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. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3 What is PADS? ……………………………………………………….. 3 Performance Monitoring ………………………………………........ 5 PSA1 Quantitative Assessment …………………………………… 6 PSA 4 Strategic Delivery Indicators ……………………………….7 Quality Indicators of Processes and Structures ……………….. 8 Support for Partnerships …………… ………………………………9 Local Area Agreements (LAAs) ……….………………………….12

Annexes
Annex A. Annex B. Annex C. Annex D. Annex E. Annex F. Annex G. Annex H. Annex J. Annex K. PSA1 Reducing Crime ………………………………..……………13 PSA 4 Reducing the Harm Caused by Illegal Drugs ..………..14 PSA 2 Anti-social Behaviour ……...………………………………15 The Drug Harm Index and Trajectory …………………………… 16 The Strategic Delivery Indicators (SDIs) ………………………...17 SDI Reporting Templates ………………………………………….. 20 The Quality Indicators ………………………………………………23 Levers for Improving Performance ……………………………….26 Protocol for Joint Support in BCUs and Partnerships ………..30 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 Activity is

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 e s s m e n t Tools

PSA1:Quantitative Assessment

PSA 4:Strategic Delivery Indicators

Underperforming Partnerships

Desktop Analysis

Qualitative Assessment

Activity to improve delivery in specific partnerships

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

Q
Further levers, if performance under target continues Refer to LAA at 6 monthly stocktake (not in Wales)

Q

Q2

Q1
Flag performance with CDRPs performing under target

Flag with CDRP. Undertake assessment and make offer of support

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; sustainability of improvement.

• delivery of agreed workstreams; and
• 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.
A1

PSA 1 Reducing Crime

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.

2

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 activitybased 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

111.3 109.5 100.0

115.2

113.2 102.9

DHI value (1998 = 100)

100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

Drug Strategy April 1998

Updated Drug Strategy December 2002

Drug Interventions Programme April 2003

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. 1 SDI Description BCS Recorded Crime Comparator Comments The BCS Total Recorded 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 Prolific and Other Priority Offenders (PPO): percentage of PPOs discharged from drug treatment who were retained in treatment for at least 12 weeks This will use the link between the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) and PPO to consider the effectiveness with which Partnerships are delivering drug treatment to their most prolific offenders. It can measure both the 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.

3

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 drugrelated harm. 4 a) Treatment numbers b) Retention in treatment at 12 weeks This is the new DH / NHS Key Performance Indicator that seeks to measure treatment effectiveness by means of the 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. This is national survey data, for which rolling quarterly updates are available that are used to measure outcomes against the young people PSA. It is underpinned by the KPIs listed in the Young People Delivery Plan (SDI b-c)

5

a) Class A drug use by 16-24 year olds b) Healthy Schools Standard c) Looked after children identification 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 a) The number of DIP clients assessed by the Criminal The SDIs are all output based DIP indicators and will only be deliverable in

7

19

Justice Interventions Team (CJIT)

the DIP intensive areas, but provide 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.
Indicator SDI 1 SDI 2 SDI 3 SDI 4a SDI 4b SDI 5a SDI 5b SDI 5e SDI 5f SDI 5g SDI 5h SDI 6 SDI 7a SDI 7b SDI 7c BCS Crime Comparator Perceptions of Drug Use/Dealing PPO Treatment Retention Treatment Numbers All treatment retention YPs Class A Drug Use Healthy Schools Standard Young Offenders Screening Young Offenders Assessment Young Offenders Interventions Treatment for Young People Drug Testing Compliance Contacts to Assessment Assessment to Caseload Caseload to Treatment Time Period Measured Rolling Annual Rolling Annual Year to date Year to date Year to date Rolling Annual Progress to date Year to date Year to date Year to date Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Period Covered by Latest Report Year ending September 2005 Year ending June 2005 April - September 2005 April - September 2005 April - September 2005 Year ending June 2005 Summer Term 2005 (to July) April - September 2005 April - September 2005 April - September 2005 April - June 2005 July - September 2005 July - September 2005 July - September 2005 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
5b.Healthy Schools Standard 5g. % Young Offenders receiving intervention within 10 days 5f. % Young Offenders receiving assessment within 5 days 5e. % Young Offenders screened of those supervised 5d. Truants/Excludees Identification and intervention 5c. Looked after Children Identification and intervention
DfES/TYPDU

OUTCOMES
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

6. Drug Testing Compliance

7a. Contacts to Assessment

DIP

PPO

DH/NTA

DfES/TYPDU

CRD CIDA

Theme East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Y&H

Young Persons

DIP

Treatment

YP

Crime/ Supply

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –  – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Notes;

– – –

– – – –

– – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – –
– – –

– – – – –
– –

– – – – –

– – –

– – – – –
– – – – –

– – – – –
–

NATIONAL

– – – –

Performance Traffic Lights
RED - worse than expectation GREEN - better than expectation WHITE - no data available

SDI 1 - Assessment for the South East is an estimate as data for Hampshire is missing SDI 5b-5h - Arrows have been suppressed to aid interpretation SDI 5b and 5h are based on a draft set of targets SDI 5c and 5d - Data to be collected. SDI 5e-5h - Note that the YJB use a red/amber/green rating. For this report, amber and green have been combined

Directional Arrows
No arrow - no statistical change from last qtr

 - increase in confidence from last qtr  - decrease in confidence from last qtr

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 GREEN – UP GREEN no arrow GREEN – DOWN RED – UP RED no arrow RED - DOWN WHITE Interpretation Above expectation for quarter – increase in confidence of reaching long-term target Above expectation for quarter – no change in confidence Above expectation for quarter – decrease in confidence of reaching long-term target Below expectation for quarter – increase in confidence of reaching long-term target Below expectation for quarter – no change in confidence Below expectation for quarter – decrease in confidence of reaching long term target 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.
BCS BCU

Glossary of Abbreviations

British Crime Survey 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 DfES DIP GO Drug Action Team/Drug and Alcohol Action Team Department for Education and Skills Drug Interventions Programme 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 WAG Strategic Delivery Indicator Welsh Assembly Government

32

33