You are on page 1of 8

LCJBs and CDRPs – Developing Closer Working


1. Members of both CDRPs and LCJBs have expressed for some time concern and
uncertainty about the relationship between the two sets of bodies. In particular, there has
been uncertainty about accountabilities, structures and responsibilities. As both the Boards
and CDRPs develop and as the issues they are responsible for managing become more
complex it is all the more important to clarify how the two should interact.

2. The key mechanism for resolving these issues will be the Crime and Disorder Act Review
announced in the Police Reform White Paper ’Building Communities, Beating Crime’ on 9
November. The review will be completed, with proposals to Ministers, by January 2005.
The review will focus on the responsibilities of CDRPs and their relationships with a wide
range of bodies including LCJBs. The conclusions of the review which will be published by
the end of February will form the basis for any changes to the respective roles of CDRPs
and LCJBs and to comprehensive, guidance on how the LCJBs and CDRPS should work
together in the new environment.

3. In the interim, this document provides some basic information and pointers to good practice
which we hope will encourage CDRPs and LCJBs to develop closer links and to contribute
to the process of the review. In the course of the review we will ensure that we get detailed
feedback from a sample of Local Boards (and CDRPs), particularly at the 4 regional
workshops that will be held to discuss the review. If however you should have any further
examples of good practice or any suggestions which might inform the review please could
these be sent to Patrick Lines: 0208 282 6229, 19th Floor,
Portland House, Stag Place, Victoria, SW1E 5RS.

4. This interim guidance needs to be read in conjunction with other pieces of guidance that
jointly affect Partnerships and Boards. The diagram below maps out some of the main
programmes and initiatives which currently affect CDRPs and LCJBs:

Guidance on Closer Working Between

Context, background, contacts, case

Domestic Guidance to
Prolific and Violence CDRPs on Future
other Priority Guidance for producing Guidance on
Offender LCJBs Audits and areas of shared
Guidance. Publication Strategies responsibility
Published: July date: Late ‘04 Published: March
& September ‘04
‘04 Information for
Information on LCJBs on how A web based
the new PPO to better tackle toolkit guiding
scheme and Domestic practitioners
CDRP and Violence. 1 audit
through the
LCJB and strategy
responsibilities process
Roles and Responsibilities

5. Boards and Partnerships have distinct roles and responsibilities in respect of bringing more
offences to justice, improving confidence in the criminal justice system and reducing crime
and disorder and misuse of drugs at local level. These agendas are also, however,
complementary and in practice Partnerships and Boards have many shared areas of
interest and will need to work closely together in order to achieve shared outcomes.

6. The diagram below illustrates how the respective roles and responsibilities of Boards and
Partnerships overlap, and also highlights their shared responsibility for delivery of the three
strands of the Prolific and other Priority Offender Strategy. Full details of the strategy,
including detailed guidance on the Catch & Convict and Rehabilitate & Resettle strands,
are available on

Roles and Responsibilities

Crime and
Disorder Local Criminal
Reduction Justice Boards
Responsibility Narrowing the justice
Three year audit of: gap:
crime and disorder, - increasing number
including anti-social Prolific and Other of offences brought
behaviour, and Priority Offenders to justice
misuse of drugs Strategy - increasing number
of effective trials

Public Confidence:
Three year strategy increasing public, including
to reduce crime and black and minority ethnic,
disorder and misuse confidence in the CJS
of drugs increasing satisfaction of
witnesses and victims

Joint Lead Local Criminal

Responsibility Justice Board

Closer Working Checklist

In thinking about how the relationship will develop in future and to inform the review you may wish
to consider the following issues:
• Achieving Shared Outcomes – How might Partnerships and Boards agree on shared
outcomes and priorities? Boards and Partnerships will need to consider how to clearly
articulate what these outcomes will achieve. An example of the type of issue that might be
considered is increasing the number of incidents reported and reducing the rate of repeat
incidents of domestic violence in a Partnership /Board area by a given date.
• Maximizing Resources – There are a number of resource and funding opportunities from the
mainstream budgets of the constituent agencies and external sources which Boards and
Partnerships might be able to utilize more effectively in order to achieve the shared outcomes.
• Delivery – Although the Review itself will make clear where responsibilities lie the Board and
Partnership will need to consider the mechanisms that should be put in place to enable this to
happen locally.
• Accountability – How can the Board and Partnership agree on a structure and process for
performance managing delivery of the shared outcomes? For example could a joint Board and
Partnership steering group be put in place to ensure that delivery happens? How might the
differing boundaries between Boards and Partnerships be overcome/resolved?
• Improving Lines of Communication - Have the Board and the Partnership agreed clear lines
of communication with one another, with Government Offices and with local communities?
• Are there structural changes which may help CDRPs and Boards to manage these issues
more productively?

Achieving Shared Outcomes

Shared Areas of Interest

7. Identifying areas of shared interest will be an ongoing programme of work and this
document does not provide a definitive guide as to either what those areas are or how they
should be approached. The review will help in the process although there are already some
clearly identifiable crime and disorder issues that both Boards and Partnerships share an
interest in. In particular the new Prolific & other Priority Offenders (PPO) Strategy offers a
very good opportunity to enhance the closer working of boards and partnerships. The
success of the Government’s PPO Strategy will depend upon the combined efforts of the
full range of preventative, enforcement and judicial agencies. Another example is Anti-
Social Behaviour. Tackling anti-social behaviour requires the police and local authorities to
work together in an enforcement and preventative role.

8. One area where the review will help to develop thinking is in regard to ‘consultation’
particularly where Partnerships’ have pre-established consultation relationships. You may
wish to consider how best use might be made of, for example, the close links with housing,
health, social services, and education through their constituent agencies. Partnerships’
access to and consultation with diverse groups within the local population could also
complement Boards’ own consultative machinery. Partnerships’ consultation processes
frequently highlight community concerns about the criminal justice system.

9. Equally Boards’ links with the CPS, Victim Support, Magistrates Courts Committees and
Crown Court Managers could help Partnerships better facilitate the requirement to invite
participation from these groups in the exercise of their duties under the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998. Boards could act as a conduit for Partnerships’ consultation with local CJS
agencies on the findings of crime and drugs audits and on the development and delivery of
local strategies.

10. Joint approaches to community consultation and dialogue would be more coherent and
comprehensible to local people. They could also yield economies of scale and reduce
demands on communities.

Engaging at the Sub-regional or County level

11. It is worth noting that a number of CDRPs already have Partnership County Groups or local
Partnership Networks. In these instances links between the LCJB and the CDRPs can
more easily be made and avoids the need to set up individual arrangements for each
Partnership in a Board area.

Maximising Resources

Joint Strategic Planning, Financing and Oversight of Projects

12. Joint planning events can give both Boards and Partnerships the opportunity to explore
shared priorities and how best they can work together to address them.

13. Some Boards and Partnerships have begun to explore ways of jointly sponsoring projects,
such as Prolific Offender Projects or Domestic Violence schemes. In some areas, project
co-ordinators have been jointly financed by Partnerships and Boards to help deliver
projects of mutual interest.

14. Board delivery plans might usefully be circulated to the Partnerships (and vice versa) for
comment and input, as well as to help ensure that the Boards’ and Partnerships’ plans are
strategically aligned.

Driving Delivery and Providing Accountability

Attendance at Meetings
15. One example of how Boards and Partnerships can work more closely is through
representatives attending meetings of the counterpart body. Case Study evidence suggests
that attendance at key meetings helps ensure that:

• Partnerships and Boards are operationally and strategically co-ordinated; and

• Regular dialogue takes place to inform its current and future priorities, strategies and

16. Many Partnerships have an executive group. This is the group that may be most useful,
where practical, for Board members to attend. Alternatively, the Board Performance Officer
might attend.

17. Whilst attendance by all Partnerships at full Board meetings may not be practical or
appropriate, Partnership membership of a relevant Board sub-group can be an effective
way to influence Board strategy and decision making. Some Boards include Partnership
representatives on ‘Operational Groups’ such as the Victim & Witness or Race sub-groups.
Alternatively, in two tier local government areas, co-option of a Partnership representative
at County or regional level might be a pragmatic and effective means of managing this
interface, providing that all Partnerships are consulted and have the opportunity to
influence the Boards agenda.

Improving Lines of Communication

Communications and Information Sharing

18. Both Boards and Partnerships have been asked to develop and maintain effective
communication strategies. These cover both internal and external communications, as well
as consultation with stakeholders, local community groups and the wider public. As the
relationship between the two groups develops you may want to look at how to promote
similar key messages, for example that the risk of being a victim of crime is at an all-time
low; and that Boards and Partnerships are working together to deliver an improved service
to the public. You will also wish to think about the extent to which there is a shared target
audience, including staff across CJS agencies, voluntary organisations, local media,
community groups, and the Judiciary.

19. Co-ordinating activities would ensure clear and effective communications and avoid
duplication of effort. Boards and Partnerships might, for example, set up communication
channels (such as newsletters and consultation forums) where they do not already exist -
which could be used to promote shared interests and activity.

20. Some quite simple actions can be taken to improve engagement between Boards and
Partnerships. Many Partnerships carry out fear of crime surveys on a regular basis. Boards
might offer to assist with these. For example, Boards may be able to help with the supply
of information to the Partnerships or agree to post links to the Board website on the
Partnership’s site and vice versa.

Case Studies & Feedback

21. Case studies, provided by practitioners dealing first hand with these issues, are annexed to
this guidance and highlight the measures some areas are already taking to encourage
closer working. These may assist you when thinking about how to develop policy in this

22. We would be very pleased to have feedback, comments and suggestions for improvement,
as well as any further good practice examples forwarded to Patrick Lines: 0208 282 6229, 19th Floor, Portland House, Stag Place,
Victoria, SW1E 5RS.

Annex A

Case Studies

Achieving Shared Outcomes

South Yorkshire
South Yorkshire Board has adopted a proactive approach to increasing their engagement with
Partnerships. They have identified the key benefits that could follow from closer working. This
followed a recent mapping exercise in which they identified linkages across the county between
themselves, Partnerships and many other agencies, including Government Office for Yorkshire
and the Humber. Top of the list for gains from closer working is the work on Priority Offenders -
and the linkages to resettlement and the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme.

Devon & Cornwall

At a Board event held specifically for the Partnerships and Drug Action Teams in February 2004,
there was general consensus that none of the main criminal justice agencies were doing enough
to reduce the incidences of domestic violence. It was also noted that the absence of the Health
Service was a significant barrier to work in this area. The Board took a number of actions away
from the day including writing to the Health Authorities and reconsidering their mechanisms for
tackling domestic violence. The Strategic Health Authority was invited to a Board meeting. The
event was successful in promoting the work of the Partnerships’ and informing both partnerships
of each other’s priorities.

Greater Manchester
In Greater Manchester a number of existing mechanisms and processes have been brought
together and modified to produce a joint management and delivery structure for the Prolific and
Other Priority Offenders Strategy.

The LCJB will provide strategic oversight, guidance, and county wide support, including
performance management information. The Greater Manchester Street Crime and Persistent
Offender Group, which has representation from the Criminal Justice Agencies, the CDRPs, and
key partner agencies, will co-ordinate the operational delivery between all partners.

At BCU/CDRP level, in each of Manchester's 10 areas, local PPO Steering groups will be
responsible for integrating delivery across the 3 strands of the strategy.

Devon & Cornwall

Devon & Cornwall LCJB held an all day communication and joint planning event with
Partnerships. All 17 local Partnership Chairs and Co-ordinators were invited along with DAT Chair
and Co-ordinators, Police BCU and Criminal Justice Partnership Superintendents. An independent
facilitator was used and detailed delegate pack outlining joint priorities and critical dates was

Whilst most Boards invited Partnerships or Home Office Regional Crime Reduction Directors to
their consultation events, Boards might consider that a targeted workshop of this type on
Partnership interaction would be more beneficial than a blanket approach.

Maximising Resources

In Gwent, the Board bid for money from Government Office Wales’ equivalent for a witness care
pilot. The pilot focuses on Domestic Violence (a priority shared by the Board and Partnership in
the area). The project is jointly managed by the Board and the local Partnerships.

Some funding comes from the CPS, including staffing - a Prosecutor to work with the Probation
coordinator. The Minister for Regeneration and Safety in Wales has also provided funding for a
domestic violence coordinator for each area in Wales. The Board has ensured that the
magistrates’ courts in Gwent have given set Pre-trial Review slots devoted to dealing with
Domestic Violence. Additionally, out of £50000 Board confidence budget, the Board fund a number
of days a month for a coordinator to work with the woman’s unit and on women’s issues.

Victim Support is linked into the Partnerships and is working with Board (£40000 was given to
them by the Board to be part of the Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs).

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

The Halliday Report recommended that greater co-operation between different agencies would
enhance the supervision of sexual and violent offenders in the community. The provisions in the
Justice & Court Services Act 2000 take account of these recommendations, by placing a 'duty to
co-operate' on named bodies. The arrangements which have been established at area level to
undertake this duty are Multi Agency Public Protection Panels. They extend and strengthen the
existing duty placed on the responsible authority (Local Probation Board and Chief Officer of
Police for each area and the Prison Service) to establish and keep under review arrangements for
assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders in the community.
It does this by:

• placing corresponding duty upon named bodies (including local housing authorities, health
authorities, employment service, benefits agency and youth offending teams) to co-operate
with the responsible authority, particularly in the exchange of information.
• introducing a requirement for each area to recruit two members of the public to review
arrangements put in place by the responsible authority, thus ensuring that the arrangements
set up for the management of sexual and violent offenders in the community are subject to
public scrutiny.

The MAPPA Guidance issued in March 2003 highlights the need for Strategic Management
Boards to make effective connections with Boards and Partnerships as part of the broader public
protection arena. There is also specific reference to Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) or
Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) as they are likely to become.

Although the primary agenda for MAPPA is serious harm rather than persistent offending there are
strong links around issues of public confidence. This has resulted in a number of Strategic
Management Boards reporting directly to the Local Criminal Justice Board.

Driving Delivery and Providing Accountability

The Kent Board and Partnerships have forged good working relationships over the last year. The
Board structure is modeled along the same lines as local Partnerships, with sub groups
overseeing particular themes.

Greater Manchester
The Chief Executive of Salford City Council is a member of the Board and also the chair of the
Partnership Steering group. The steering group brings together the 10 Partnerships in the area
and is considered a very significant group. The Government Office of the North West supports this
Partnership steering group.

Improving Lines of Communication

A concern for Canterbury Partnership was the lack of post conviction Anti-social Behaviour Orders
(ASBOs) that were being issued by the Magistrates and Crown Court. A sub-group of the Board
was formed including partners from Police, Court Service, CPS, Probation and Youth Offender
Service. The working group’s joint objective in relation to post conviction ASBOs has seen the
number of orders increase from 0-19 in 10 months. The Home Office funded CPS anti-social
behaviour prosecutor for the region has been invited to sit on the Canterbury Partnership in order
to help her better understand the system and processes. In addition, joint guidance on post
conviction ASBOs was produced. This guidance is now being developed to take account of the
new powers provided to the CPS.

This one piece of work has sowed a seed for closer working relationships and the Board and
Canterbury Partnership are in close liaison with the ASBU at the Home Office on the concept of
anti-social behaviour response courts. The Police collect ASB data on a monthly basis including
the number of ASBOs and acceptable behaviour agreements issued across Kent. This data is
shared with the Board and Partnership to highlight good practice and areas of concern in order to
implement remedial action, which may include training or support for individuals or organisations.
Kent Board hosts an annual conference for non-CJ partners to highlight the work of the board.
The joint chair of the Canterbury Partnership has been invited to advise the Board on matters
affecting public confidence in the CJ system.

Greater Manchester Area

There is ‘buy in’ from the 10 Partnerships to work together and with the Board (and others) as the
Board provides the Partnerships with research and information from the CJS. The information is
used for joint funding bids/joint work. For example, the Board and Partnerships appointed all 10
Youth Offending Team managers together rather than competing and all have supported and
funded a project for work with young sex offenders.