Agenda item

Members to receive a report updating on the changes made by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to the funding allocations made to the Community Safety Partnerships (CSP’s) across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Members will be asked to comment and to note the contents of the report.

The Police and Crime Panel received a report updating on the changes made by the OPCC to the funding allocations made to the Community Safety Partnerships (CSP’s) across Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland.

The Police and Crime Commissioner introduced the report outlining the background and reminding there was no statutory requirement for this funding and the rationale for division of monies was based on unknown parameters.

Members were also informed that through the current system there had been numerous underspends that were not reported in a timely manner and a significant lack of monitoring information provided.

The PCC advised that a key piece of work was undertaken to develop a new system in consultation with the CSP’s across the area, who had engaged positively with officers, and the new system would improve accountability, monitoring, transparency, outcomes, value for money and provide certainty over the distribution criteria as well as hopefully reducing underspends.

The Chair noted that a conference had been held at the end of October 2022 for CSP’s to attend, hear more detail about the formula and provide feedback which had been taken into account when deciding upon the new procedure.

Members were invited to comment which included the following points:

There was some concern that there would be a cut of £40k to Leicester CSP funding especially in context of recent issues in the city. Members enquired whether the metrics had been tested in terms of impact on the city and whether there was sufficient objectivity in the figures, and would the outcomes be different it they were run in a different way. Assurance was also sought that those most vulnerable and at risk of the worst crimes were not at further risk with a pure data approach being taken to the funding formula.

The PCC asserted that the city would get a fair deal under the system, despite the reduction and reminded members of the opportunity given to all CSP’s to attend the conference held in October 2022 where it was set out in very full detail how the formula was worked out. It was advised that an evidence based approach was being taken.

Members were informed that CSP’s were consulted and given several opportunities to feedback, meetings were held across the force area and based upon feedback received the formula was created. The PCC commented that there was no statutory obligation to provide funding for this area of work, but he felt it was the right thing to do and it was important to have a proper system in place. It was also advised that after developing the formula it was presented to CSP’s for further feedback and there were no criticisms in terms of the way it was worked out. It was reminded that the city had underspent its allocation in the past and the point was made again that the city indicated at its last CSP meeting they had a £45k underspend so this formula suggests it would be more accurate moving forward.

It was emphasised that the formula was sense checked and no major criticism raised in terms of process and framework. The 3 year period used provided a good snapshot of the environment covering the pre, during and post covid landscape.

Members were informed that the Crime Harm index was used as this was the best way to weight each crime. Officers briefly explained how the index had been used and reminded that this had been fully set out and discussed at the conference held. It was indicated that this was a fairer way of capturing more serious crimes, and whilst it might not be everyone’s preference it was better than having no formula at all.

There remained some dissatisfaction about the formula put forward and criticism of the use of the Crime Harm index and it was suggested that figures should be run using a different scenario.  The PCC reiterated the new formula was the result of a long process where CSP’s were consulted extensively and he was not prepared to have staff spend more time now to run different ways of doing things as it was necessary to implement a formula because the old system was not fit for purpose.

Members were advised that this funding was only in relation to CSP’s and that was just a part of the funding that the OPCC put into the city and other areas across the force. The OPCC funded many services, and the PCC was confident that total funding from the OPCC to the city was around 50-53% of total funding available.

As regards reference to violence that has taken place across the city, the PCC assured the public of his previous comments, and that it had been agreed there would be an internal review of the policing of that and results of that would come to panel and be in the public domain.

Members enquired whether there were any long term indications of support to initiatives such as the Youth Diversion project. Officers responded that contracts had been amalgamated so there was more flexibility for CSP’s to use the money how they wanted to rather than have sections sliced off to specific activity.

Members acknowledged the complex process undertaken and recognised the competing interests of different areas to secure funding. There was a general consensus that having this formula was clearer and there was gratitude for the funding to CSP’s which was not statutory.

Members noted that when presented details at the October conference it was progressive and new and basing funding on a weighting mechanism made sense. It was suggested that some of the conversations with CSP’s were with officers rather than with members.

Members queried whether the 20% mechanism for calculating the amount of funding provided opportunity to vary as things evolved. Officers confirmed that it was designed so it could be adapted to priorities, data could also be pulled from Niche. It was noted that in future housing distribution would be greater in the county and Rutland than the city so by default the weighting mechanism would need to shift with that.

The Chair brought discussions to a close, commenting that it was not the time to ask the PCC to re-run figures for the formula as suggested earlier. The Chair also noted there had been very full discussion at the conference and it was unfortunate that representatives from the city were not present however others did feed in to the process.

The Chair brought discussions to a close and thanked the PCC and officers for the information provided.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the report be noted.