Scrutiny on MPS and MPA contribution to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships – findings and recommendations

16/03
27 February 2003

A Metropolitan Police Authority scrutiny report examining the Metropolitan Police Service’s contribution to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) across London was launched today at a meeting of the Full Authority.

The report highlights the strengths and weaknesses of current MPS contribution and makes recommendations to improve its input and effectiveness in CDRPs.

As a result of the Police Reform Act (2002) police authorities across the country become statutory partners in CDRPs with effect from April this year. The report makes additional recommendations on how the MPA can best fulfill this forthcoming responsibility.

In all 35 recommendations are made to achieve improvement.

Cindy Butts, co-chair of the scrutiny panel, said:

“To coincide with our forthcoming statutory duty, when the Authority joins with the police and other local agencies as an active partner within CDRPs across London, we felt it was vital to review current MPS participation and learn how we as an organisation could make an effective contribution.

“We heard a great deal of evidence praising the contribution of MPS officers in CDRPs and identified cases of good practice, which we fully acknowledge. However, as the aim of the scrutiny is to bring about improvement in MPS contribution, it necessarily concentrates on overcoming weaknesses and raising standards. We make 35 recommendations, some of which refer to other key partners and over-arching structural difficulties, that will improve MPS contribution and enable the MPA to make a real difference at the local level and subsequently across the capital.”

Richard Sumray, the panel’s other co-chair, added:

“We firmly believe that working in partnership is the only way forward to reduce crime and disorder issues which have a broad social dimension. Our recommendations remind the MPS that its culture should fully endorse this approach within all ranks of the organisation, and ensure that CDRPs are given the priority they require. Only in this way can we achieve better all-round performance.

“This scrutiny has been an interesting and valuable exercise and the panel gained a high degree of understanding during its course. All of us on the panel would like to thank the individuals and agencies who have contributed to the project – their assistance was invaluable.

“We look forward to working with the MPS in implementing the recommendations and participating in the important work of CDRPs in the capital.”

The main findings and recommendations of the scrutiny panel are as follows:

MPS contribution to CDRPs

Overall, the panel found that effectiveness and engagement by the MPS varies widely across London CDRPs and that minimum standards need to be established. Partnership work should be higher on the MPS agenda and more fully endorsed by MPS officers. The key recommendations made to address these findings include the following points:

• the job tenure of all MPS officers involved in CDRPs should be improved, as their high turn-over breaks the continuity of work in CDRPs;
• there should an MPS officer dedicated to CDRP issues in each borough;
• MPS officers should be trained to work in partnership, as so far no proper training is provided;
• the community safety and partnership unit within the MPS should keep an overview of partnership activities, bring forward partnership activity in the MPS, and work on the collection and dissemination of good practice; and
• an additional sum of money should be allocated to each BOCU annually for partnership work, as so far the MPS makes little financial contribution to CDRPs.

Working with partners to reduce crime and disorder

Difficulties were found regarding the sharing and protection of data, the unequal commitment of CDRP partners and their different cultures. Amongst ways to overcome these problems the panel recommends:

• consideration should be given to multi-agency and joined-up police-local authority community safety units to help overcome the cultural differences between agencies.

Reducing crime and disorder

Tensions are encountered at local level in setting CDRPs’ priorities. Local needs do not necessarily match with the force-wide priorities and disorder is not high enough on the list of priorities compared with serious crime. In addition, the funding system was found bureaucratic and time consuming.

Key recommendations made to address these difficulties include the following points:

• some elements of the MPA/MPS policing plan, especially anti-social behaviour, should have locally-set targets;
• the number of funding streams should be reduced and co-ordinated under one central government department. Funding streams should have a minimum life of five years to facilitate long-term planning.

MPA forthcoming statutory responsibility in CDRPs

The panel believes that CDRPs needs and expectations would be best addressed by the following arrangements:

• MPA members should sit on the board of their link CDRP;
• a team of MPA staff should be created to support members’ involvement, help collect and disseminate examples of good practice, and co-ordinate with other pan-London agencies involved in the field of CDRPs.

The MPS will report on progress of its implementation programme to the MPA twice a year and be asked for updates on partnership issues at every opportunity.

Notes to editors

1. The Police Reform Act (2002) makes all police authorities in England and Wales ‘responsible authorities’ in CDRPs with effect from April 2003. This responsibility gives them the duty to jointly formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in each district, along with other responsible authorities, currently the police and local authorities.

2. The MPA’s scrutiny was conducted between April - December 2002. The terms of reference for the scrutiny were:

• to obtain written and oral evidence describing current MPS engagement in CRDPs and the MPS contribution and impact on improving community safety through CDRPs;
• to assess best practice concerning the structures and effectiveness of CDRPs and in particular the MPS role in them;
• to make recommendations on good practice, including equalities issues; and
• to make recommendations in the nature of the MPA engagement in CDRPs.

3. The scrutiny panel was formed of five members of the MPA from a number of committees: Cindy Butts (co-chair); Richard Sumray (co-chair); Anthony Arbour; Richard Barnes; Elizabeth Howlett; R. David Muir; Abdal Ullah; and Rachel Whittaker.

4. Evidence was collected from a wide range of individuals and organisations, using a variety of methods, including postal questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, and hearing sessions during which individuals with experience in the field of CDRPs were invited to talk to the panel.

5. The 35 recommendations of the scrutiny report are contained within the report which went to the Full Authority meeting on 30 January 2003 and can be viewed on the MPA’s website

6. The full report will be available on the MPA website shortly.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback