London Crime Reduction Board: Feedback Report

Jane Harwood
Deputy Chief Executive, MPA
June 2010

Met Forward: the MPA mission statement for London’s police

Introduction

1. This report provides a summary of the key issues and feedback arising from the consultation on the proposals for the London Crime Reduction Board, issued in March 2010.

2. It sets out key areas of discussion, options and proposals for consideration.

3. The report seeks to serve as a basis for discussion at meetings with key stakeholders to inform development of the board.

Methodology

4. The Consultation Proposals, inviting feedback, were circulated to:

4.1. The London Community Safety Partnership

4.2. Charter Board

4.3. The London Safer Communities Policy Forum (community safety managers)

4.4. Onward circulation from these groups has included the document being received by internal organisation staff, thematic crime boards and other interested parties.

5. Feedback was received from a range of sources including:

5.1. Discussions on board agendas e.g. London Community Safety Partnership and Charter Board;

5.2. One-to-one stakeholder meetings (see Appendix 1)

5.3. Written responses (See Appendix 1)

6. We are grateful to all those who contributed with feedback to the formulation of these proposals.

7. A mapping exercise is continuing to explore the potential fit between the LCRB and existing boards as well as to assist consideration of the scope to rationalise existing structures.

8. References

9. The following documents are available on the MPA website www.mpa.gov.uk

9.1. Met Forward

9.2. London Crime Reduction Board - Consultation Proposals March 2010

10. Report Contact

Jude Sequeira: 020 7202 0240

Feedback Discussion Section

Consultation Agenda

11. The consultation document set out a rationale for the board and outlined proposals for the Terms of Reference, Membership and Timetable. Consultees were asked to comment upon:

11.1. How can joint working and prioritisation be achieved?

11.2. Is the proposed scope along the right lines?

11.3. Are there any other members that should be included?

11.4. Is there a need for an executive group and secretariat to drive the programmes of work and support the board?

11.5. Have any areas of need been overlooked?

12. In the further one-to-one meetings with stakeholders, discussion also explored:

12.1. The added-value the board could bring to stakeholders.

12.2. Links with organisational programmes, structures and key boards.

13. This section of the report provides a review of the feedback and identifies the MPA’s provisional responses to the comments. Regular questions around the key themes used in this section are addressed as FAQs.

Rationale for a new Board

14. The MPA stated the case that a democratically accountable board did not currently exist to set partnership priorities around crime reduction for London. It argued the LCRB would introduce a measure of political mandate to partnership working in London.

15. There was strong concurrence that a board with a political mandate would benefit the existing structure and would be a new development. It was favourably received that the board could set direction and have oversight of crime reduction partnership programmes in London. The board having an advocacy role for London was also suggested as adding value.

FAQ 1: How would a new, non-statutory board fit with the arrangements that the Metropolitan Police Authority has for setting the policing priorities and democratic governance of the MPS?

16. The LCRB is proposed in Met Forward, the MPA’s 3 year business plan. It features in the ‘Met Partners’ strand of the plan which aims to develop the MPS’ partnership working with key partners, notably local authorities, Community Safety Partnerships (formerly termed ‘CDRPs’) and criminal justice agencies. The new board will not alter the way statutory police accountability is exercised but will provide a new and recognised gateway for partners to discuss partnership matters and London-wide joint action programmes with the accountability structure for the police and the MPS.

FAQ 2: How would the board fit with Congress and Charter Board?

17. Congress is a meeting held between the Mayor and Leaders from London local authorities covering ‘City Charter’, the operating framework agreement between City Hall and London’s town halls. The meetings do not directly oversee or direct specific programmes of work. Therefore Congress does not have the policing, nor crime reduction focus, nor partnership breadth that the LCRB will have. In chairing both Congress and the LCRB, the Mayor, will provide a direct link between the two.

18. Charter Board reports to Congress. Its membership is drawn from chief officers from City Hall, the GLA group (including MPA, TfL, LDA and LFEPA) and a representation of London local authority chief executives. Its role is to drive the areas of joint interest that are outlined in City Charter, including local authority-police engagement. Charter Board is currently considering new workstreams. There is a risk that its chosen workstream will overlap or draw resources away from the LCRB’s focal areas. We will seek to ensure working links are made between the two to minimise this risk.

FAQ 3: Does the LCRB replace the London Community Safety Partnership?

19. The London Community Safety Partnership has existed since 2006 and brings together pan-London agencies and local authorities to develop partnership responses to key issues. It comprises chief officers from GLA, GOL, London Councils, MPA, MPS, LCJP and local authorities as well as chairs from its sub groups. We believe that the LCRB will be better placed than the LCSP to direct partnership priorities, pull-in resources and support partners with pan-London focussed programmes, especially in terms of influence. At the next stage of the LCRB’s development we will consider what delivery structures are needed to support the board. One consideration will be how to adapt or replace the programme management role that the LCSP has usefully performed. Proposals are made here to set up a Commissioning Group which could build upon the structure of the LCSP.

FAQ 4: Do we need a separate London Criminal Justice Partnership (LCJP)?

20. The LCJP is led by a ministerial steering group supported by a Partnership Group and a Secretariat. Its focus is upon the enforcement and criminal justice spectrum of crime reduction.

21. We recognise the risk that the LCJP and LCRB will emerge with two matching and parallel structures. We are actively considering the option for having a single board or for taking an incremental approach such that we start with two structures and aim to merge these after a set period of time. The pros, cons, risks and costs are being considered. Feedback to the suggestion of a dovetailed board will be welcomed.

FAQ 5: Will this be another talking shop? How can it add value?

22. There are many significant challenges facing agencies and boroughs, both individually and collectively. Investment in this board will help to ensure London seeks to address the collective challenges in a coherent way. We will strive to build in bottom-up mechanisms to ensure this board discusses and commissions work that has a strong resonance within boroughs and adds value to participating agencies. We take the point the board has to be action driven too. We will aim to focus on fewer activities to achieve greater impact.

23. Some consultees felt the existing set up was broadly working, so questioned the need for change. This was balanced by others who were confused by the existing landscape and placed low credibility upon specific boards and structures. We argue that the emerging political and economic context requires a new thrust which the LCRB will offer and a greater imperative for collective problem-solving.

24. This proposal is not just about ‘moving the deck chairs’. The development of the board will be aligned to streamlining of the existing structures to avoid a growth in unnecessary bureaucracy. We propose a hard look is taken to find a better fit between existing boards and programmes and to test their relevancy.

Terms of Reference

25. The Consultation Document proposed the following Terms of Reference. The London Crime Reduction Board will:

1. Provide leadership and improve co-ordination on strategic working at the regional level on policing and crime reduction delivery in London.
2. Develop a joined-up strategic assessment process in London to identify joint priorities and to help achieve focus and value.
3. Lobby for change and seek to secure/maintain funding for London to achieve crime reduction.
4. Ensure good practice in London on strategic crime reduction issues is appropriately identified and communicated
5. Assist the sharing of information between organisations and understanding of key crime reduction programmes and improve the synergies between these.
6. Enhance the relationship between police and local authorities for working on crime reduction, as well as facilitating a stronger alignment between crime reduction activity and other strands of local strategic partnerships e.g. health, safeguarding, young people, economic development etc.
7. Provide a consultative link with the National Crime Reduction Board (or equivalent) and central government departments on national crime strategy developments.

26. There was little specific adverse comment received on the proposed terms of reference. Emerging regularly was the request for the board to co-ordinate and provide greater coherence on strategic programmes of work as well as to support boroughs with cross-border issues. Also there is a demand for it to be action-led. We will take suggestions on strengthening the above terms of reference to reflect these proposals.

27. Other strong areas of interest emerged as ideas from discussions. These are represented in a Business Map (See Appendix 2).

