Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

Report: 6
Date: 8 December 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update on progress made in the implementation of the recommendations made by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) Scrutiny Panel, dealing specifically with those recommendations that pertain to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). In addition, it identifies recent or impending changes to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs).

A. Recommendation

That members note the progress to date in the implementation of Authority’s recommendations as contained in the Scrutiny Report.

B. Supporting information

1. The third anniversary of the publication of the Scrutiny Report is rapidly approaching. This report gives the up-to-date position in respect of those recommendations directly relating to the MPS. The body of this report will seek to draw out some key issues while a more detailed breakdown of the recommendations can be found in Appendix 1.

2. Since the Scrutiny report was published, boroughs have completed another audit/strategy round and have now embarked on the 2005/2008 cycle. During the period of these strategies there will be several significant developments with the potential to impact on the work of CDRPs, these include the signing of Local Area Agreements (LAAs) in all London boroughs (excluding Greenwich and Hammersmith and Fulham which were part of the pilot). In addition to LAAs, the Safer Neighbourhood programme has been accelerated with a commitment to provide teams in all neighbourhoods by April 2007. Both these issues are dealt with under separate headings, below.

3. With regard to the Scrutiny recommendations, this matter was last reported to the MPA in May 2005. At that time, it was noted that recommendations could be categorised broadly as follows: (1) recommendations dealing with borough-based staff engaged in CDRP work – appropriate ranks, retention, training and career progression; (2) those dealing with support for partnership officers at a corporate level, including monitoring and reporting functions; (3) training to be delivered to all recruits and that which is to be made available to officers according to the role being performed; and finally, (4) those recommendations associated with the identification of good practice. It is proposed that each of these groups be commented on in turn.

4. The recommendations falling within the first category include those for which either the Service Review Team or the Human Resources Directorate has specific responsibility. Some of the individual strands of work have wide-reaching implications and are the subject of ongoing development. It should be noted that the Service Review was affected by some delay as a result of the terrorist attacks of the summer. The Authority is in receipt of reports on the progress of the Review in other contexts.

5. In relation to the second category of recommendations, it is necessary to re-iterate the comments made at the last time of reporting particularly as regards the training and support. Despite a reduction in the size of the team, the MPS Partnership Team continues to offer a range of training opportunities to those engaged in partnership working. There has been a good response to the initiative making available training on project appraisal and evaluation through the University of the West of England.

6. The third category of recommendations relates to the provision of training both to recruits and to those currently engaged in partnership work. Since the closure of the Crime Reduction College, some elements of their work have been taken up by Centrex and the MPS Partnership Team has been working with Centrex in connection with the development of new training to support those engaged in partnership. The essence of Neighbourhood Policing is working in partnership with communities and with other agencies. This has given an added impetus to the development of training packages that cover relevant material. The central Partnership Team continues to support the delivery of elements within the borough-based recruit training programme the Initial Police Learning Development Programme (IPLDP), together with the delivery of courses for those at the midway point in their probationary period.

7. The Scrutiny Report and the resultant recommendations have provided a valuable focus for work in this area over the past three years. Progress has been made in connection with each recommendation although at different rates. It would appear that a number of current and forthcoming initiatives have the potential to overtake the report recommendations. Hence, an ongoing project within the Service Review will provide some guidance on the merits of co-locating partnership teams and the structures for managing partnership work on boroughs and as such will encompass the relevant recommendations. The following paragraphs deal specifically with two further factors with the potential significantly to influence the work of CDRPs.

Local Area Agreements

8. As noted above, two London boroughs took part in the pilot for LAAs, Greenwich and Hammersmith and Fulham. The decision has now been taken to complete the rollout of LAAs over the next two years. This means that fifteen boroughs will sign agreements in April 2006 with the remaining fifteen signing theirs in April 2007. Within these cohorts there is a further distinction to be made with six of the fifteen boroughs being ‘single pot’ LAAs in April 2006. These agreements will also affect Local Public Service Agreements and the reward grant that they attract. There are potential implications in all this for CDRPs. The MPS Partnership Team hosted a conference on 30 November 2005 and LAAs formed a significant part of the agenda.

Safer Neighbourhoods Programme

9. As the Committee will be well aware, this programme forms a central plank of the Commissioner’s vision for the MPS over the coming years. The very positive initial results have encouraged the MPS to accelerate the rollout of the teams, providing some 624 teams by April 2007, covering every neighbourhood in London. It is an essential aspect of the brief given to these teams that they will work in close partnership with the communities they serve and with other agencies working in those areas. To this end, partnerships in the form of neighbourhood panels are being formed to monitor the work of the teams.

10. While there will be significant overlap between the work done by the teams and the local CDRP strategy, there is a need to recognise the potential tensions here in the same way as it is necessary to note the potential tensions for the teams in terms of Borough Operational Command Unit performance on priority crime. There will be a need to monitor the relationship between CDRPs and the neighbourhood panels in the coming months.

11. The Safer Neighbourhoods teams all receive initial training before deployment and have ongoing training in a variety of forms including, regular briefings, in person and in writing. The Safer Neighbourhood Unit also provides training opportunities in respect of specific issues such as community consultation and there is an ongoing piece of work in connection with faith communities. The teams will require ongoing support as new issues emerge. This recognises that they are being asked to carry out a complex function that requires a wide range of skills. As a consequence, there is an added incentive to ensuring that officers see partnership working as an integral part of their role and that this should be part of their foundation and development training, as noted above.

C. Race and equality impact

The Scrutiny Panel has made recommendations (see 1 – 4 Appendix 1) concerning matters such as the appropriate rank for officers engaged in CDRP work or in key partnership positions within boroughs. Such issues will be subject to the same equal opportunities implications as any posts within the MPS. However, it may be said that the very nature of partnership working has the potential to provide opportunities for individuals from minority groups as the Service strives to reflect the communities it serves.

Those recommendations (5, 11 and 13, Appendix 1) relating to training and career progression are subject to the equal opportunities implications that affect all such matters. Training courses need to be designed with a view to the inclusion of all potential staff. This may be a matter of where and when the courses are delivered, or their duration, in order not to discriminate against groups such as part-time workers.

D. Financial implications

A number of the recommendations carry financial implications, specifically those that refer to tenure, succession planning and recommended ranks for officers engaging in CDRP work on boroughs. These are part of the Service Review and an assessment of the financial implications of these recommendations is part of this work.

In respect of the recommendations covering the monitoring functions of the corporate Team, the range and diversity of the required tasks has implications for a team which at present numbers four staff. This reflects the fact that approval was obtained for the appointment of an administration assistant to enhance the monitoring capability of the corporate Partnership Team. This post is currently funded out of the Borough Command Unit Fund. However, there is an expectation, subject to a business case, that this post will become permanent.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander James Smith, Territorial Policing Headquarters

For more information contact:

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

List of abbreviations

• MPA – Metropolitan Police Authority
• MPS – Metropolitan Police Service
• CDRP – Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
• LAA – Local Area Agreements
• IPLDP – Initial Police Learning Development Programme

Appendix 1

Recommendation 1

Borough commanders should nominate an officer at Inspector rank or above to be dedicated to CDRP issues in their BOCU. The responsibility of this officer should include conducting and co-ordinating all projects on community safety and crime and disorder in the BOCU on the borough commander’s behalf. 

Recommendation 2

The MPS should carry out a review on how tenure can be improved for the key officers involved in CDRPs (borough commanders, BLOs, and dedicated officers). The scrutiny panel recommends that a minimum tenure be established for borough commanders. 

Recommendation 3

The MPS should develop mechanisms to enable effective succession planning for borough commander’s positions, including proper handover and potential shadowing.

Recommendation 4

A superintendent should be nominated as the borough commander’s deputy for CDRP matters in each BOCU to enhance the continuity of the MPS’ contribution to the CDRP when the borough commander is unavailable or changes position.

Recommendation 5

The MPS should explore opportunities and structures to develop the skills, responsibilities and career progression of police officers conducting CDRP work. The National Competency Framework could provide help on this matter. 

Recommendation 6

The MPS should set clear guidance on the roles and responsibilities of officers working in CDRPs, and should develop appropriate minimum standards.

Recommendation 7

One corporate-level unit within the MPS should keep an overview of partnership work. The head of this unit should remain an officer of ACPO rank.

Recommendation 8

The corporate community safety and partnership unit in the MPS should define its aims and objectives to include collecting and disseminating good practice on the MPS’ contribution to CDRPs, and bringing forward partnership work within the MPS. This unit should have an advisory, supportive, and proactive role to MPS officers at all levels with regard to their work with CDRPs, and should be able to demonstrate the contribution it makes.

Recommendation 9

The corporate community safety and partnership unit should set up a mechanism to monitor, compare and contrast the MPS’ input in, and contribution to, CDRPs across London. It should work jointly with GOL where appropriate when undertaking this task.

Recommendation 10

Working with the MPA and GOL, the MPS should develop and maintain a comprehensive central database of all CDRP strategies, targets and performance. This should also be used to inform local and HMIC borough inspections.

Recommendation 11

Training courses should be developed for MPS officers involved in CDRPs, which reflect their needs. These courses should cover the following: working in partnership; transforming data on crime and disorder into useful information; problem solving on crime and disorder; and other partnership issues as appropriate. These courses should also provide officers with the skills they need to carry out the MPS’ roles and responsibilities in CDRPs, which recommendation 6 requires the MPS to define.

Recommendation 12

That the MPA considers as high priority allocating annually an additional £40,000 to £50,000 to each BOCU for partnership work.

Recommendation 13

The training for officers joining the MPS should include information on partnership work, how the MPS benefits from and contributes to it, and how individual officers can contribute to it when conducting their daily activities. Officers’ awareness of positions in local authorities’ community safety units should also be raised. This training should be supplemented by borough induction courses. 

Recommendation 14

The MPS should link centrally with other London-wide agencies including GOL to set up minimum standards and guidance on data sharing in CDRPs

Recommendation 15

All CDRPs should have a protocol on information sharing with the relevant partners. This protocol should be based on the corporate guidance and minimum standards that should be developed as a result of recommendation 14. This protocol should also detail the purposes of data and information sharing and how that information will be used by the CDRP. It could also detail what data and information should be shared and by which agencies. Commitment to confidentiality and data protection should be made clear by all partners to enable mutual understanding and to ensure that the objectives of data sharing are achieved.

Recommendation 16

The MPS should include in its IT strategy measures to improves its IT capabilities with regard to the collecting and sharing of data on crime and disorder and for mapping crime hotspots.

Recommendation 17

If project LION itself proves to be unworkable, an alternative should be developed.

Recommendation 18

Local authorities’ Community Safety Units should take responsibility for supporting all multi-agency projects and partnership work with a community safety element, including the CDRPs, Drug Action Teams and Youth Offending Teams.

Recommendation 19

Consideration should be given to joined-up and co-located police and local authority’s Community Safety Units. Where MPS officers dedicated to multi-agency and partnership work are in post, they could be located in such joint CSUs. An evaluation of the two models (co-located and non co-located police and local authority CSUs) should be carried out. 

Recommendation 22

Local CDRP strategies and their implementation should be co-ordinated with the work of the LSP and other partnerships in the borough so that appropriate recognition is given to the CDRPs’ priorities.

Recommendation 24

The MPS central support and co-ordination unit for MAPPAs (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) should devise a corporate framework within which links between CDRP and MAPPA in each borough can be formalised. The framework should be flexible in respect of accommodating local needs and also include systems to monitor, evaluate and feedback any identified best practice.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback