PPC 05

Written evidence from London Councils

1. Reducing crime and improving community safety are critical to London local government’s role in building and sustaining safe and prosperous communities.
2. We believe that this best achieved through coordinated local services that are rooted in local democratic and accountability structures. Effective crime reduction policies are based on local problem-solving and local delivery that build on local relationships and knowledge. All evidence suggests that locally commissioned services are more flexible and responsive to local needs.
3. This submission sets out the current situation in terms of the evidence in crime reduction, the important role of local authorities in coordinating responses to anti-social behaviour, the implications of changes to neighbourhood policing as well as setting out the funding challenges.
4. The submission goes on to discuss how local authorities can play a bigger role in achieving better outcomes in reducing reoffending as part of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. Our alternative vision for London would involve the responsibility and the budget for commissioning probation and rehabilitation services being devolved to local decision makers. In London this could work as collaboration between the Mayor, as Police and Crime Commissioner, and London local authorities.

Background

5. London boroughs are key to crime prevention and reducing re-offending because they:

• Work with partners to tackle anti-social behaviour
• Commission and provide services to offenders such as drug and alcohol treatment and recovery; support with mental health need; housing, housing benefit, social services; employment support. These local services are often crucial in providing offenders the support they need to desist their offending behaviour.
• Facilitate and participate in local partnership working between the police, probation services, local NHS services and other voluntary and community sector partners.

6. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) also play an important role in coordinating crime reduction policies in London.
7. The London Crime Reduction Board (LCRB) was set up by the Mayor and London Councils in September 2010 to co-ordinate strategic working at a regional level on crime reduction, crime prevention and community safety. The LCRB is the formal link between London’s boroughs, MOPC and other crime reduction and criminal justice agencies.
8. The work of the LCRB includes:

• providing leadership to improve co-ordination and strategic working on policing and crime reduction in London
• encouraging the development of tailored community safety and crime reduction initiatives that fit the needs of localities
• lobbying to secure and maintain funding for crime reduction in London
• strengthening the working relationship between local authorities and the police on crime reduction.

Evidence on Crime Prevention and Reducing Re-offending

9. The inquiry asked how reliable the evidence is on which crime reduction policies are based.
10. There is some evidence available for practitioners to understand the broad principles of ‘what works’ in crime prevention and reducing reoffending. However the current financial climate does mean that it has never been more important to be able to assess and evidence the impact and efficacy of specific interventions, both in terms of crime reduction outcomes and cost effectiveness.
11. For this reason we welcome the Ministry of Justice’s launch of the Justice Data Lab nationally. We look forward to seeing how this improves the current evidence base.
12. In London, we are adding to the evidence base of what works in crime reduction through the approach taken in the distribution of the London Crime Prevention Fund (LCPF). Through the arrangements with MOPAC, London boroughs will need to demonstrate clear impact and outcomes from their funded projects (more detail on the LCPF can be found under the Funding section below)
13. Lack of access to personalised data has however been a barrier for local areas in judging the effectiveness of locally delivered projects.
14. The potential shift by the Metropolitan Police Service away from locally based Borough Intelligence Units and analysts (and the access to police data that currently brings local authorities) may jeopardise the ability of local authorities to intelligently direct resources in the future. 

Tackling Anti-social Behaviour

15. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) is consistently raised as a key concern by Londoners in terms of crime reduction. Local authorities, in partnership with other agencies, are at the forefront of tackling anti-social behaviour.
16. London local authorities have a reputation for innovative and effective work in relation to tackling ASB. They bring together and coordinate key partners like the police and criminal justice agencies, social landlords including Registered Social Landlords and other third sector providers.
17. Local problem-solving with local partners and early intervention to tackling the individuals underlying issues before behaviour escalates are both central to the local authority approach to tackling ASB.
18. As such the government’s Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill introduced in the Queen’s Speech on the 8th May will have significant impact on local authorities work to reduce crime.
19. The bill sets out a range of measures that are aimed to:

• focus responses to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims
• enable communities to play a bigger role in tackling anti-social behaviour
• simplify and speed up the processes for dealing with anti-social behaviour
• strengthening the law against dogs that are out of control

20. The proposed changes will potentially bring about a simpler and clearer approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, and we welcome the increased role of the local community in how anti-social behaviour is defined and tackled in the local area.
21. However we are concerned that rather than focusing on early intervention and preventative measures, proposals within the bill are more focused on enforcement.
22. We are also concerned that a number of powers that currently require consent and consultation among local partners will be replaced with powers that require only one organisation to be involved.
23. We are concerned that the variety of definitions for Anti-Social Behaviour may hinder partnership working. In our view the focus of the proposed legislation is too police led and does not recognise the vital role that councils play.

Neighbourhood Policing and Local Partnership Working

24. In London the police are essential to local partnership approaches to reducing crime and promoting community safety. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) will, however, need to cut £500million or 20% of their budget by 2017. This reduction in funding and the subsequent impact on how the MPS is organised have the potential to impact on joint efforts in London to reduce crime and reoffending.
25. How the Mayor plans to implement these changes is set out in the Mayor’s statutory Policing and Crime Plan (PCP). The PCP presents much that boroughs welcome including the aspiration to cut crime, increase public confidence in policing and to make significant cost savings.
26. By reforming the back office, including reducing the number of senior officers and supervisors, releasing under-utilised assets and reducing overheads the PCP sets out the Mayor’s commitment to maintain police officer numbers at around 32,000, with some 19,000 working in boroughs on tackling local policing priorities by 2015.
27. The plan also sets out a new local policing model which describes how policing will look at borough and neighbourhood levels and while the commitment to overall police numbers is welcomed, local coordination of crime reduction level efforts relies on effective and stable local policing.
28. The planned changes to Safer Neighbourhood Teams, which are the ward level structure for local policing, in the new Local Policing Model have therefore caused some concern for local authorities in London.
29. Safer Neighbourhood Teams were originally conceived as one sergeant, two police constables and three police community support officers. This model has enabled local wards to have up to six named officers working on tackling local crime priorities as agreed by local Community Safety Partnerships. This model has been found by many boroughs to be successful in enabling local intelligence gathering, building strong community links and tackling local crime priorities such as anti-social behaviour.
30. The proposed new structure, which the MPS has started to roll out, would have one PC and one PCSO per ward, together with a sergeant, who would typically cover more than one ward.
31. While there is a commitment made for the PCs and PCSOs in the new model to remain in the ward and not be “abstracted” to other areas when urgent cover is required, concern has been raised about this model’s ability to deliver effective local policing.

Borough Policing Protocol

32. While there remains concern about the local policing model set out above, there has been a recent positive development in improving coordination between local authorities and the MPS at a borough-wide level across London.
33. In April 2013, in recognition of the importance of local borough policing the Chair of London Councils and the MPS Commissioner, signed an important agreement setting out broad expectations about the delivery of local policing in the London. 
34. The agreement tackles the issue of short-term posting of borough commanders, which is a barrier to communities really getting to know them, or for them to gain an understanding of local priorities. Under the 'Police Protocol', Borough Commanders’ minimum term in office will normally be two years excluding significant periods away from the borough for development and training reasons.

Local Crime Reduction Services Funding Challenges

35. Funding for local government has been cut considerably since Spending Review in 2010 (SR2010), which outlined 28% cuts to local government compared to an average of just 8% for central government departments. Further cuts since 2010 mean the proposed cuts of 28% will be closer to 33% by the end of the SR2010 period. This has inevitable led to pressure on local authorities spending crime reduction and community safety.
36. Modelling undertaken by London Councils’ in December 2012 suggested funding for local services could be cut by around 14% between 2012-13 and 2019-20. With demand for services increasing by 13 % over the same period, the overall funding gap could be as much as 24% by 2020. Further cuts announced in the 2013 Budget suggest this is a conservative estimate.
37. If the core statutory functions of social care and waste management are protected, savings will have to be made from the remaining services, meaning authorities will have to cut funding to other services. This squeeze on local government will mean that in the future it will be increasingly difficult for them to fund crime reduction services through local government core funding.
38. In this context it will become increasingly essential for local government to be given the powers and responsibility to align and coordinate the resources of local partners in order to achieve better crime reduction outcomes and better value for money.
39. It will also mean that in the short term local government has to continue to rely on crime reduction-specific funding from the Home Office, which transferred a number of funds to MOPAC for distribution to local areas in 2012/13.
40. For 2013/14 the level of funding from the Home Office was reduced by approximately 15% however through the addition of partnership funding from MOPAC, the total funding allocated for the financial year 2013/14 was approximately £17.8million meaning that no London local authority will get less funding this year than the previous financial year. This is however still an overall reduction of funding from the Home Office for local authorities to deliver crime reduction services over the last 3 years.
41. In terms of distributing this funding MOPAC worked closely with London Councils to set up and implement a new London Crime Prevention Fund. This approach focuses on co-commissioning and supporting boroughs to draw in matching resources
42. Working together at a local level to commission services meant that the fund recognised that local authorities are best placed to make real tangible impact on reducing crime and reoffending in London. The importance of local integration and local commissioning allowed borough’s knowledge and experience to drive local delivery.
43. Boroughs were asked to bid to the pot and were asked to demonstrate the potential impact (i.e. likelihood of making a difference on the ground) of their proposals as well as how they reflects local demand
44. Bids to fund were received from across London’s local authorities for a wide variety of work programmes looking at tackling gangs, reducing violence against women and girls, drug and alcohol related crime, reducing reoffending, anti-social behaviour and other community safety issues.

Transforming Rehabilitation: The Governments’ Strategy for Reform

45. London boroughs work with their statutory partners to reduce re-offending in coordinated, innovative ways. For example, the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) model has enabled local authorities to develop a joined-up approach to working closely with local partners to tackle crime and reduce re-offending.
46. Effective offender management works on the principle of a range of public and independent sector partners being aligned and working together to provide a “wrap around” service for selected offenders. Through this process partners develop interventions using the multi-agency problem-solving approach and clear systems of management oversight for individual offenders.
47. In recognition of local government’s role in tackling reoffending at a local level, London Councils submitted a response to the government’s White Paper ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ in February 2013. In that response we pressed for the devolution of decisions about the provision of probation service in London to London local government. We have read with interest the government’s response ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: Strategy for Reform’
48. London Councils agrees with the government’s objective of reaching as many offenders as possible with rehabilitative services, and especially those most likely to re-offend. We therefore support the overall objective of expanding rehabilitative services and supervision to offenders on short-term sentences. Re-offending rates by prisoners on short term sentences costs the criminal justice system a disproportionate amount; it also has a significant effect on local communities and local perception of crime.
49. We also support the commitment to realign the prison service to designate new local resettlement prisons, although we would like reassurance that these reforms are achievable in London, given the particular pressures on prison spaces in London.
50. London Councils however has concerns about the intention to commission probation services at the national level. While we welcome the government’s intention to engage with PCCs in the competitive process for selecting new providers, we do not think that this is adequate in London where as well as the Mayor as PCC there are 33 local authorities.
51. Nationally commissioned services are also out of kilter with this government’s stated commitment to local, responsive services. 
52. We are also concerned about the relatively short time frame that the Justice Secretary has set out these reforms to be implemented with the intention is that the reformed system be ‘live’ by autumn 2014.

London Councils proposes:

53. Instead London Councils believe in a model rooted in existing local democratic and accountability structures. This model is based on the view that:

• Local relationships and knowledge lead to better commissioning of services.
• Locally commissioned services are more flexible and responsive to local needs. By contrast nationally commissioned services can inhibit local partnership working and stifle innovation. 

54. Our alternative vision for London would involve:

• The responsibility and the budget for commissioning probation and rehabilitation services being devolved to local decision makers.
• Collaboration between the Mayor, as Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), and London local authorities.
• Using the established partnership structures to achieve this, including the London Crime Reduction Board. This board provides a forum for the boroughs and the Mayor to agree a co-ordinated approach to crime reduction, local policing and community safety.

55. By commissioning at a local level, we would ensure that new providers:

• Work in a collaborative manner;
• Ensure delivery reaches all offenders;
• Recognise the potential of sharing premises and identifying potential co-location opportunities
• Build on existing local provision including local IOM;
• Recognise the valuable contribution of London boroughs;
• Provide clear and transparent performance information

56. The current proposals are unclear in terms of accountability. Devolving responsibility for commissioning probation services to London would improve accountability through local performance management at a regional and a local Community Safety Partnership level. 

Mitigating Steps

57. If government perseveres with its model of reforming the delivery of probation through the national commissioning of prime providers we would want to see the following:

• That local authorities are recognised as a key stakeholder in the design and delivery of the reforms. 
• Local authorities as well as PCCs should have a formal role in commenting on the contract bids as part of the assessment process. This would, as the government has acknowledged, ensure that providers will have to demonstrate their commitment to local partnership-working
• Clear accountability measures for providers, as part of the contracting process, if they fail to adequately work in partnership at a local level.
• Local Community Safety Partnerships (not just PCCs) have a role in performance managing the future delivery of contracts. For example in collaboration with PCCs local Community Safety partnerships should have access to performance data for prime and sub-contracted providers in order to have local oversight of delivery. This should include clear mechanisms for local authorities built in to the system to raise any performance concerns with contract managers at the Ministry of Justice.

May 2013