Balancing local and organisational priorities within safer neighbourhoods

08/07
18 April 2007
MPA briefing paper

Author: Detective Chief Inspector David Reed - Safer Neighbourhoods Operational Delivery, MPS

This briefing paper has been prepared to inform members and staff. It is not a committee report and no decisions are required.

Summary

During the meeting of the MPA Full Authority on 22 February 2007, Members received a report on the Tasking and Co-ordination of Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

Following the paper Members sought more clarification on prioritising of policing within wards.

It was agreed that members should receive a briefing note that further outlined safer neighbourhood teams’ priorities and how priorities are decided and delivered.

Background

A key driver for the development of Safer Neighbourhoods (SN) in London was the emergence of the “reassurance gap”. Failure to address this fall of confidence in policing posed the following risks to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS):

• Increasing lack of credibility in policing due to the perception that local conditions did not reflect publicised crime reduction success
• Withdrawal of public support and involvement in policing – threatening work to tackle terrorism, organised and other serious crime
• Withdrawal of public support for policing, leading to long-term difficulties in sustaining good crime reduction and detection performance
• A weakening of the principle of policing by consent

A second key driver of SN was the identification of the “Neighbourhood policing re-invention cycle” – a cycle in which repeated police attempts to become orientated around the needs of the community were disrupted by the need to move resources to address centrally driven crime reduction and detection targets.

The response of the MPS was to initiate a programme in which additional resources were acquired to deliver the Safer Neighbourhoods policing - a function that focussed on building community confidence by understanding and then tackling the crime and disorder priorities of local people.

Safer Neighbourhoods Policing

In July 2006, MPS Performance Board agreed the primary outcome framework for SN – outcomes designed to close the reassurance gap, thereby building community confidence in and support for the police. Relevant outcome measures are:

• Confidence in local policing
• Satisfaction that police understand and are dealing with local priorities
• Perceptions of safety
• Concern about Anti-social Behaviour (ASB)

Safer Neighbourhoods Teams (SNTs) currently use a business process that has been assessed as best practice (under the National Reassurance Policing Programme) in terms of delivering improved performance within the SN outcome framework. This process, known as the seven stage-policing model, requires SNTs to first research their neighbourhood and then to use this knowledge to engage with every section of their local community in order to identify their crime and disorder concerns. This community intelligence is then subject to investigation and analysis in order to identify the underlying problems that affect that neighbourhood. A neighbourhood panel prioritises these problems and the SNT then adopts a problem solving approach with partners to resolve the issues identified.

SN Performance and Local Priorities

In terms of SN and the desire to build confidence in local policing, the focus on local neighbourhood priorities is entirely consistent with the organisational needs of the MPS. As awareness and understanding of the SN Performance Management Framework (PMF) grows, the contribution of SNTs to MPS and Borough Command Unit (BCU) organisational objectives will be increasingly appreciated. This process will take a significant step forward with the initiation of SN Crime Control Strategy Meetings in April 2007.

MPS Crime Reduction/ Detection targets vs. Local Priorities

A current area of tension revolves around the extent to which SNTs can be set top down crime reduction and/or detection targets. These tensions are exacerbated during periods of pressure on specific crime types (most notably street crime). Current policy is that such targets should not be set for SNTs unless they have been identified as a local neighbourhood priority. The rationale for this approach is that old-style, blanket crime reduction / detection targets are inconsistent with the drivers and the business case for SN. Such top down target setting is also highly likely to drive inappropriate activity. As an example, early advisory visits identified wards in which top down reduction targets were being set against a baseline of two or three British Crime Survey (BCS) offences per month but against which SNTs were expected to invest a significant amount of their time. Such target setting runs the risk of further widening the reassurance gap and of perpetuating the re-invention cycle within the MPS.

However, in common with all MPS officers and staff, SNTs must deliver both their own bespoke function (tackling local priorities) and contribute to the broader strategic aims of the MPS - which includes crime reduction and detection.

The nature and importance of informed decision-making

In this context, it is crucial to recognise that a focus on local priorities does not necessarily conflict with crime reduction, detection of offenders or indeed any other MPS objective. The crucial dimension of local decision-making is not “what” is selected as a local priority but “how” the priority is selected. Neighbourhood Panels should be involved in a process of informed decision-making regarding the key issues that affect their local community. They should be provided with an insight into information gained from community consultation but should also be provided with information regarding demand generators, disorder hotspots and crime patterns in the local area.

Local Priorities acting in support of MPS objectives

The process of informed decision-making is already taking place and it should be recognised that, as a consequence, a very broad range of SN priorities is being addressed by SNTs across London. ASB (“youths” and “in general”) are the top SN priorities across the MPS, however Theft from M/V, Burglary and Drugs are the next highest ranked (and are priorities in 176, 162 and 127 neighbourhoods respectively). Street crime is currently a priority in 93 neighbourhoods. In February 2007, more than 660 local priorities were directly targeting BCS crime types. However, through local consultation other issues of strategic importance are also being addressed (i.e. road safety, prostitution, alcohol related anti-social behaviour (ASB), licensing and youth diversion.) Decentralised, local decision making may not always fit comfortably with fast-time performance pressures on a BCU but current local priorities suggest that communities are indeed identifying substantive issues that have a local and a London-wide significance.

Of further note is that local priorities and BCS crime problems frequently overlap – reflecting different perspectives on the same local experience. For example, the pressures on street crime targets have been reflected, within SN, in increasing emphasis on ASB by young people as a local priority. Given the split second and opportunistic nature of street crime, it is unsurprising that the precursor behaviour of offenders may manifest itself as concern about ASB amongst local residents and businesses. A focus on the lived experience of local people provides new insights and approaches into old problems. In this instance, tackling ASB may provide opportunities to both reduce street crime and other forms of criminality. SNTs and local Tactical Tasking Co-ordination Groups (TTCGs) will work to understand and seize such opportunities.

SNT Intelligence gathering in support of MPS Objectives

In delivering the 7-stage policing model, SNTs develop a comprehensive understanding of their neighbourhood. As a consequence, SNTs should, for example, both know and monitor their local and prolific offenders and they should be able to provide intelligence and support to all other elements of the MPS operating within their neighbourhood. This includes not only the ability to identify local offenders to support the work of CID (SNTs have already provided significant support for Operation Bustag and in identification of street crime offenders) but also the ability to support action to deal with terrorism, critical incidents, serious and organised crime.

Conclusions

• Local priority setting, using the SN policing model, is designed to drive improvements in central, pan-London outcomes in terms of building confidence in local policing. The priority setting process is based on assessed best practice from the National Reassurance Policing Programme
• SN outcomes are designed to build community support for key MPS activity – including counter terrorism, tackling serious and organised crime and also ensuring sustainable crime reduction and detection of offenders
• Whilst not a perfect match with fast-time performance issues, existing local priorities are consistent with the broad objectives of the MPS - including BCS crime reduction - but have added value in terms of the additional engagement and support of local partners and the community
• The SNT functions of understanding, engaging with and gathering intelligence from local communities provides increasingly strong support for all areas of MPS performance

A move away from a focus on the priorities of local people would pose significant risks to the original business case and rationale for the programme. It would also risk the generation of inappropriate activity by SNTs along with a widening of the reassurance gap and a return to the neighbourhood policing re-invention cycle.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback