An oral report will be given at the meeting.
Minutes:
Officers advised the Committee of the outcome of the applications for funding submitted to MOPAC under the auspices of the Crime Prevention Fund.
In 2012/13 MOPAC allocated a number of funding streams inherited from the Home Office. These were:
· Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) - £12.8 million (part of which was provided directly to the Metropolitan Police to undertake compulsory drug testing);
· Community Safety Fund - £5.3 million;
· Youth Prevention - £2.2 million; and
· CAGGK (communities against guns, gangs and knives) - £1 million.
After March 2013 these funding streams ceased to exist, and it there stead the Home Office allocated un-ring fenced ‘Community Safety Fund’ monies to each Police and Crime Commissioner. MOPAC had decided to combine this with other funding streams (the Police Property Act Fund and Partnership Fund), in to the London Crime Prevention Fund.
The key principles for the new fund were:
· A first step to drawing together disparate national and regional funding programmes to produce one single pot that Local Authorities could access through a relatively light touch ‘challenge fund’ mechanism.
· MOPAC was committed to funding activity that was able to demonstrate impact and was, therefore, encouraging outcome-based commissioning to generate a strong evidence base.
· Funding decisions for each Local Authority would be determined by both the potential impact (i.e. likelihood of making a difference on the ground) of their proposals and local demand (levels of crime).
· Boroughs were in the best position to commission and deliver local interventions that would achieve the right outcomes, therefore, individual commissioning decisions would be taken at as local a level as possible. The assumption was that boroughs could deliver better outcomes given sufficient freedom, flexibility and resource.
· MOPAC must deliver value for money and would, therefore, ensure any funding was used to complement existing spend. MOPAC was looking to pay for outcomes. Local Authorities should look to develop Payment by Results (PbR) arrangements for any services that were commissioned. The precise nature of the PbR arrangement was for Local Authorities to determine.
· Providing boroughs the time and assurance to deliver meaningful results through opportunity for longer term funding (up to four years). This longer term funding commitment could offer a useful foundation for tackling complex and ingrained crime and offending problems.
· Expectation of partnership (and ideally matched) funding from boroughs to ensure greater impact.
· MOPAC was committed to improving the evidence base for what works in London. Local Authorities would, therefore, be required to show that they were engaging with Project Oracle for any youth programmes.
· The funding process should be simple and as non-bureaucratic as possible. But the funding should ensure there was clear accountability in terms of spend and outcomes.
Local authorities had been able to bid for monies under the categories of drugs and alcohol, gangs, violence against women and girls, reducing re-offending and local priority. The Havering Community Safety Partnership (HCSP) had submitted fifteen proposals under the following priority areas.
Proposal 1 – Street Triage
Proposal 2 – Project Weekend
Proposal 3- Substance Abuse Education
Proposal 4 – Drugs and Alcohol Service Provision
Proposal 5 – Caught Out Kept Out
Proposal 6 – Substance Misuse and Young People
Proposal 7 – Havering Gangs Prevention
Proposal 8 – Youth Crime Prevention
Proposal 9 – Domestic Abuse Perpetrators
Proposal 10- Improving Support for Domestic Abuse
Proposal 11- Domestic Abuse, Children and Young People
Proposal 12- Working with Male Offenders
Proposal 13- Working with Female Offenders
Proposal 14 – Rent Deposit Scheme
Proposal 15 – Localities Based Approach to Crime Prevention
MOPAC had advised the HCSP in April that the following bids had been successful:
1. Street Triage - £30,000
2. Substance Misuse and Young People - £40,000
3. Domestic Abuse Perpetrators - £20,000
4. Improving Support for Domestic Abuse - £35,000
5. Rent Deposit Scheme - £32,400
6. Drugs and Alcohol Service Provision - £56,000
The amount of funding awarded was £213,400. Funding for these bids would be subject to conditions, such as outcomes being more specific and measurable (for example). Officers were still in discussion with MOPAC around these.
In addition to the funding received by the HCSP Barking and Dagenham had received £120,000 for work with gangs and as we work together on Youth Offending issues the Council would benefit from this funding.
The problem for the HCSP was that in previous years it had a small amount of funds available to tackle emerging trends, this was no longer available. The partnership needed to be smarter and they would be looking for sponsorship from local businesses to run specific projects.
The Committee noted the report and asked for further information on the matched funding which was being made available.