You are on page 1of 33

Reducing Crime, the Harm Caused

by Drugs and Anti-social Behaviour:


Delivering PSA 1, PSA 4 and PSA 2

Partnership Assessment and Delivery


System (PADS)

Guidance for Partnerships

Partnership Performance and Support Unit (PPSU)


Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
Home Office
April 2006
Contents Page

Page

Section 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3

Section 2. What is PADS? ……………………………………………………….. 3

Section 3. Performance Monitoring ………………………………………........ 5

Section 4. PSA1 Quantitative Assessment …………………………………… 6

Section 5. PSA 4 Strategic Delivery Indicators ……………………………….7

Section 6. Quality Indicators of Processes and Structures ……………….. 8

Section 7. Support for Partnerships …………… ………………………………9

Section 8. Local Area Agreements (LAAs) ……….………………………….12

Annexes
Annex A. PSA1 Reducing Crime ………………………………..……………13

Annex B. PSA 4 Reducing the Harm Caused by Illegal Drugs ..………..14

Annex C. PSA 2 Anti-social Behaviour ……...………………………………15

Annex D. The Drug Harm Index and Trajectory …………………………… 16

Annex E. The Strategic Delivery Indicators (SDIs) ………………………...17

Annex F. SDI Reporting Templates ………………………………………….. 20

Annex G. The Quality Indicators ………………………………………………23

Annex H. Levers for Improving Performance ……………………………….26

Annex J. Protocol for Joint Support in BCUs and Partnerships ………..30

Annex K. Glossary of Abbreviations ……………………………………….…31

2
3
Section 1. Introduction
1.1 The Home Office regards local partnerships as key drivers in creating and
sustaining safer and stronger communities because of their responsibility to tackle
crime reduction, fear of crime, and the harm caused by illegal drugs within their
communities. The key role of local partnerships was most recently emphasised in
the National Community Safety Plan, which set out the Government’s priorities for
community safety over the next three years. The phased introduction of Local Area
Agreements (LAAs) has further strengthened local responsibility for the delivery of
safer and stronger communities.

1.2 The Home Office believes that partnerships can deliver safer and stronger
communities provided that they have robust partnership structures and effective
performance management and other processes in place to deliver strategic
objectives and targets. The agenda of reducing crime, the fear of crime, and the
harm caused by illegal drugs is a complex one and the identification of obstacles and
solutions to them can be similarly complex. These will need to be tackled by
partnerships, if they are to support local and national priorities successfully.
Responsibility for performance management rests with local partnerships and will be
monitored by the Home Office, Government Offices for the Regions (GOs) and the
Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). The GOs/WAG will be able to offer advice and
support to the partnership to maintain progress against targets and effective use of
resources.

1.3 To support local partnerships in the improvement of delivery the Home Office
have, in consultation with the GOs/WAG and other partners, introduced the
Partnership Assessment and Delivery System (PADS). PADS combines strands of
the existing performance management framework with certain new components.
The Home Office has developed the package to create a fully coherent and effective
system of support for the delivery of reductions in crime, the fear of crime, the harm
caused by illegal drugs, and anti-social behaviour. As part of PADS, the Home Office
and GOs/WAG staff will engage and work with partnerships to share good practice
and, where performance is of concern, to support improvement of their overall
delivery of objectives. This guidance summarises the PADS process, including how
the potential need for this support will be identified and shared with partnerships, and
the delivery of performance improvement.

Section 2. What is PADS?


2.1 To ensure the delivery of the Public Service Agreements (PSA), 1, 4 and 2,
partnerships, GOs/WAG and the Home Office routinely monitor performance against
agreed targets (see Annexes A, B and C). PADS brings together these performance
management arrangements and provides scope for support to be provided, if
appropriate, where performance below target is identified. The PADS process is
illustrated in the following diagram.

Partnerships’ Local Performance Monitoring


Six-monthly Stocktake of English LAA
4
Performance
GOs/WAG Area Performance Monitoring
The PADS Process

Routine
PADS is
Activity HO Performance Monitoring of PSAs
Bilaterals between Crime Reduction/Drug
Strategy Directors and HORDS
CDRP Monitoring Group
DSD Monthly Management Board

Partnerships of Concern
A
s
s
PSA1:Quantitative PSA 4:Strategic
e
Assessment Delivery Indicators
s
s
m
e
n Underperforming Partnerships
t

Tools
Desktop Analysis

Qualitative Assessment

Activity to Additional Support for Partnerships


improve
delivery in
Partnership Improvement Plans
specific
partnerships
Levers

Section 3. Performance Monitoring

5
By Partnerships
3.1 The Home Office and GOs/WAG expect that partnerships will routinely
monitor their performance on PSA1, 4 and 2 against their agreed targets.

3.2 Partnerships need to ensure that appropriate systems are in place for them to
monitor performance. The information used by the Home Office and GOs/WAG to
monitor partnership performance on PSA1 is available on iQuanta (the Home Office
web-based statistical tool). Partnerships are therefore able to access the same
information as the Home Office and GOs/WAG, helping to develop and sustain a
shared understanding of potential performance concerns. The Home Office
anticipates that partnerships will use the information on iQuanta as part of their own
performance management.

Tracking by GOs/WAG
3.3 GOs/WAG track partnership performance against agreed targets on a
monthly basis. GOs/WAG will discuss with partnerships the factors that could be
impacting on their performance and support them in taking remedial action.
However, if a partnership continues to be of concern a more formal offer of support
may be made (see Section 7 on support for partnerships).

3.4 Monthly performance meetings are held between the Home Office and
GOs/WAG which feed into the Home Office quarterly bilateral performance meetings
with Home Office Regional Directors (see 3.5 and 3.6). At these monthly meetings,
performance data are reviewed, action to tackle performance below target is agreed,
other matters of concern are discussed and good practice is shared.

Monitoring by the Home Office


3.5 Quarterly bilateral performance meetings are at the heart of Home Office
efforts to bring together performance management of local partnerships responsible
for tackling crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour issues. Quarterly bilaterals are
held between the Home Office and GOs/WAG (Home Office Regional Directors).
These meetings are the primary mechanism by which the Home Office is able to hold
GOs/WAG to account for the performance of partnerships in their area against PSA
1, PSA 4 and PSA 2.

3.6 Key data employed within the bilaterals include that supplied via iQuanta for
crime and, in future, the Strategic Delivery Indicators (SDIs) for drugs. The quality
indicators of processes and structures (see Section 6) may also be used. Most
performance issues are dealt with through performance tracking by GOs/WAG
locally, but more serious and/ or sensitive issues are addressed at the bilaterals. For
crime, the Home Office takes an overall look at performance against the Regional
Performance Indicator (RPI) and at any of the “top 40” high crime partnerships,
together with any other risks to delivery in relation to PSA1, plus the action planned
or being undertaken to address any problems. For drugs, the Home Office looks at
the overall regional performance across delivery strands, with remedial/investigative
action focused on areas where there appears to be the greatest risk to delivery.

Section 4. PSA1 Quantitative Assessment

6
4.1 The Home Office undertakes a quantitative assessment of all partnerships
monthly. This assessment identifies partnerships who consistently perform below
target over a specific period of time and present significant risk to the delivery of
PSA1 (see example in Section 7 – PPSU/GO/WAG Support for Partnerships).

4.2 The Home Office and GOs/WAG discuss the partnerships which have been
identified through the quantitative assessment in the bilaterals and agree a course of
action, where appropriate.

4.3 Partnership performance against the British Crime Survey (BCS) Comparator
target is the primary measure of partnership performance. Rather than just look at
whether a partnership is ‘below target’ or ‘above target’, an approach has been
devised that takes a more considered view of those partnerships that are only just
below, or above target. A fuller explanation of the methodology behind this may be
found on the iQuanta website.

4.4 Essentially, the methodology of progress towards target1 produces four


possible assessments:

Crime well above expected levels (i.e. badly off course);

Crime just above expected levels (i.e. just off course);

Crime just below expected levels (still potential for concern);


and

Crime well below expected levels (i.e. on course).

This information will be available to partnerships through the overview chart on


iQuanta.

4.5 In the quantitative assessment, the Home Office will look at those
partnerships whose crime levels are assessed as being ‘well above’ and ‘just above’
and will consider whether their performance may present a risk to the delivery of
PSA1.

4.6 In identifying the level of risk, the Home Office and GOs/WAG will consider
the volume of reduction required to meet the target. Partnerships which are off
course and need in future to see big reductions will be prioritised according to the
level of further reduction required.

4.7 The assessment of quantitative performance will be further informed by using


the following measures

• Recent trends: Projection charts and other information available on


iQuanta indicate if performance is going up or down, or is stable.

• Longer-term trends: For example, the Exponentially Weighted Moving


Average, better known as the Significant Change Chart on iQuanta, that
shows whether recent changes are statistically significant compared

1
CDRPs have been given the option to supply annual milestones or use a default straight line from the
2004/2005 out-turn to the target. This is used to determine expected values throughout the year.
Partnerships will be given the opportunity to revise their2006/2007 milestone after the 2005/2006
annual data is available.

7
with performance over the most recent 6 months compared with the
previous 12 months.

• Performance against peers: In considering partnerships’ performance


against their peers, crime levels are examined to determine if they are
significantly higher or lower than those of their peers. Relative change is
also reviewed, to see if a partnership’s crime is reducing faster or
slower than that of its peers. This will be a new addition to iQuanta and
will be available soon. It is one of the measures used to identify Basic
Comand Units (BCUs) and partnerships for possible joint support (see
Annex J) where there is evidence of underperformance in both.

Section 5. PSA 4 Strategic Delivery Indicators


5.1 The Drugs Performance Management Framework (PMF) was introduced in
2004/05 and is constructed around the concept of Strategic Delivery Indicators
(SDIs). These are directly linked to each of the four strands of the Drug Strategy:
young people; treatment; reducing drug-related crime; and reducing supply.

5.2 Measurement of partnership performance across the Drug Strategy is


undertaken using a suite of SDIs. These focus on a smaller number of high-level
indicators that will allow progress against key elements of the Drug Strategy, at a
national and regional level, to be tracked systematically.

5.3 The SDIs are drawn from existing delivery chains and/or their related
performance management and target setting regimes. Thus they draw directly on
data from the individual programmes/activities that contribute to them and do not
require partnerships to collate new data streams or set any new or additional targets
for their performance.

5.4 Each quarter, centrally identified data providers from the Home Office or the
National Treatment Agency (NTA) will provide the Drug Strategy Directorate (DSD)
with the latest reported information for each of the SDIs, at a national level and
broken down by region. The data will be used to compile a national SDI summary
template and a regional comparison template. These are designed to track delivery
of the Drug Strategy and provide valuable indicators of performance from which
supportive interventions can be developed in consultation with the GOs. Examples
of the reporting templates and details of how the data will be interpreted are provided
in Annex E.

5.5 A supporting short commentary will also be produced by the Home Office, in
consultation with Drug Strategy Aim Owners, highlighting any issues arising in terms
of performance.

5.6 The PMF SDI reports will provide a useful tool showing the direction of travel
in each region and will routinely feed into the Home Office bilaterals.

5.7 A full description of the SDIs, examples of the reporting templates, and details
of how the data will be interpreted are provided at Annexes E and F.
Section 6. Quality Indicators of Processes
and Structures

8
6.1 Quantitative assessments of partnerships’ performance, while critical, do not
provide the whole picture. In order to improve performance, it is necessary to
understand the reasons for performance below target. The quality of partnership
processes and structures may need to be assessed.

6.2 The quality indicators assessment will be used in two ways:

• as part of a support package for a partnership performing below target,


identified through the quantitative assessment; and

• as a self-assessment tool by partnerships.

6.3 This qualitative assessment is currently being tested with partnerships. The
assessment will take into account the recent developments in the Key Lines of
Enquiry for the corporate assessment in the Comprehensive Performance
Assessment for Local Authorities. Its content will need to be responsive to changes
in policy developments and take account of lessons learnt from use over time. It may
also be affected by the development of Local Area Agreements (LAAs), the
recommendations of the review of the Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) and the
increased emphasis on the role of communities in local decision-making.

6.4 The assessment process, undertaken with the partnership, assesses the
partnership against ten indicators of quality which are related to its ability to deliver
and sustain improvements in crime reduction, to deliver the Government’s Drug
Strategy, and to tackle anti-social behaviour. The Home Office and GO/WAG will
look for high level evidence of each quality indicator as set out below in 6.5. The
information used to assess the partnership is likely to be drawn from interviews with
partnership members but may also include analysis of documents produced by the
partnership, observation of processes and services, and reviews of the services it
commissions. The exact detail of the assessment will be informed by the evaluation
of field tests. Further details on the quality assessment can be found in Annex G.

6.5 The ten quality indicators are as follows:

Indicator 1: Leadership
Indicator 2: Establishing a shared vision and processes to deliver the
vision
Indicator 3: Managing your local Community Safety Strategy
Indicator 4: Relationship management/people and partners
Indicator 5: Problem Solving
Indicator 6: Effective use of resources
Indicator 7: Successful programmes
Indicator 8: Performance Management
Indicator 9: Community Engagement
Indicator 10: Communication

6.6 The report produced following the qualitative assessment will provide the
basis for substantive discussions between the partnership, the GO/WAG and the
Home Office, on the areas for improvement, the best way to implement them, and
what further support the partnership may require.

Section 7. Support for Partnerships

9
Introduction

7.1 All partnerships can receive support from their GO/WAG at a level
appropriate to the prevalence of crime, disorder and harm from drugs in their
region. PPSU and the GOs/WAG should also provide ongoing support to those
partnerships that ask for it and where resources permit. Much of this support takes
place through the routine mechanisms described previously. Where partnerships
have been identified as of particular concern, they will merit support. Annex J
describes some of the levers that may be invoked.

7.2 The number of partnerships requiring support is likely to be very small and it
is important to ensure that consistent standards are applied to such offers of
support so that partnerships:

• understand the criteria that have been used;


• fully understand and agree the support process and required outcomes;
• believe that the process is transparent, fair and equitable;
• believe that the process will help them to improve performance and
delivery;
• understand the clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each
constituent throughout the process (e.g. partnership stakeholders, PPSU,
the GO/WAG, any external support such as a consultant);
• understand and agree what is required of them throughout the process,
the level of support they will receive and the commitment required to the
process;
• agree on how the support will be resourced; and
• understand and agree an exit strategy, including how it is planned to
sustain improvements.

7.3 The following diagram illustrates the process:

10
Additional Support for Partnerships

Further levers, if
Q performance under target
continues
Refer to LAA at 6
monthly stocktake
(not in Wales)
Q2
Flag with CDRP.
Undertake
Q1 assessment and
make
Flag performance offer of support
with CDRPs
performing under
target

Example: Identifying a partnership where performance needs


to be improved

1. Quarter 1. The partnership is first identified as performing under target


by GO/WAG. The GO/WAG then flags its concerns about performance
with the CDRP.

2. Quarter 2. The partnership continues to perform under target and is


flagged for a second time. Following further assessment by the GO/WAG
that confirms performance below target, a formal offer of support is
made by the GO/WAG.

3. If the partnership is of concern and is part of an LAA, the GO pursues


this at the six-monthly LAA stocktake

4. If the partnership continues to perform under target the Home Office


together with GO/WAG, may consider further levers for intervention.
Further levers may also be considered for a partnership that is receiving
support but whose performance under target continues to be of such
significant concern that it may warrant more intensive remedial action.

The Support Process

7.4 Once a partnership has been formally identified for support, a lead officer
will be identified from either the GO/WAG or the Home Office, and a support team
may then be identified.

11
7.5 The support team and the partnership will together conduct an in-depth
analysis of the partnership based on quantitative and qualitative data. This
exercise may be supported by an independent consultant, as well Home Office
specialist teams. This in-depth analysis should highlight areas for improvement,
both in terms of structures and processes and of actual measures the partnership
is taking to tackle crime and the harm from drugs. In this way, it will form the basis
of the Partnership Improvement Plan (PIP).

Partnership Improvement Plan (PIP)

7.6 The exact nature and form of the PIP will vary widely between partnerships,
since it is based on a detailed diagnosis of needs, both structural and operational,
which will require a bespoke package of support. All PIPs should include:

• details of key issues and weaknesses identified;


• key outcomes expected;
• identification of those with responsibility for achieving the outcomes;
• key milestones (timed); and
• resource allocation.

Implementation

7.7 Once the PIP has been agreed, it will form a key driver for partnership
improvement and all parties must have a clear understanding of how to implement
it. Implementation will entail:

• Accountability: clarity about who is responsible for the delivery of the


PIP. This includes clarity about roles and responsibilities, including the
role and responsibility of the Home Office and/or the GOs/WAG, any staff
that may have been allocated to work with the partnership, any
consultants concerned, lead officers within the partnership and how the
work will be resourced.

• Regular review meetings: The GOs/WAG will meet the partnership


on a regular basis to review progress.

• Resource allocation: All parties will need to be clear about the resources
that are being allocated to the PIP and all concerned must have realistic
expectations about current and future resource allocation.

• Monitoring and evaluation: Ongoing monitoring and evaluation should


be built into the planning stage of any support package. At the outset, the
support team and the partnership should agree the criteria for monitoring
and evaluation and the criteria by which improvement will be assessed as
part of the improvement planning process. They should also identify
appropriate baselines against which to measure performance.

Concluding the period of additional support

7.8 Expected outcomes and a timescale for achieving them will need to be
agreed with the partnership in drawing up the PIP. Progress should be reviewed
on a regular basis. The headline outcome for any partnership will be that

12
performance against PSA 1 and/or PSA 4 shows significant and sustained
improvement. Underlying this will be a set of specific outputs that the partnership
will need to achieve to bring about improvements in the areas that have been
identified as being of concern. In order to conclude the period of additional
support, the support team may look for evidence of the following, depending on
what was agreed with the partnership at the outset:

• an agreed suite of performance data showing significant and sustained


improvement;
• a strong and effective performance management culture, embedded at
both strategic and operational level;
• delivery of agreed workstreams; and
• sustainability of improvement.

7.9 Once the support team and the partnership are satisfied that the outcomes
and outputs specified in the PIP have been achieved, the support can be reduced
in intensity, characterised by light-touch monitoring and longer-term milestones.

7.10 When the support team, in consultation with the partnership, judges that
support is no longer required, the conditions for concluding the period of additional
support will need to be agreed with the partnership. The conditions should reflect
the need to ensure that the improved structures and processes that are in place
can be sustained and that the partnership has the resources required to sustain
improved performance. After the end of the period of support, the GOs/WAG will, of
course, continue to monitor the partnership as a routine activity.

7.11 Note: Where a BCU corresponding to an underperforming partnership has


also been identified as being of concern, the support team will work with the Police
Standards Unit (PSU) to support the BCU/partnership jointly. Annex K describes
this process.

Section 8. Local Area Agreements (LAAs)


8.1 Where LAAs have been introduced (there are no LAAs in Wales) it is
particularly important that performance monitoring and the offer of PPSU/GO/WAG
support are handled in the context of the LAA. Each LAA should have its own
performance management framework and should be alert to any dips in
performance. If the LAA is working as expected the partnership should be taking
action to correct performance below target at least as soon as, if not before, it
comes to the notice of the GOs (there are no LAAs in Wales). GOs are only
expected to review LAA performance formally at six monthly intervals, although it
will be entirely legitimate for them to continue light- touch discussions about
performance with partnerships in LAA areas at more frequent intervals, particularly
if the performance management arrangements governing the LAA in a given area
are immature.

8.2 The performance management systems created through PADS should feed
naturally into the LAA process.

13
Annex A. PSA 1 Reducing Crime
A1 Over the SR2004 period, PSA 1 requires us:

to reduce crime by 15%, and further in high crime areas, by 2007/08.

Success in meeting the two elements of the target is measured as follows:

• Nationally, crime measured by the British Crime Survey (BCS), should fall
by 15% from the baseline year of 2002/03,

and

• the average reduction in crime (measured by the Recorded BCS


Comparator,2 using the 2003/04 baseline) in the 40 high crime
partnership3 areas should be greater than the average reduction across
the remaining 333 partnerships.

In this way, the efforts of local partnerships in tackling local crime and disorder are
linked directly to the achievement of the national PSA.

Negotiated Crime Reduction Targets


A2 To support delivery, the GOs/WAG, on behalf of the Home Office,
negotiated crime reduction targets with individual partnerships that reflected local
targets and contributed towards the national PSA target. Using a tiered approach,
GO/WAG teams negotiated greater reductions from the highest crime partnerships
and lower reductions from others.

Trajectories

A3 Partnerships have been encouraged to agree milestones and their


trajectories towards their targets with the relevant GO/WAG so that they can be
placed on iQuanta (the Home Office web-based statistics tool), enabling
performance against them to be measured.

A4 The aim is to share as much performance information as possible: between


partners at a local level, in the context of Local Area Agreements (LAAs), between
partnerships and GOs, and with the Home Office. The information available to all
partnerships on iQuanta includes the Recorded BCS Comparator crimes and
enables partnerships to compare their own performance with that of their peers.

The Recorded British Crime Survey Comparator is a subset of recorded crime that most closely approximates
those covered by the BCS.

3
The high crime partnership areas are those CDRP areas that have the highest rates of recorded
crime per head of population plus the highest crime levels (each being given equal weight), as
measured using the BCS Comparator in 2003/04.

14
Annex B. PSA 4 Reducing the Harm Caused
by Illegal Drugs
B1 PSA 4 is focused on achieving further sustained reductions in the harm
caused by illegal drugs. In the SR2004 period, there are three elements to this
PSA target:

Target 1 Reduce the harm caused by illegal drugs (as measured by the
Drug Harm Index (DHI) encompassing measures of the availability of Class A
drugs and drug related crime), including substantially increasing the number
of drug misusing offenders entering treatment through the Criminal Justice
System.

Target 2 Increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment


programmes by 100% by 2008 and increase year on year the proportion of
users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes.

Target 3 Reduce the use of Class A drugs and the frequent use of any illicit
drug among all young people under the age of 25, especially by the most
vulnerable young.

B2 These targets are together expected to deliver a reduction in drug harm and
are owned inter-departmentally: the Home Office (HO) leads on Target 1, with
support from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), HM Revenue and
Customs (HMRC), the Department of Health (DH) and the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO). DH leads on Target 2. DfES leads on Target 3,
sharing responsibility for delivery with the HO. In addition to the PSA targets, there
is Ministerial agreement that the Concerted Inter-Agency Drugs Action Group
(CIDA) agencies should work towards a high level aim on supply.

B3 Overall success in delivering the Drug Strategy will be measured by:


• the DHI: the value is expected to be lower in 2007/08 than in 2002;
• the number of drug misusing offenders entering treatment through the
Criminal Justice System: the number expected to have increased from a
baseline of 384 a month in March 2004 to 1,000 a week by 31 March
2008.

B4 The DHI captures the harm generated by the problematic use of any illegal
drug by combining robust national indicators into a single figure that can be tracked
as an index over time. The harms include drug-related crime, community
perceptions of drug problems, drug nuisance, and the various health
consequences that arise from drug abuse (such as HIV, overdoses, and drug
related deaths). To enable a single index to be constructed, the harms are
measured consistently according to their relative cost to individuals and society. A
detailed technical paper on the DHI has been published on the Home Office
website. (The trajectory for the DHI is presented in Annex D.)

Local Targets
B5 Recognising that the Drug Strategy focuses on the most dangerous drugs,
the most damaged communities and those who cause the most harm, local
targeting is used proportionately. In practice, this means that where it is feasible

15
and essential there is a range of local targets in place to underpin delivery. For
example, recognising the need to ensure swift and effective delivery of the Drug
Interventions Programme (DIP), intensive DIP area compacts have been agreed
between DAT Chairs and GOs. These compacts comprise clearly defined activity-
based targets and are reviewed formally every six months (or more frequently in
underperforming areas). This approach has been a significant catalyst in promoting
partnership engagement, target setting and performance management, and has
been hugely successful in securing rapid results from a newly established
programme.

B6 A similar approach is being taken to deliver improvements in the


effectiveness of early interventions with vulnerable young people while, on the
health side, the National Treatment Agency has set national targets for waiting
times, numbers entering treatment and retention rates. These national targets are
fed through to local partnerships via the NHS star rating systems, as delivery of
them is the responsibility of Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.
There are also mandatory drug indicators within the Safer and Stronger
Communities Fund which can be used to assess local performance.

Annex C. PSA 2 Anti-social Behaviour


C1 The current PSA 2 target is to “reassure the public, reducing the fear of
crime and anti-social behaviour, and building confidence in the Criminal Justice
System without compromising fairness”. The target is shared jointly by the Home
Office, Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) and Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS).

C2 The anti-social behaviour element of this target is to reduce the proportion


of people who perceive anti-social behaviour to be a big or fairly big problem in
their local area to below the baseline figures of 20.7% (based on the 2002/03
British Crime Survey). Success will be a statistically significant fall in perceptions
of anti-social behaviour over the period, using BCS data which focus on 7 strands
of behaviour:

• noisy neighbours or loud parties;


• teenagers hanging around on the street;
• rubbish or litter lying around;
• vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property;
• abandoned vehicles;
• people using and/or dealing drugs; and
• people being drunk or rowdy in public places.

C3 There is a clear link between PSA 2 and PSA1 as criminal damage is


included in the Recorded BCS Comparator crimes.

Local Targets
C4 Partnership efforts in tackling anti-social behaviour and communicating their
actions to local communities are linked directly with the achievement of the national
PSA. There is difficulty in monitoring performance at partnership level as the BCS

16
perceptions data cannot be broken down to this level. However, many partnerships
will have access to their own perceptions data and will have an anti-social
behaviour strategy and targets as a result of carrying out their local audit.
Annex D. The Drug Harm Index and Trajectory

The Drug Harm Index & Trajectory

120.0 115.2
111.3 113.2

109.5
100.0
DHI value (1998 = 100)

102.9
100.0

80.0 Drug Strategy Updated Drug Drug Interventions


April 1998 Strategy Programme
December 2002 April 2003
60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Ye ar
Drug Harm Index Provisional Trajectory

17
Annex E. The Strategic Delivery Indicators

The suite of performance management framework Strategic Delivery


Indicators (SDIs) is set out below:

No. SDI Description Comments


1 BCS Recorded Crime The BCS Total Recorded
Comparator Crime Comparator is used
here as an SDI. This was put
in place in place to measure
delivery of the new PSA1
target (to reduce crime by
15%, and more in high crime
areas.) However, the link
between acquisitive crime and
problematic drug use is well
established and ‘other’
acquisitive crime is one of the
major harms in the new Drug
Harm Index. We therefore,
intend to explore the use of a
sub-measure of ‘other
acquisitive’ crime from the
total crime comparator as a
means of assessing overall
delivery of the Drug Strategy.
2 Community
perceptions of drug
use / dealing:
percentage of BCS
respondents who
perceive that people
using or dealing
drugs are a problem
in their local area
3 Prolific and Other This will use the link between the
Priority Offenders Drug Interventions Programme
(PPO): percentage of (DIP) and PPO to consider the
PPOs discharged effectiveness with which
from drug treatment Partnerships are delivering drug
who were retained in treatment to their most prolific
treatment for at least offenders. It can measure both the
12 weeks crime reduction and harm
reduction impact of partnership
interventions. It will also enable
consideration of the alignment
between the drugs and crime
agendas in non-DIP areas.

18
Using this as a delivery indicator
ensures that partnership efforts
focus on those offenders whose
behaviour can have the greatest
impact on the community, both in
terms of offending and drug-
related harm.
4 a) Treatment numbers This is the new DH / NHS Key
Performance Indicator that
seeks to measure treatment
b) Retention in
effectiveness by means of the
treatment at 12 weeks
proxy of retention in treatment
12 weeks after the start of the
treatment. Using this as one
of the high level measures for
the PMF would help to
reinforce the importance of
securing measurable
improvements in
effectiveness, building on the
progress that is being made
on increasing numbers in
treatment and reducing
waiting times.
5 a) Class A drug use by This is national survey data,
16-24 year olds for which rolling quarterly
updates are available that are
used to measure outcomes
b) Healthy Schools
against the young people PSA.
Standard

It is underpinned by the KPIs


c) Looked after
listed in the Young People
children identification
Delivery Plan (SDI b-c)
and intervention

d) Truants, excludes
identification and
intervention

e) Young Offenders
identification and
intervention

f) Treatment for young


people
6 The proportion of those
offenders charged with trigger
offences who are tested for
Class A drugs
7 a) The number of DIP clients The SDIs are all output based DIP
assessed by the Criminal indicators and will only be deliverable in

19
Justice Interventions Team the DIP intensive areas, but provide
(CJIT) good proxies for the drug related crime
reduction outcome.

b) The proportion of DIP clients


taken on to CJIT caseload
following assessment

c) The proportion of adults on


caseload who engage in
treatment

The table below indicates the time periods measured by each indicator,
and the period covered by the latest reports, circulated in January 2006.

Time Period Period Covered by


Indicator Measured Latest Report

SDI 1 BCS Crime Comparator Rolling Annual Year ending September 2005
SDI 2 Perceptions of Drug Use/Dealing Rolling Annual Year ending June 2005
SDI 3 PPO Treatment Retention Year to date April - September 2005
SDI 4a Treatment Numbers Year to date April - September 2005
SDI 4b All treatment retention Year to date April - September 2005

SDI 5a YPs Class A Drug Use Rolling Annual Year ending June 2005
SDI 5b Healthy Schools Standard Progress to date Summer Term 2005 (to July)
SDI 5e Young Offenders Screening Year to date April - September 2005
SDI 5f Young Offenders Assessment Year to date April - September 2005
SDI 5g Young Offenders Interventions Year to date April - September 2005
SDI 5h Treatment for Young People Quarterly April - June 2005
SDI 6 Drug Testing Compliance Quarterly July - September 2005
SDI 7a Contacts to Assessment Quarterly July - September 2005
SDI 7b Assessment to Caseload Quarterly July - September 2005
SDI 7c Caseload to Treatment Quarterly July - September 2005

20
Annex F. SDI Reporting Templates
Examples of the national SDI summary template and the regional comparison
template follow. These are for illustrative purposes only.

Taken from the latest report, circulated in January 2006

21
DSD PMF REGIONAL COMPARISON REPORT
Internal Management Information Only - This report contains unpublished National Statistics
5b 5c 5d 5e 5f 5g 6 7a 7b 7c 3 4b 4a 5h 5 1 2

OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

5b.Healthy Schools Standard

Identification and intervention


5c.
and intervention
5d. Truants/Excludees Identification
those supervised
5e. % Young Offenders screened of
assessment within 5 days
5f. % Young Offenders receiving
intervention within 10 days
5g. % Young Offenders receiving
6. Drug Testing Compliance

7a. Contacts to Assessment

7b. Assessment to Caseload

7c. Caseload to Treatment

3. PPO Treatment Retention

4b. All treatment retention

4a. Treatment Numbers

5h. Treatment for Young People

5a. Yps Class A Drug Use

1. BCS Crime Comparator

2. Perceptions of Drug Use/Dealing


Looked after Children

DfES/TYPDU DIP PPO DH/NTA DfES/TYPDU CRD CIDA

Crime/
Theme Young Persons DIP Treatment YP
Supply

East of England – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
East Midlands – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –
London – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – 
North East – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
North West – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –
South East – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –
South West – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –
West Midlands – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Y&H – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

NATIONAL – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Performance Traffic Lights Notes;

RED - worse than expectation SDI 1 - Assessment for the South East is an estimate as
data for Hampshire is missing
GREEN - better than expectation

WHITE - no data available SDI 5b-5h - Arrows have been suppressed to aid
interpretation

Directional Arrows SDI 5b and 5h are based on a draft set of targets

No arrow - no statistical change from last qtr SDI 5c and 5d - Data to be collected.

 - increase in confidence from last qtr SDI 5e-5h - Note that the YJB use a red/amber/green
rating. For this report, amber and green have been
 - decrease in confidence from last qtr combined

Taken from the latest report, circulated in January 2006. Note that the
assessment for SDIs 5b and 5h are drafts. The measure of performance
against SDI 5b will be revised for the next report so that assessments are
consistent with those produced by the Department of Health.

22
Format and Population of Reports
When fully populated, the reporting templates will show the national SDI trends and
regional and thematic comparisons. These rely upon a system of traffic lighting
and directional arrows, drawn up in consultation with Aim Owners and PMDU,
broadly interpreted as:

Traffic Light / Indicator Interpretation


GREEN – UP Above expectation for quarter – increase in confidence of
reaching long-term target

GREEN no arrow Above expectation for quarter – no change in confidence

GREEN – DOWN Above expectation for quarter – decrease in confidence of


reaching long-term target

RED – UP Below expectation for quarter – increase in confidence of


reaching long-term target

RED no arrow Below expectation for quarter – no change in confidence

RED - DOWN Below expectation for quarter – decrease in confidence of


reaching long term target

WHITE No data

Further information on any technical detail in relation to the SDIs and data
gathering should be directed to Home Office, Drug Strategy Secretariat on 020
7035 0580.

23
Annex G. The Quality Indicators
Indicator 1: Leadership

Evidence that:

 leadership is demonstrated by the partnership through its ability to deliver


against its performance targets and priorities, whilst ensuring that
partnership working is productive and sustainable and that accountability
is clear and robust; and
 partners are willing to make evidence based decisions about what are
and are not local priorities.

Indicator 2: Establishing a shared vision and processes to


deliver the vision

Evidence that:

 users, partners, staff and other stakeholders understand and are


committed to the partnership’s shared vision and key strategic objectives;
 priorities for the community address the underlying needs of the area;
and
 priorities are shared amongst partner organisations and understood by
staff.

Indicator 3: Managing your local Community Safety Strategy

Evidence that:

 there are clear and agreed targets for improvement that are
result/outcome based and challenging but realistic;
 links between action plans and the delivery of strategic priorities are clear
and demonstrate the extent to which the partnership targets resources or
shifts resources away from non-priority areas;
 the strategy developed by the partnership takes account of changes in
statutory responsibilities, the analysis of demographic characteristics and
trends, the findings of performance monitoring, identified gaps and
shortfalls in provision, and partners’ work together to assess the likely
availability of resources; and

24
 community safety issues are integrated into the planning and delivery of
initiatives (eg compliance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act).

Indicator 4: Relationship management/people and partners

Evidence that:

 partnership members are committed to partnership working and have


created and maintained effective working relationships within the
partnership, based on trust, openness and constructive challenge;
 the capacity of partners and staff is sufficient to support the achievement
of the priorities; and
 the partners work together to enhance the partnership’s financial and
staffing capacity so as to achieve its objectives and priorities.

Indicator 5: Problem-solving (worked example showing


examples of statements that might be considered in an
assessment)

Evidence that:

 the partnership uses a problem solving approach, driven by robust


information exchange and analysis to tackle crime, disorder and drugs;
 the partnership uses data to establish the existence and extent of a
problem, to analyse its nature and source, to plan intervention measures
to address it and to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of that
response; and
 the partnership applies informed lateral thought in developing innovative
solutions and using feedback to decisions to adjust, expand, maintain or
abandon initiatives.

Statements:

The partnership understands the extent of its crime problems and takes a
problem solving/oriented approach to crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour
issues within a multi-disciplinary/multi-agency context.

The partnership has the right analytical tools and information to support
problem solving and uses them regularly.

The partnership draws on existing good practice or research to inform data


analysis and in developing innovative solutions.

The partnership supports and directs resources and the right staff from within
partner agencies to tackle the problem areas.

25
The partnership monitors the impact of agreed interventions and assesses
the impact of those interventions, changing its approach where necessary.

There are information sharing protocols in place between core partnership


member organisations and other stakeholders.

Indicator 6: Effective use of resources

Evidence that:

 corporate and financial strategies are linked within a deliverable


framework;
 there are clear and agreed targets for programmes and initiatives that are
result-based, challenging, but realistic; and
 resources are allocated within and between partner organisations and
managed, reviewed and revised in line with priorities.

Indicator 7: Successful Programmes

Evidence that:

 the partnership ensures programmes are properly resourced and


rigorously managed;
 there is a strategic approach to procurement and commissioning services
that takes account of the capacity of voluntary, community and private
sector organisations; and
 there is a clear and sustained focus on value for money.

Indicator 8: Performance Management

Evidence that:

 the partnership reviews performance within a culture of open debate and


constructive challenge;
 the level of involvement of partners in performance reviews is consistent
with their roles and responsibilities and reflects the importance of
meeting targets and/or action milestones;
 performance review cycles reflect risk and the time needed to take
necessary remedial action; and
 partner members focus on performance and use performance
management as an integral part of delivery.

26
Indicator 9: Community Engagement

Evidence that:

 consultation recognises the range and complexity of community needs


and makes provision for choice;
 there are action plans for community engagement that address the
underlying needs of the community in relation to crime, disorder and
drugs;
 plans are shared with partner organisations and understood by staff and
the local community who have the opportunity to comment on priorities
and that the partnership acts on these views.

Indicator 10: Communication


Evidence that:

 a communication strategy/plan is in place that proactively informs and


engages staff, partners, stakeholders and the local community of its
objectives, priorities and progress; and
 communicating success and learning lessons of the partnership is raising
the confidence of stakeholders and the local community, and increasing
involvement with its work.

Annex H. Levers for Improving Performance


Home Office Levers
H1 The internal levers listed below are available where partnerships are
underperforming, and could therefore be used to supplement a Partnership
Improvement Plan, if the support team felt that necessary.

Financial
H2 The system of funding for partnerships is changing, and the mechanism for
making payments to partnerships under the pooled funding regime that the Safer,
Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF) and Local Area Agreements (LAA) represent
has yet to be finalised. Options for building rewards and penalties into this new
regime remain under discussion.

27
Local Area Agreements

H3 Where an area is covered by an LAA, the Home Office expects this will
provide a significant lever in terms of addressing partnership performance at the six
monthly LAA stocktake. Lessons learned from the first round of stocktakes for the
21 LAA pilots are still being evaluated. There is no doubt that the process will
evolve substantially in the light of experience, and GOs are fully involved in this
development phase, to ensure that the stocktakes offer a genuine opportunity for
robust assessments of performance to be made.

Crime and Disorder Act review


H4 Early in 2005, the Home Office conducted a review of the partnership
provisions of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) jointly with all key
stakeholders. The review has made a number of important recommendations about
the ways that partnerships should work to secure the best outcomes for their
communities, and how this work links into local democratic processes. When
implemented, these recommendations will sit neatly alongside PADS.

H5 The Home Office has published the results of the review. The legislative
changes required are contained in the Police and Justice Bill, published on 25
January 2006. The legislative timetable will mean that Royal Assent is likely to be
sought in the autumn of 2006, with implementation of the measures following
thereafter. The text of the Police and Justice Bill can be found at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/119/2006119.htm.

Local Government Levers


Comprehensive Performance Assessment/Interventions
H6 The Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) distils a complex set
of judgements on local government bodies and the services they provide into one
simply understood rating. This rating is of crucial importance in determining the
level of engagement from appropriate inspectorates or the extent of freedoms and
flexibilities awarded to an authority.

H7 Since April 2005, the Audit Commission has included within the CPA a
requirement on reducing crime and the harm from drugs. The consideration of how
well local authorities are performing in the context of ‘Safer and Stronger
Communities’ forms part of the corporate assessment, which is taking place on a
rolling basis from spring 2005 to December 2008. The scoring system means that
a strong performance in other areas of the assessment would not be able to
mitigate a ‘poor’ or ‘weak’ score under the Safer and Stronger Communities theme.

H8 The assessment itself is based on ‘key lines of enquiry’, which require local
authorities to measure their performance against examples of the activities and
achievements of councils that perform well and those that perform less well. Key
lines of enquiry on community safety focus on:

• the extent of the local authority’s contribution to successful crime


reduction outcomes;

• S17 compliance;

28
• partnership working;

• effective prioritisation;

• community engagement and reassurance; and

• responsiveness to the Anti-Social Behaviour agenda.

alongside generic issues such as procurement and diversity.

H9 In extreme cases of underperformance, departments can use the powers


vested in them under the Local Government Act 1999 to direct the local authority to
take certain actions, or, ultimately, to take over the management of the function that
is underperforming. However, the personal and political consequences of such an
intervention mean that local authorities are keen to implement improvement plans
arising from ‘weak’ or ‘poor’ scores, or, under the new corporate assessment that
includes an evaluation of the direction of travel, from a rating of ‘no improvement’
or ‘weakening’.

Local Public Service Agreements/ LAA Reward Elements


H10 A Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) is a voluntary agreement
negotiated between a local authority and the Government, with the aim of
improving the delivery of local public services by focusing on targeted outcomes
with support from the Government. In terms of reducing crime and the harm from
drugs, these outcomes have tended to be in the form of a ‘stretch’ target for a
reduced number of offences that will be achieved through the increased activity
funded by a pump-priming grant, over and above the reduction forecast without this
activity (possibly as part of a PSA 1 target agreement). The outcome may also be a
more ‘tailored’ measure designed to address a particular problem in a locality, or a
perception measure, related to fear of crime or quality of life.

H11 The pump-priming grant in itself can be a significant sum to invest in


improvements to services. Beyond this, a local authority must achieve between
60% and 100% of its target to receive any performance reward grant which it will
receive in proportion to the percentage by which it has achieved its target. It will
receive nothing for an enhancement in performance below 60%.

H12 As Local Area Agreements are rolled out across the whole country, LPSA
targets are being incorporated into them as the “reward element” of the LAA itself.

Beacon Council Status


H13 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Beacon Council scheme identifies
excellence and innovation in local government. At a local level, the Beacon
Scheme is seen as having a definite benefit to local services: “Our view is that the
Beacon Scheme has been an important improvement lever in raising standards
and promoting coherent, outcome-focused service delivery.” (Mayor of Lewisham)
In addition to this, local authorities stand to gain extra funding and freedoms and
flexibilities.

H14 Preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour features as a named theme in


the current round of the Beacon Council scheme. Beacon Councils will have made

29
a reality of early intervention to prevent anti-social behaviour occurring and will be
able to demonstrate that they take swift and effective action to tackle not tolerate
anti-social behaviour in the communities and neighbourhoods which they serve
when it does occur. Such an approach should also bring benefits in terms of
reducing criminal damage.

H15 Although crime and drugs do not feature as a named theme in the current
Office Beacon Council scheme, several of the themes could include activity to
support community safety:

• early intervention for children at risk;

• positive youth engagement in the community and democratic process;


and

• valuing people.

Other Levers

The Local Democratic Process


H16 The political dimensions of partnership working cannot be ignored. As a
general principle, local partners should make every effort to involve elected
members where they are not already involved. The CDA review (referred to above)
has also looked at this issue, and has made some recommendations as to how the
work of CDRPs might be more firmly plugged into the local democratic process. If
implemented, compliance with these proposals could figure in the PADS qualitative
assessment process. Furthermore, the elected leadership of an authority need to
be clear how important the link is between the partnership’s performance on
community safety and public endorsement of their leadership.

H17 The Local Government Act 2000 places an obligation on local authority
cabinet members to promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of
local residents. This enables partnerships to make representations to the relevant
cabinet member in a local authority that is not providing services in support of the
community safety agenda.

Inspection
H18 The inspection regimes relating to different agencies within the partnership
can be called upon to strengthen the contribution of those agencies to partnership
objectives, and this is explicitly encouraged in the recommendations in the CDA
review. Such inspectorates would include the Audit Commission (see above), HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary and equivalent bodies for other key CDRP partners,
as well as those responsible for the inspection of other relevant local services such
as Social Services. The Government is developing plans for rationalising inspection
for certain central and local services, and the Home Office will report further on the
implications of this for PADS in due course.

Ministerial Intervention

30
H19 Where an underperforming partnership has refused all offers of support and
it is of sufficient concern to warrant Ministerial Intervention, the GO/WAG and
central departments may wish to consider this course of action as a last resort.
This approach has so far only been used with one partnership, but proved
extremely effective.

Annex J. Protocol for Joint Support in BCUs


and Partnerships
Introduction
J1 The Police Standards Unit (PSU) and PPSU in consultation with GOs/WAG
have been developing an approach to joint engagement of BCUs and CDRPs
through a programme of joint support.

Summary of the Process

J2 In brief

• In order for a partnership, with its associated BCU, to qualify for joint
engagement, it must represent a risk to PSA 1 and have performance
which is significantly adrift of its peers, with the performance gap from the
peer average widening for two consecutive quarters.

• A partnership will be offered support only with the express agreement of


the relevant GO.

• The team offering support will consist of members of PPSU, PSU and the
GO from the area covering the CDRP and BCU, supplemented by input
from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).

• Each support package will be bespoke.

• Information will initially be gathered through a desk review and


presentations will then be given to key stakeholders of the partnership.

• Following a series of interviews, workshops, inspections of documentation


and data, as well as attendance at key meetings, the key challenges and
barriers to performance improvement will be identified and the partnership
will be invited to draw up an implementation plan.

• Both the partnership and the BCU will be given a written report and
presentation, which will summarise the key findings, supported by
evidence.

31
• The partnership and BCU will jointly draw up an improvement plan with
measurable milestones and clear timescales, approved by the support
team leader, the statutory members of the partnership and the Chief
Constable.

• The GO/WAG will monitor progress and it will be reviewed after six
months by the Police Performance Steering Group (PPSG), who will then
recommend whether further support is merited.

• Support will finish once the support team and PPSG are confident that the
partnership and the BCU have delivered significant and sustainable
reductions in crime and have the capacity to continue doing so without
further external help.

Annex L. Glossary of Abbreviations

BCS British Crime Survey


BCU Basic Command Unit

CDRP Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership


CIDA Concerted Inter-Agency Drugs Action Group
CJIT Criminal Justice Interventions Team
CPA Comprehensive Performance Assessment

DAT/DAAT Drug Action Team/Drug and Alcohol Action Team


DfES Department for Education and Skills
DIP Drug Interventions Programme

GO Government Office

HCA High Crime Area


HMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
HORD Home Office Regional Director

LAA Local Area Agreement


LPSA Local Public Service Agreement

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PADS Partnership Assessment and Delivery System


PIP Partnership Improvement Plan
PMF Performance Management Framework
PPSU Partnership Performance and Support Unit
PSA Public Service Agreement
PSU Police Standards Unit

SDI Strategic Delivery Indicator

WAG Welsh Assembly Government

32
33