provided to CPCGs for consultation and engagement activities should not be used for other matters. Officers were of the view that the support for racial incidents/ harassment panels could not be considered to be a core consultation or community engagement activity and therefore in November 2002, it informed those CPCGs, where it was known that they were supporting this area of work, that the funding would cease in the financial year 2003/04. A summary of the work carried out by the groups is attached at Appendix 2. This decision has caused a great deal of anger in the groups, and has attracted the interest of local politicians.

19. The Government Office for London has been contacted to see whether additional funding could be provided to support the work of these groups. However, the MPA has been advised that as this is a core function of the local CDRPs, who are already well resourced to support this work, no additional funding could be provided.

20. Communications with the local panels administered by the CPCGs indicate that in some cases, the local council is unwilling to support the Group’s application for funding for this area of work. In others, it is apparent that the CPCGs appear to be doing work that is already well supported by the local authority, through agencies such as Victim Support, who are funded to undertake this work on behalf of the council.

21. As this is already a core responsibility of the local CDRPs and the other 26 local authorities appear to fund this area of work, it is proposed that the MPA link members should try to influence the relevant local authorities to see whether they could meet this funding.

22. As the matter may not be easily resolvable it has been brought to the attention of the RHC Working Group for its consideration, and was proposed that, in the first instance,

• the Chair of this working Group writes to the Chair of the relevant CDRP to seek assistance in resolving this matter locally.
• the Chair and or deputy seek an early meeting with the Government Office for London, the ALG and the Chairs of the relevant CDRPs look to get a better understanding of the consistency of approach that should be used in the allocation of the partnership funding to support this work area
• the matter is brought to the attention of the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board for its consideration and action at the May 2003 meeting.

23. All Groups have already received 25% of the total finding, so the work of the RIPs will be secure for the first quarter only. Members’ advice is sought on how this could be reasonably resolved given the fact that this is a core responsibility of the local CDRP and the MPA has not have allocation for this funding in its current budget.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The progress of this work will be a major contribution to the implementation of some of the key recommendations arising from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report, it will also contribute to the coordination of more effective service delivery to victims of race hate crimes across London.

D. Financial implications

1. It is proposed that the additional post of Administrator/Project Development officer be employed by the MPA to support the RHC Forum. The full year costs are estimated at £25,500 plus approximately £2,600 oncosts. In the first year of the Forum addition running costs of approximately £13, 000 will be required. Depending on the option agreed by members, the set-up costs will need to be agreed with the host organisation, who may be prepared to make this their in kind contribution. Further detailed costing will need to be drawn up once a decision s made by members.

2. If approved the post is unlikely to start before September and the part year additional costs in 2003/4 are £14,000. The post must be time limited to the end of the guaranteed support from GOL unless the Authority is willing to underwrite the financing when the grant is removed. This would require a growth bid at the appropriate time. The post will be financed from EODB existing provision - £20,000 GOL funding of £30,000 and other partners have committed finance and staff time (approx. £8,000) Office accommodation is available at Victim Support London. The Mayor’s Office has indicated that if the post is located at City Hall the GLA would be willing to contribute financially. Details of this financial support are yet to be agreed.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 was withdrawn

Appendix 2

Non-funding of Racial Incident Panels 2003/04 bid

Croydon CPCG

No mention of Homophobic Groups, Racial Incidence Panels or non-MPA related organisations throughout Annual Plan or Bid Application 2003/04, however internal correspondence within MPA files clearly shows the Group have relationships with the Racial & Homophobic Incidents Panel for the Croydon area.

Enfield CPCG

Enfield Racial Equalities Council mentioned on Pg 1 of bid application as consultation needed with hard to reach groups with an indicative budget of £5436.

This is 54% of consultation issues and 14% of overall budget originally requested.

Islington CPCG

Partnership Group mentioned on Pg 2 of bid application under category meetings, Crime Reduction Partnership which the chair attends, however no actual amounts written for inclusion as a budget amount.

The chair has attached a document titled Distraction Burglary Initiative and mentioned potential partnerships with Islington Victim Support, Islington Council Trading Standards Officer, Age Concerns neighborhood wardens, however again no cost implications mentioned within the 2003/04 bid application.

Lambeth CPCG

Mentioned on pg 2 of Lambeth CPCG, partnership relations with CCTV Working Group, Public Relations & Outreach Complaints Racial Harassment Committee, Public & Media Strategy Group, Stop n Search Sub Group & Domestic Violence Forum.

Consultation Activities: The cost to the MPA for these partnership relationships are shown as indictative budget costs as follows.

CCTV Working Group - £180, Complaints, Members of the Public - £50, Racial Harrassment Committee - £180, Domestic Violence Forum - £50, Hate Crime Forum - £20 & Stop n Search Sub Group - £20. These are an overall cost to the MPA of £230 or 22% of the cost category and less than 1% of the overall bid application.

It is difficult to work out the cost to the MPA for these partnership relationships, as the detailed costs are not analysed throughout the various cost categories within the bid application.

Merton CPCG

Mentioned CDRP & Racial Incidents Panels (RIP) as a partnership relationship under local initiatives for Group Consultation category (no indicative budget amount needed), training funded in kind by partner.

Meetings: The Group intend to attend 6 RIP meetings & 1 RIP annual conference, a total cost of 3310 or 24% of accommodation & 19% of overall costs.

Photocopying: The group intend to make copies of papers for RIP of 15000 copies at £375, RIP annual conference papers 1200 copies at a total of £405.

Group also intend to produce RIP's annual report at 100 x £1.60 = £1600. The overall cost for RIP's to the MPA would be £2005 which is 67% of the photocopy/repro costs and 13% of the overall bid application requested.

Stationery: Within stationery category a total requirement of 940 envelopes requested as well as 2nd class postage costs of £0.19 x 940.

The postage cost amount would be £178.60 & the costs of the envelopes as follows (sold as a box of 250 units at £42.27 - if MPA round of at 1000 units then the cost amount would be approx 40% x £42.27 = £16.91) £16.91 and costs for 100 folders requested for RIP Conference of £19.56. The overall cost requested in stationery category by the Group, would cost the MPA £215.07 which is 19% of the stationery category & 1% of the overall bid application.

Secretarial Support: The Group have requested the use of a secretary for RIP's at an amount of £2973. That resource would spend 14% or 5 hours of their full time employment on CPCG work. This equates to 41% of the costs in this category and 19% of the overall costs requested for the bid application.

Travel Costs: The Group also intends to fund refreshments for the RIP's meetings & the RIP's annual conference. These amounts are £155.70 (6 meetings x £25.95 each) & £640 (one off amount), respectively. This would be a total cost to the MPA of £795.70 or 71% of the costs within this category or 5% of the overall bid application.

Wandsworth CPCG

Group have mentioned within the 2002/03 Annual Report the work of RIP's and that RIP's are part of the membership of the Wandsworth CPCG committee. The areas of work which the Group are involved in are Crime Statistics Charter Standards, Council Initiatives, ICVP areas, MPA related work and other policing issues.

The weight of activities appear to be on Rip’s & Crime Statistics where concentrated effort of work is most noticeable looking at Annual Report work attained

Within the Work Programme, the committee (ie the Group), "Measures the Performance" of the work achieved by the Wandsworth CPCG committee.

With regards to the bid application, although Group make no mention of costs they intend to expend on Rip’s, based on the work completed in 2002 the committee or CPCG, known as the same, it would appear the group are spending in Rip’s work, just by looking at the nature of the information within the work plan. Also, on reviewing the correspondence of accounts received in 2002/03 by the Group, it clearly shows Rip’s expenditure is incorporated within the overall expenditure, the MPA are expected to reimburse.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback