You are in:

Contents

Report 16 of the 12 Feb 04 meeting of the Planning, Performance & Review Committee and provides an interim position statement on what each Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership has spent or plans to spend the £50,000 contribution given to it by the MPA in April 2003.

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).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.

MPA partnership fund interim statement

Report: 16
Date: 12 February 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an interim position statement on what each Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership has spent or plans to spend the £50,000 contribution given to it by the MPA in April 2003.

A. Recommendations

That

  1. the content of this report as to the manner in which the Partnership Fund has been utilised by boroughs be noted; and
  2. the systems in place to monitor the distribution of the Fund and the changes that will be implemented for the next financial year be noted.

B. Supporting information

1. The report presents the situation as of the 31 December 2003. The attached table is layered, providing both overall borough spend versus carry-over and a breakdown of the projects to which grants have been made (Appendix 1).

2. It should be noted that the Partnership Fund has been distributed between the 32 London boroughs with CDRPs. Hence Heathrow, which although a separate OCU, does not have a separate CDRP and therefore does not have an allocation of the MPA Fund.

3. The MPA Partnership Fund has been used to support a wide range of partnership initiatives. These include one-off small grants to finite projects and more significant contributions to ongoing, long-term undertakings. Several boroughs have been able to make significant financial contributions to statutory partnerships such as Youth Offending Teams.

4. The activities can be grouped, although there is clearly a degree of overlap between some of the categories. In broad terms there are projects relating to the following:

Youth initiatives: £395,000 of which £128,600 (approx.) went to YOTs
Crime prevention: 57,500
Diversity: 80,500 (other projects have diversity elements)
Staffing costs: 185,000
Equipment: 243,000
Diversion: 101,600
Other allocations: 150,177 relates to crosscutting allocations to the above.
Total Grant 1,600,000
Unallocated Balance: 387,223

5. Several of the funded projects have a diversionary element and in due course there will be considerable interest, not least by the MPS Community Safety & Partnership Unit, in the evaluation reports on these projects in particular.

6. As shown, at the 31 December 2003 the total figure for unallocated MPA Fund stood at £387,223. The attached table indicates those boroughs that have notified their intention to carry over funds to the 2004/5 financial year. In some case this is being done to support specific anticipated projects.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. The returns indicate that approximately £80,500 has been allocated to projects which seek explicitly to address diversity related issues. In addition to this, further grants have been made that have diversity as an implicit concern. Some of the grants are for small amounts aimed at strengthening ties between groups (examples include, IAGs and community forums).

2. Several of the grants are sport/activity related. However, there is no indication of any negative impact on minority groups arising out of the allocation of any of the MPA Partnership Fund.

D. Financial implications

1. For the year 2003/4 the boroughs were requested to provide half-yearly returns detailing current spend, anticipated future spend and unallocated funds. We have requested a more detailed return for the end of year report and for subsequent reports. In particular, there will be clear differentiation between committed future spend and anticipated future spend. The latter relates to a known but as yet uncosted proposal.

2. As can be seen from the attached table there is a wide variation between the boroughs in respect of the number and range of projects that have been supported. In some cases boroughs have made relatively small grants to large numbers of projects while others have awarded large sums to one or two projects. This pattern may be said to reflect the broad and unrestrictive conditions imposed by the Authority.

3. There are indications that the MPA Fund has been used in order to lever-in additional funding, however at the time of reporting it is not possible to put an exact figure on the level of additional funding attracted. It is intended that we will be in a position to address this in the year-end report.

E. Background papers

  • Table showing breakdown of borough spending against the MPA Partnership Fund.

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander James Smith (Community Safety & Partnerships Unit), MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Supporting material

  • Appendix 1 [PDF]
    Table provides both overall borough spend versus carry-over and a breakdown of the projects to which grants have been made.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback