2 Improving the administration of
the programme
11. An appropriate balance is needed between meeting
local needs and achieving reductions in overall crime trends.
Local crime reduction targets are not clearly aligned with national
crime reduction targets, and the link between national and local
targets is not always apparent. In Ashfield in north-east Derbyshire,
for example, the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
had improved street lighting and outdoor play areas for young
people without any significant impact on crime levels. The Home
Office considered, however, that there was general evidence that
improved street lighting reduced crime and that play facilities
could reduce anti social behaviour.[12]
12. Not all projects are evaluated to assess their
effectiveness in reducing crime. Partnerships had existed since
1999, but it was only in 2003 that the Home Office introduced
a self assessment framework. Some schemes had been too small and
localised to evaluate effectively, so their wider impact in reducing
crime might also have been limited. The Home Office had embedded
cost benefit analysis in its evaluations to support decisions
on where resources were best spent.[13]
13. The plethora of different central government
grants available to Partnerships from the Home Office directly
or indirectly (Figure 3) has increased the administrative
burden on Partnerships. Between April 1999 and March 2004, the
Home Office had introduced 14 crime reduction grants, each with
its own terms and conditions, and with different reporting requirements
and audit certificates. It had now begun to amalgamate schemes,
and from 2005-06 the Home Office planned to merge its funding
for Partnerships with those of the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister into a single Safer and Stronger Communities Fund. The
Home Office accepted that it should have done more to reduce the
administrative costs of the programme and to spread good practice
more effectively.[14]
Figure 3:
Home Office grants for crime reduction schemes running from April
1999 to March 2004
| Grant Scheme and purpose
| Type of grant and start date
| Total grant to 31 March 2004
£ million
| Grant recipients
|
| Building Safer Communities - Main grant for crime reduction initiatives. In 2003-04, proportion of grant had to be spent on drug initiatives.
| Annual, April 2003
| 72.2 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
| Basic Command Unit (BCU) funds - for initiatives fitting the overall Partnership strategy.
| Annual, April 2003
| 50 |
Police BCUs
|
| Directors Funds - Available to Partnerships and other organisations for specific capacity building and other projects to address key priorities, including national targets.
| Annual, April 2003
| 10 |
Home Office Regional Directors
|
| Criminal Justice Intervention Programme (CJIP) - Focused on 30 worst affected areas, provides support for drug-misusing offenders. Scheme widened from 2004-05.
| Annual, April 2003
| 46.2 |
Drug Action Teams
|
| Anti Social Behaviour - To strengthen Partnerships' response to anti-social behaviour.
| One-off allocation, 2003-04
| 6.4 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
| Vehicle Crime - Local publicity on vehicle crime.
| One-off allocation, 2003-04
| 1.2 |
Home Office Regional Directors
|
| Communities Against Drugs - Initiatives tackling drug related crime and disorder, in conjunction with BCUs and Drug Action Teams.
| Annual, 2 years, April 2001
| 220 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
| Partnership Development Fund - To help Partnerships develop and implement crime reduction strategies.
| Annual, 3 years, April 2000
| 40.5 |
Home Office Regional Directors
|
| Street wardens - For new or expanded schemes to improve physical appearance of streets, deter anti-social behaviour and reduce crime.
| By bids, 3 years, April 2001
| 25 |
Local authorities, housing associations, Police
|
| Small Retailers in Deprived Areas - Improving security in most deprived areas, for example by providing toughened glass, or better locks.
| Annual, 3 years, April 2000
| 15 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
| Safe Communities Initiative Funds - To fund crime reduction initiatives and Partnerships capacity building.
| Annual, 1 year, April 2002
| 20 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
| Secured Car Parks scheme (SCP) - awards SCP status to operators who meet a stringent set of security standards. Launched by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 1993.
| One-off allocation, 2002-03
| 0.3 |
British Parking Association and ACPO Crime Initiatives Ltd
|
| CCTV Initiative (mostly within Crime Reduction Programme) - To set up 680 CCTV schemes (£153 million funded through the Crime Reduction Programme - not included below).
| By bids, 2 rounds, April 1999
| 170 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
| Crime Reduction Programme - Initiatives include Reducing Burglary Initiative, Targeted Policing and Drug Arrest Referrals scheme.
| By bids, 3 years, April 1999
| 250 |
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
|
Source: National Audit Office
14. Late notification of grant allocations by the
Home Office to Partnerships has disrupted finalisation of Partnerships'
project plans and delayed the start of crime reduction schemes.
The Home Office did not make its allocations to Partnerships for
2003-04 until February 2003. As a result, by the end of the third
quarter of 2003-04, Partnerships had spent £18.4 million
less from the Building Safer Communities Fund than the Home Office
had expected. It acknowledged the need to speed up the allocation
process for subsequent years.[15]
15. Motivated by a desire to make sure that annual
allocations were spent by the year end, Home Office regional crime
reduction teams had encouraged Partnerships to implement projects
quickly. Such a policy, based on end of year considerations had
inevitably led to inefficiencies. The Home Office had allocated,
for example, funding for a CCTV and automatic number plate recognition
system to the Portsmouth Partnership in December 2002. It had
then required the Partnership to spend the funds by March 2003.
The rushed procurement led to the acquisition of a system which
was not fully operational until August 2003. By making use of
existing government flexibility for funding non-government organisations,
the Home Office could have rolled forward funding for Partnerships
from one year to the next, provided the programme money had not
been spent and was still available for that project.[16]
12 Q 30 Back
13
Q 79 Back
14
Q 21 Back
15
Q 74 Back
16
Qq 75, 77-78 Back
|