28. This map highlights the 5 areas of business that have emerged from the consultation discussions and potential sub-areas. A brief summary is provided below.

28.1. London Strategic Assessment: It is proposed that partners work together to identify current and future challenges in order to assist London getting upstream on dealing with issues. This business area is also about better utilising different data sets e.g. public surveys, thereby creating a better understanding of the drivers to London’s crime and community confidence levels.

28.2. Pan-London Thematic Priorities: It is proposed that the board could ensure partners are jointly focused on a common set of priorities that impact on London i.e. through adverse performance and confidence levels. The board would identify these thematic areas e.g. violence, burglary, etc. and agree its agencies will collaborate to address these e.g. through joint strategies, pooled resources and action plans.

28.3. Co-ordination and Oversight of Pan-London Programmes: The need for better co-ordination of the existing plethora of boards and programmes has been consistently raised. It is proposed that as part of its business, it would be opportune for the board to oversee key programmes with a view to ensuring these are set in the right direction, and link effectively with other programmes and that it can unblock strategic obstacles to implementation. This role would be focussed on enhancing delivery and less about scrutiny.

28.4. New Ways of Doing Things: Stakeholders have identified the need to address a number of structural issues and processes and consider that this could be one of the added values of the board. For example the long-standing issues around information sharing, resources tied up with justice and not early prevention, health sector engagement etc. could be looked at by a board with influence to bring about step change. Local authorities also were keen to look at the Total Place model for integrating crime reduction into the wider social and economic themes they need to address. The board could consider how to facilitate, build upon and empower partners to make such shifts in partnership working. Linked to this is the need to understand what works in order to champion and roll-out good practice. In identified areas of concern, the board could help promote the understanding of the changes needed and provide leadership for facilitating such change.

28.5. Funding: Whilst recognising there will be resistance to a central board managing funding streams, there is at the same time an acknowledgement that there are funding issues to be addressed, namely a) how to better co-ordinate the diverse sources of funding streams, b) how to ensure funding is distributed more effectively in support of cross-border priorities, structural re-alignment e.g. towards prevention activity, good practice, and intelligence-led problem solving etc., c) the need to bid and campaign jointly when funding opportunities arise and d) how to effectively mainstream dedicated funding beyond short-life programmes.

29. The need for partners to collectively join up resources to face the economic, crime and social challenges ahead was acutely recognised. We have not reflected this concept in the terms of reference. Nevertheless, an underpinning purpose of the board will be to improve partnership working by making joint resources go further.

30. No expectation was expressed in the feedback to put the board on a statutory footing. Instead it was regularly referred to as being a ‘coalition of the willing’. The jurisdiction of agencies and boroughs will remain unchanged.

31. It was suggested that the name of the board could confuse it with previous boards. No alternative names have been considered at this stage and we will continue to refer to the board as the London Crime Reduction Board until, and if, a new consensual name arises.

FAQ 6: Will the LCRB performance manage boroughs

32. No. The LCRB may look at performance information at a London-wide level in order to understand the direction of travel and key issues but it will not duplicate roles carried out by central government or the MPA in monitoring crime performance at a strategic level.

FAQ 7: Which funding streams will come through the board?

33. This element of the role of the board is being explored. The national funding opportunities in the future are not known at the moment and are likely to be scaled back for economic reasons. Meantime, several funding programmes will be discontinued. Any new funding will have to be more robustly channelled into identified areas of focus. The board will provide the opportunity to consider impacts and help harness the take-up.

FAQ 8: What will be the link with Project Oracle?

34. The aim of the GLA’s Project Oracle is to establish an on-line repository of ‘what really works’ to reduce and prevent serious youth violence and improve life chances for young people. The board may strive to build upon this project and/or could look at a wider set of practice areas.

FAQ 9: How will this board relate to boards existing under the LCSP?

35. The LCSP currently oversees three sub-boards: the London Serious Youth Violence Board, the Serious Acquisitive Crime Board and the London Anti-Social Behaviour Board.

36. We do not propose to transfer oversight of these boards to the LCRB. We will have discussions with each Chair at an appropriate time to identify the implications of the disbanding of the LCSP upon their business and what legacy workstreams needs to be relocated to other structures should the sub-boards themselves be de-commissioned.

FAQ 10: What boards will report to the LCRB?

37. There is no finalised structure about sub-boards. Where necessary, boards will be formed or adopted under the LCRB. The principle of short-term task-and-finish groups will apply. It is not proposed that any sub-board’s activity forms regular business of the LCRB but mechanisms will be put in place to help all relevant boards to escalate issues up to the LCRB.

38. One exception is that we are actively considering the role of the board with regards to the anti-violence strategy being developed by the MPS. There is a strong view that this area is the current key priority for London and requires strong inter-agency focus and support. A proposal will be developed shaping how the board may have oversight of this work as one of its pan-London thematic priorities.

Membership

39. In our outline consultation document, we proposed a membership with a mix of elected representatives and senior officers. We received a number of responses suggesting it would be a clearer structure without this mix. We have responded by proposing the board comprises elected representatives, with the exception of the MPS Commissioner.

40. Consultees also suggested that the national dimension was missing from the original outline. In response we propose that ministers are invited to the membership of the board. We have had an expression of interest from the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. We are proposing this portfolio holder is a member of the board. We will consider other options such as ministerial representation from the Department for Communities and Local Government. We propose there is a core membership and a wider constitution is made delivery agenda specific.

Core Membership of the LCRB

• The Mayor for London (Chair)
• Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice
• Nominated London Councils representatives
• Chair of Metropolitan Police Authority
• Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

FAQ 11: How will this strategic board drive delivery?

41. An executive steering group will be placed under the board to steer delivery of the board’s objectives. This will be made up of officials.

FAQ 12: Is there a risk that potential political differences will jeopardise the effective functioning of the Board?

42. The board will have to seek to build upon consensual interests and common ground as best as possible.

43. We want this board to address the obstacles and difficult decisions that will make a difference to delivery. The influential level of membership on the board offers a real opportunity to create sustainable change for London. Debate will therefore be positively welcomed in order to arrive at an agreed way forward over options that require significant change in practice.

FAQ 13: Is there a risk of political and agency-specific agendas over-riding evidenced-based priorities?

44. It is proposed that a London strategic assessment process is devised to inform the board’s delivery priorities. There are however a number of existing national/regional priorities in London that we consider unites all key stakeholders, namely violence - including youth violence - and public confidence. These are likely to feature high on the board’s agenda. Political priorities will reflect those of Londoners and so are relevant but we also envisage future partnership working and activity needs to be more robustly planned in order to maximise use of resources. A strong evidence base, be it around data, costs or good practice will be paramount to decision-making.

FAQ 14: How will the borough representation be decided?

45. The MPA will take advice from London Councils. We will ask London Councils to be transparent about its criteria for selection. We consider it has the following options:

1. A portfolio basis e.g. its Leader or portfolio holders of community safety, children’s services, etc.
2. A sub-regional basis e.g. dividing London into 3-5 regions and/or an inner/outer London basis.
3. A cross-party basis.
4. A customised fit with the priorities e.g. selecting from boroughs with high level priorities matching those of the board.
5. It is proposed to offer up to 3 places to London Councils.

FAQ 15: How future-proofed is the board?

46. It is acknowledged that changes are taking place with regards to the location of functions, particularly at a regional level e.g. GOL and the MPA. We will start with the proposed membership and review this should significant changes occur to the membership constituents and governance arrangements. We do not propose waiting until the governance and functionality context settles for risk of delaying dealing with serious violence in London and other upcoming challenges.

47. We recognise the concern about electoral cycles influencing the progress, momentum and interests of any board. We propose the board’s arrangements agreed at the outset should be held for a period to September 2012 at which time a further position review will take place. Whilst recognising the limitations of a short-term approach of this kind, we do not consider this should hamper the board addressing matters of crucial, longer-term implementation, such as justice reinvestment ideas.

FAQ 16: I can’t see my agency, borough or community of interest represented here. How are wider stakeholders going to be involved with the board?

48. There have been calls for the incorporation of other sectors including health, education, communities, business, transport and other police partners etc. We want to keep the board a manageable size, hence there being a strict limit on numbers on the board. So rather than encompass wider stakeholders on the board itself, we consider there are many other opportunities to engage wider interests e.g. in the Commissioning Group and associated thematic boards. We consider this enables stakeholders to better fit into the structure in relevant ways and avoids the board coming under possible criticism as a table-talking process.

49. The proposed members are in regular contact with a far-reaching set of stakeholders and members of the public in their ordinary business.

50. We will develop appropriate communication links to ensure stakeholders can feed into the board and find out what the board is doing.

51. Contributors can be called in, as and when required, for agenda specific items.

52. Leads for delivery areas will have the opportunity of addressing the board directly. We will consider the scope of their direct input to the board.

53. We will consider hosting an annual summit to bring wider partners in to contributing upon the agenda, shaping thematic workstreams and being informed about the board developments.

FAQ 17: Why is the MPS Commissioner a member of this political structure?

54. This initiative arises from Met Forward, a business strategy jointly owned by the MPA and the MPS. There is no doubting the role played by the MPS in this agenda and the resources it brings alongside local authorities. We considered, as an alternative, the Commissioner holding an advisory role but opted against this to foster a full partner’s role for the MPS on the board.

FAQ 18: Why will the Mayor chair the Board?

55. Clarity was sought as to why the Mayor will chair the board. We argue that the Mayor has a pivotal relationship with all the members and will be the most appropriate figurehead for a London board.

Structure

56. The governance, advisory and delivery support to the LCRB has been of interest to consultees. We acknowledge that without an effective underlying infrastructure, the LCRB could be weakly placed to have an impact. However, the proposed starting principle is to keep the structure as slim and flexible as possible.

Governance

57. There are several options for the board to have a line of accountability to a governing structure. This would include the Mayor, an MPA or London Council’s committee, any comparable national board, etc. Consultation pointed out the risk of the board being seen as the vehicle of one partner. We agree and feel that to be seen as a true partnership body, it cannot be overseen by one specific agency. As such we propose it is a standalone structure. This will make it incumbent upon members of the board and the Commissioning Group to report back and feed in their constituency interests in relevant ways. This will vary according to agency and issue. Appendix 3 provides a diagrammatic representation of the board’s relationships.

Advisory support

58. Dealing with the advisory structure, each member of the board has its own office of advisors and London regional support. Briefings to members of the board and liaison between agencies can take place between meetings through this advisory support. No formal arrangements are proposed to structure this support and liaison.

59. We anticipate advisors may need to attend and/or present to the board meetings. Meeting arrangements will delineate between members and those attending in an advisory capacity.

Delivery and programme management support

60. We propose that a Commissioning Group is set up to report to the LCRB with the role of steering delivery of the board’s objectives. Appendix 4 shows its broad areas of responsibility in supporting the LCRB. Specifically, we propose the Commissioning Group will:

60.1. Commission and co-ordinate reports to be presented to the LCRB.

60.2. Commission partnership structures e.g. sub-groups, to take forward LCRB priority projects.

60.3. Commission and sign-off a London Strategic Assessment.

60.4. Support and improve the co-ordination of pan-London partnership boards.

60.5. Devise arrangements to deal with the allocation of funds possibly coming through the LCRB.

60.6. Commission and receive presentations and reports on issues and work programmes from designated regional and national boards in order to refer their London implications to the LCRB.

60.7. Commission work relating to the terms or reference, specifically matters of further improving information sharing and disseminating good practice.

60.8. Advise and steer the communication of LCRB business with key stakeholders.

61. It is proposed that the membership of the Commissioning Group comprises senior officers from:

• MPA
• MPS
• GLA
• London Councils
• LCJP
• London Probation Trust
• Home Office/MOJ
• Chief Executives representatives from Local Authorities.

62. To support and create capacity for this arrangement, it will be proposed to the LCSP that it disbands and agrees a process to evolve the Commissioning Group.

63. To assist with the speedy formation of this group, the following brief is proposed for the Commissioning Group’s 2010/11 workplan:

63.1. To develop a London Strategic Assessment to inform LCRB priority setting for 2011-13.

63.2. To undertake a rationalisation of pan-London partnership boards to ensure legacy workstreams are appropriately sustained.

63.3. To receive position reports from nominated boards/programmes from which to refer the following matters to the LCRB:

1. Critical and long-term blockages and barriers to delivery.
2. Analysis of key drivers to issues.
3. Funding re-structuring options.
4. New policy developments sought at national, regional and borough levels.
5. Local authority and police service success factors.

63.4. To advise on the establishment of a partnership Secretariat to the LCRB and the Commissioning Group.

Resourcing

64. Consideration has been given to what partnership resources could be made available for the board and commissioning group.

65. One area considered is the scope for the board to hold a budget to fund specific activities relating to its business. No specific proposals are being set out here but opportunities to utilise current funding streams will be explored in the first place.

66. A second area for consideration is resourcing for a secretariat. Various models are available for setting up a secretariat function.

66.1. A minimalist model with a core level of project and administrative support.

66.2. A virtual/matrix model with staffing resources provided by key stakeholders with relevant skills, expertise and time provided on a needs basis.

66.3. A dedicated, co-located unit with a partnership branding.

67. The preferred option is the virtual model whilst the board becomes established. This will need buy-in from partners, to be explored in the next stage of development.

68. We are exploring the extent to which resources from secretariats diversely located to support existing boards could be harnessed under the work of the LCRB.

69. The proposals to develop a London strategic assessment will require an analytical lead. We propose that the overall process will be undertaken through a process involving those carrying out analytical assessments and horizon scanning. The Transport Community Safety Partnership has a model that we would be interesting in mirroring.

FAQ 19: How will the secretariat by funded?

70. A core level and skills set of secretariat will need to be identified. An arrangement between key stakeholders will need to be agreed to fund this. There may be scope to utilise and re-allocate secretariat resources from existing boards towards this arrangement. Several secretariat services exist. Opportunities may arise with the streamlining of boards.

71. We also foresee opportunities for short-term project specific secondments and matrix working across agencies e.g. in developing a Strategic Assessment.

72. Many consultees have expressed an interest in supporting the arrangements for the board. This proposal requires their co-operation in investing staff time, if not funding, if they are keen on supporting it.

Timetable

73. We are still working towards a first board meeting in September 2010.

74. We propose the board meets 4 times a year.

75. Once established, the Commissioning Group will determine its own appropriate meeting frequency.

76. The immediate steps are to set up the inaugural meeting in September and to establish the Commissioning Group.

77. Upon approval of the direction of travel, further discussions will be held on exploratory areas identified e.g. funding programmes, secretariat, board relationships and criminal justice links.

78. In order to put arrangements swiftly into place, further feedback on this paper and its proposals will be welcomed by Fri 2 July 2010.

Appendix 1: List of Consultees

Boards

• London Community Safety Partnership
• Charter Board

Stakeholder Meetings

• Local Authority Chief Executives – Merton, Bexley, Harrow
• Government Office for London
• London Councils
• Metropolitan Police Service
• Greater London Authority
• London Probation Trust
• London Criminal Justice Partnership
• Transport for London
• Youth Justice Board

Written Responses

• London Boroughs: Bexley Hillingdon, Merton, Redbridge, Richmond.
• MPA: Policy and Scrutiny Team.
• London Communities Policing Partnership.
• London Community Safety Partnership.
• GLA.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback