London Crime Prevention Fund 2019/20 and 2020/21

Reference code: 
PCD 421
Date signed: 
18 October 2018
Authorisation name: 
Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor, Policing and Crime

Executive summary

MOPAC has powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to award crime and disorder reduction grants. The London Crime Prevention Fund (LCPF) was established in 2013, bringing together a number of funding streams that had existed before MOPAC was set up. The fund ran from 2013/14 to 2016/17 in line with the Police and Crime Plan (DMPCD 2013/96). These arrangements ended on March 2017.

In 2016, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime made a commitment to sustain the LCPF budget at £72m for a further four years (2017/18 to 2020/21), despite cuts to the overall policing budget (DMPCD 2016/79). This was set out in the Police and Crime Plan which came into effect in April 2017. It was outlined in that decision that a further DMPC decision would be made in 2018/19 to finalise the allocations for 2019/20 and 2020/21.

This report recommends that the overall budget for direct borough funding be increased to £26,210,370 for the two years 2019/20 and 2020/21, with the specific funding allocations to each of the 32 boroughs reprofiled within this total. This is an increase of £1,118,248.

The crime landscape in London has changed recently, with a particular increase in violence and youth offending. It is imperative that funds are allocated to those areas with the greatest need and demand, whilst not destabilising local services which are tackling these priority issues.

As such, this report recommends that all increases in allocation as a result of updating the funding formula be accepted. This will ensure that funding is being directed to those areas in most need according to the data. It also recommends that all reductions be removed, as compared to the previous funding formula allocations (in 2018/19), so that no borough sees a reduction in anticipated funding.

This report also outlines the future of the co-commissioning fund. A separate decision will be made regarding the use of the remaining co-commissioning fund.

Recommendation

The DMPC is requested to:

  • Approve the revised funding formula, having had regard to and taking into account, the Consultation Report (Appendix C). 
  • Approve the direct borough funding allocations for 2019/20-2020/21 as set out in APPENDIX A.
  • Commit this direct borough funding, by way of a grant agreement with each borough, for a two year period (2019/20-20/21), affording boroughs the flexibility to apportion spend over that two year period.
  • Protect against funding allocation reductions across both financial years, when compared to the indicative allocations of 2018/19. Maintain all increases in allocation according to the updated funding formula.
  • Approve the additional funding of £1,118,248 to be vired from the remaining co-commissioning fund budget.
  • To concentrate the remaining co-commissioning funding of £3,381,752 on tackling violence in London, in collaboration with Local Authorities.

Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)

1.    Introduction and background

1.1    The London Crime Prevention Fund (LCPF) was established in 2013, bringing together a number of funding streams that had existed before MOPAC was set up. The fund ran from 2013/14 to 2016/17 in line with the Police and Crime Plan (DMPCD 2013/96). These arrangements ended on March 2017. 

1.2    In 2016, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime made a commitment to sustain the LCPF budget at £72m for a further four years (2017/18 to 2020/21), despite cuts to the overall policing budget, and to commit the direct borough funding for 2 two-year periods (2017/18-18/19 and 2019/20-20/21), affording boroughs the flexibility to apportion spend over a two year period (DMPCD 2016/79). This was set out in the Police and Crime Plan which came into effect in April 2017. It was outlined in that decision that a further DMPC decision would be made in 2018/19 to finalise the allocations for 2019/20 and 2020/21, based on a review of the formula to reflect need and demand.

1.3    This decision also apportioned the LCPF budget between direct borough funding (70%) and funding for co-commissioned services (30%) starting in year 2 of the fund, from 2018/19 to 2020/21. Boroughs are core partners in the development and use of the new co-commissioning funding pot.

1.4    In addition, it was decided to uplift funding for those boroughs which were previously allocated less than their share of the LCPF budget in year one (according to an assessment of current levels of need and demand in the first two years of the fund) then redistribute funding based entirely on a need and demand formula for the remaining three years of the fund.

1.5    Following the previous decision, boroughs were informed that their 2018/19 allocation should be treated as an indicative figure for funding in 2019/20 and 2020/21. The additional dampening made available in the first year was intended to assist boroughs to manage the change to this new approach over two years.

1.6    As outlined in the 2016 decision, the funding formula has now been reviewed and allocations for the next two financial years are recommended in this report.

Funding formula review

1.7    A new formula for the allocation of direct borough funding was introduced in 2017/18, the first of the four years of this fund. This ensures that changes in demographics, crime patterns and more broadly need/vulnerability are better reflected in the level of local funding provided by MOPAC.

1.8    The previous decision committed to a refreshed calculation of the borough funding formula to be reviewed in 2018/19.

1.9    In consultation with boroughs and London Councils, it was decided that the data should be refreshed (the most recent data available at the start of consultation ran up to May 2018), and that the indicators should be amended to better align with the Police and Crime Plan commitments. The indicators and data used for the proposed funding allocations can be found in APPENDIX B, and the list of the proposed new indicators compared to previous indicators can be found in APPENDIX C.

Protection against reductions

1.10    The refreshing of data and amendments to indicators used in the funding formula has generated some significant changes to borough allocations. Although dampening was provided in the first year of the fund, to allow boroughs to manage the change to the need and demand formula, it has been made clear through consultation that there is concern among boroughs for those facing further reductions.

1.11    The crime landscape in London has also changed recently, with a particular increase in violence and youth offending. It is imperative that funds are allocated to those areas with the greatest need and demand, but it is recognised that there is an overall increase in need and demand across London. This is therefore not the right time to apply the need an demand formula in a way which results in some boroughs facing a reduction.

1.12    As such, all increases in allocation as a result of updating the funding formula will be maintained. This ensures that funding is being directed to those areas in most need according to the data. All reductions however will be removed, as compared to the previous funding formula allocations (in 2018/19). This will ensure that boroughs are not presented with unexpected budget reductions.

1.13    This reduction protection will cost an additional £1,118,248 and this will be taken from the remaining budget for the co-commissioning fund. A table outlining the effect of this reduction protection on boroughs can be found in APPENDIX C.

1.14    The Police and Crime Plan states that “A portion of LCPF budget – 30 percent from 2018/19 onwards – will form a separate pot of funding intended to support the co-commissioning of services across boroughs.” The use of a part of this funding for reduction protection in direct borough funding reduces the current percentage by approximately 2%. It is recommended that the DMPC, having had regard to the Police and Crime Plan, makes this minor departure from this commitment for the following reasons:

1.14.1 The budget and priorities for Tranche 2 of the co-commissioning fund have not yet been addressed, so this does not undo a previous decision. 

1.14.2 This is a very small budgetary change which does not impact on the overall strategic commitment to provide opportunities for co-commissioning in London

1.14.3 The majority of the co-commissioning fund budget has already been granted for delivery which began in 2018/19. The remaining budget was already a much smaller pot to bid into.

1.14.4 The use of funding for reduction protection will help to ensure that crucial local crime prevention projects are not destabilised by reductions to borough allocations.

1.14.5 This reduction protection will in turn better enable the LCPF to continue to provide support for victims of domestic and sexual violence, prevention and early intervention and the rehabilitation of offenders within the community, as laid out in the Police and Crime Plan, as well as tackling youth offending and violence.

Two-year commitment on funding

1.15    As in the previous decision, this funding is committed, by way of a grant agreement with each borough, to a two-year period, 2019/20-2020/21. This offers local authorities greater flexibility in utilising their budget over that period, including the ability to request a carry-over of underspend from the first to the second year of the fund. It is not possible for any underspend from 2018/19 to be carried over into this second two-year period.

Monitoring and evaluation

1.16    The responsibility for each projects’ evidence base and review sits with the Local Authority. MOPAC requests an evidence base to justify the 2 year profiling of the spend, before a grant agreement is arranged. On an annual basis, MOPAC requests a breakdown of all projects’ performance data, as well as quarterly spend information to allow for payment in arrears.

Co-commissioning fund

1.17    The LCPF budget has been split between direct borough funding and funding for co-commissioning services over the course of 2018/19 to 2020/21. Splitting the budget in this way acknowledged the important role this funding now plays in supporting local community safety and prevention services while also recognising that some London challenges relating to future Police and Crime Plan priorities can be better addressed through either regional or sub-regional commissioning arrangements. 

1.18    The framework for the use of the co-commissioning fund was developed in consultation with London Councils, boroughs, and wider partners under the leadership of the London Crime Reduction Board in 2017/2018. The fund was split into two tranches.

1.19    Tranche 1 of the co-commissioning fund (CCF) had a budget of £10.2m and was eligible for proposals focused on four priorities: Child Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Violence, Female Offending and Youth Offending. Five projects were funded and have started delivery (DMPCD 2018/310).

1.20    The cost of the reduction protection for the direct borough allocations will be funded from the remaining CCF budget.

1.21    Due to recent increases in violence in London, and through consultation on LCPF (see 2.2), the remaining budget will be reallocated to tackle violence by adding to the commissioning budget for the Violence Reduction Unit. Further discussions will take place and a secondary decision made as to how this funding will be utilised.

Next Steps

1.22    If the Deputy Mayor approves the recommendations, MOPAC will inform borough Leaders, Chief Executives, and Heads of Community Safety of their borough allocation, the indicators under the new funding formula as it relates to their borough, and an explanation of the process for providing information to MOPAC on the proposed uses of their funding. MOPAC will hold a meeting for local Heads of Community Safety to support them in putting forward proposals to use the funding.

1.23    Once project proposals are agreed, grant agreements will be drawn up for each borough, outlining planned spend and objectives for the next two financial years.

2.    Issues for consideration

2.1.    Links to Police and Crime Plan and MOPAC priorities:

  • The previous decision on the future of the LCPF was made prior to the publication of the Police and Crime Plan because local authorities required an early decision to safeguard the interests of service users and allow enough time to effectively commission/de-commission services. 
  • The Police and Crime Plan provides a performance framework by which local commissioned services can be measured.
  • The updated indicators in the funding formula reflect the Police and Crime plan priorities more closely than those used previously.

2.2.    Consultation:

  • This consultation took the form of three meetings with the Deputy Mayor, invitations for which were managed by London Councils and went out to political leaders. This followed on from attendance at the co-commissioning fund working group. Presentations, notes and data were circulated to invitees following each meeting. A written consultation was also undertaken, with an explanatory paper and invitation to respond being sent to leaders in all boroughs. 
  • This consultation was undertaken regarding the refreshing of the funding formula and consultation was also undertaken regarding the use of Tranche 2 co-commissioning funding. The decision has already been made to allocate funds to boroughs based on the funding formula for 2019/20 and 2020/21.
  • All boroughs are affected by this decision as it pertains to direct funding, and all were provided the opportunity to feed into the consultation. All feedback from this written consultation was shared in full with attendees to the final consultation meeting, and was also read, collated and discussed by MOPAC and the Deputy Mayor. A consultation report which pulls out common feedback themes and responses and recommendations has been appended. See Appendix C.

2.3.    Impact assessments/ implications:

  • Equality considerations are set out in section 6 below. In submitting their proposals for spending their borough allocation, each Local Authority is required to have due regard to the public sector equality duty, and set this out in the proposal.

3.    Financial Comments

3.1.    This decision paper will commit MOPAC to providing £26,210,370 to Local Authorities over the course of 2019/20 and 2020/21.  

3.2.    Through the reallocation of some of the remaining co-commissioning fund, this cost can be met from within the current LCPF budget.

4.    Legal Comments

4.1.    MOPAC’s general powers are set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (the 2011 Act). Section 3 (6) of the 2011 Act provides that MOPAC must “secure the maintenance of the metropolitan police service and secure that the metropolitan police service is efficient and effective.” Under Schedule 3, paragraph 7 (1) MOPAC has incidental powers to “do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the functions of the Office.” Paragraph 7 (2) (a) provides that this includes entering into contracts and other agreements.

4.2.    Section 143 (1) (b) of the Anti-Social, Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for MOPAC to provide or commission services “intended by the local policing body to victims or witnesses of or other persons affected by, offences and anti-social behaviour.” Section 143 (3) specifically allows MOPAC to make grants in connection with such arrangements and any grant may be made subject to any conditions that MOPAC thinks appropriate. As the proposals in this decision form are about supporting victims, they fall within the parameters of the legislation.

4.3.    Section 8 (3) of the 2011 Act provides that MOPAC must, in exercising its functions, have regard to the Police and Crime Plan issued by the Office. Paragraph 1.14 of the report sets out the relevant sections of the Police and Crime Plan, and also why it is recommended that the Deputy Mayor, having had regard to the Plan, departs from it for the reasons provided. 

4.4.    Under MOPAC’s Scheme of Consent and Delegation the strategy for grant giving, the award of individual grants, all offers made and the award of grant funding are for the DMPC. The decisions in this report can be approved by the DMPC. 

4.5.    Officers must ensure the Financial Regulations and Contract Regulations are complied with.

4.6.    Officers should ensure that the funding agreements are put in place with and executed by MOPAC and each of the boroughs before any commitment to fund is made.

5.    GDPR and Data Privacy 

5.1.    Through the management of this fund, MOPAC does not process, use or receive any personally identifiable information for members of the public and therefore there are no GDPR compliance issues in this regard.

5.2.    MOPAC does receive, process and use personally identifiable information for professional contacts in each borough. This is required for the management of the fund and is processed under the lawful basis of public task, in the exercise of our official authority as laid out in section 4.1 above.

5.3.    All providers funded by MOPAC are required to comply with the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. MOPAC grant agreements require providers to demonstrate that

  • They have undertaken a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) to identify, minimise and reduce risks to data subjects;
  • They have met GDPR obligations to ensure the security of processing and will notify MOPAC of any data breaches as soon as they are identified;
  • Staff processing personally identifiable information are subject to duty of confidentiality and have taken appropriate measures to ensure the security of data held;
  • Data subjects who wish to utilise the Subject Access Request to data held in relation to the fund are able to do so;
  • They have a documented process in place for Subject Access Requests outlining how requests from data subjects will be managed;
  • They will submit to audits and inspections and provide MOPAC with whatever information is needed to ensure that they are meeting their Article 28 obligations; and finally,
  • They will immediately inform MOPAC if they are asked to do something which will infringe GDPR or other data protection laws of the EU or a member state.

6.    Equality Comments

6.1.    MOPAC is required to comply with the public sector equality duty set out in section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010.  This requires MOPAC to have due regard to the need to: 

  • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010
  • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and 
  • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.  

The relevant protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Public authorities also need to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination only against someone because of their marriage or civil partnership status.

6.2.    The Police and Crime Plan 2017-21 Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) takes into account feedback from the public and stakeholders and makes an assessment of its impact on a number of objectives including Crime, Safety and Security, Equality and Inclusion and Social Integration. It was assessed whether the proposed priorities within the Plan would have any negative impact on any protected characteristics. In conducting the assessment, and in line with the intentions of the Plan, the potential impact has been assessed as positive across all objectives.

6.3.    It is proposed that the indicators used in the funding formula are changed to align more closely with the priorities in the Police and Crime Plan, as the original formula was created when this Plan was still in development. The intention is that by making this closer alignment with the Plan, the potential impact for the direct borough funding will be positive across all objectives, as has been assessed in the IIA.

6.4.    The proposed indicators are set out in Appendix B. The first four indicators are deprivation factors, which means that funding is directed towards areas where inequality is more prevalent. The most vulnerable people in London are disproportionately more likely to become victims or involved in offending.

6.5.    The protected characteristics are particularly addressed in the following ways, by the proposed indicators:
Age – Young people are disproportionately affected by violence, both as victims and offenders (Non DA knife crime, CSE, Gun Crime)
Disability – People with disabilities are at higher risk of victimisation, particularly hate crime (ASB, Hate Crime, Repeat Victims)
Gender reassignment – There is a particular risk of hate crime and issues with access to sexual violence and domestic abuse services (DA Offences, Hate Crime, Sexual Offences)
Pregnancy and maternity – The risk of domestic abuse increases with pregnancy (DA Offences, Repeat Vicitms)
Race, religion or belief – There are issues with hate crime as regards race and religion, and BAME Londoners are more likely to be both victims and suspects of crime (Hate Crime, Prolific Offenders, Non-DA Knife Crime, Repeat Victims, Volume Crimes)
Sex – Tackling violence against women and girls is a key priority in the PCP (DA Offences, Sexual Offences)
Sexual orientation – Non-heterosexual people are at risk of hate crime (ASB, Hate Crime)

6.6.    The priority areas for the LCPF direct borough funding are drawn from the Police and Crime Plan priorities:

  • Neighbourhood policing
  • Children and young people 
  • Violence against women and girls
  • Hate crime and extremism
  • Wider criminal justice system 

6.7.    The ‘wider criminal justice system’ priority ensures that projects do not only have to be focused on the identified priority areas, and as such funding is available to all cohorts where there is specific local need.

6.8.    The decision to update the indicators aligns these more closely with the Police and Crime Plan priority areas. This helps to ensure that funding is being sent to those areas where there is greatest need and demand for the priority areas above. In order to ensure that the impact of this change on priority cohorts is mitigated, additional funds have been made available to cap reductions.

6.9.    The use of co-commissioning funding to support tackling violence also links in with the above priorities as the primary cohorts are young offenders and victims of street violence, domestic and sexual abuse.

6.10.    Due to the wide ranging nature of the bids received, equality considerations for individual projects must be identified at a local level. Boroughs will be reminded of their responsibilities to have due regard to the equality and diversity implications for each of the initiatives they propose. This is included in the project minimum standards, compliance with which is a condition for funding. Each proposal will be reviewed against these standards and MOPAC will not fund bids unless there is confidence that the borough will mitigate any adverse equality implications.

6.11.    Each borough is required to have due regard to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation; advance equality of opportunity; and foster good relations between different groups.

7.    Background/supporting papers

7.1.    APPENDIX A – Direct borough funding allocations for 2019/21 and 2020/21
7.2.    APPENDIX B – Funding formula (indicators and data)
7.3.    APPENDIX C – Consultation Report

Appendices in attached decision document.


Share this page