LG 3 - Welsh Association of Chief Police Officers (WACPO)
Annex
Association of Chief Police Officers in Wales Response to the Welsh Assembly Government's "Communit Strategies Consultation Guidance - Local Vision"
I write as the Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Wales (WACPO), in response to the Welsh Assembly Government`s consultation on the revised draft Community Strategy Guidance; and the outline proposals for a potential duty to co-operate in community planning. As such this response should be considered to be the view of all four police forces in Wales.
Before providing a response to the individual consultation questions I would like to make some general observations. Guidance on the development and implementation of community strategies by local authorities and their wider public service partners is welcome, particularly at this time when the challenge of achieving truly effective collaborative working is high upon the agenda of so many organisations.
The key aims and objectives of a community strategy are clearly stated within the guidance, whilst reinforcing their statutory purpose to promote economic, social and environmental wellbeing throughout the area. I wholeheartedly agree that identifying and pursuing the means of addressing each of these themes must be at the heart of a community strategy. However, I would suggest that there is another key theme that will impact upon the themes highlighted in the guidance, but which has not been specifically recognised. This additional theme is the importance of promoting how safe people living and working in communities feel, together with the cohesiveness of the local area. As has been the case in many strategic Welsh Assembly Government documents in the past the importance of crime and disorder, and community safety issues have not received the focus and attention that they deserve.
If a community strategy is going to provide guidance for key local stakeholders the absence of a community safety theme will make it difficult for the development of a partnership problem solving approach focussing on outcomes around the key principles upon which the strategy is built. The Police Service in Wales feels strongly that community safety must be fully recognised within the purpose and context of community planning.
I will now provide a response to each of the consultation questions that have been set:
1. Introduction and Purpose
- Does this Chapter describe the purpose and context of community planning clearly and comprehensively? If not, where do you think further guidance might be needed?
Response:
The guidance adequately describes the purpose and extent of community planning principles in a clear and comprehensive manner. The proposals to reinforce and develop further the good relationships established between the various public service organisations in recent years present a real opportunity for significant improvements in community planning. Truly effective planning and co-ordination of joint activity at this level has the potential to have a major impact in providing both strategic direction and delivery, and leadership. As mentioned in my earlier general observations, the importance of community safety being fully recognised within the purpose and context of community planning cannot be overstated. Community Safety Partnerships have much to offer in this regard and in my view community safety should not be lost under the heading of “other themed partnerships”.
- What are your views on how often community strategies should be reviewed or updated?
Response:
In the absence of any unexpected cause factors for change it would seem appropriate to routinely review and update community strategies and associated action plans every year. Whilst the minimisation of administrative burdens is vital, to be meaningful such strategies must be dynamic and subject to regular scrutiny and review. Such regular reviews would allow all stakeholders to take account of their own priorities and associated financial implications.
- How important is community planning across boundaries? Can or should anything be done to encourage this?
Response:
Cross border co-operation is vital given that some socio/economic factors which influence community planning do not respect agency or political boundaries. It therefore makes common planning sense to operate in this way in order that citizen focused objectives can be delivered more effectively. This would also be in the spirit of the Wales Spatial Plan – People, Places, Futures. Despite the fact that Wales is a small country the implementation of truly effective cross border working is a major challenge for all stakeholders. The Assembly could assist in this area by giving a clear vision and direction on the best way to develop and maintain such an approach. The proposed review and refresh of the Spatial Plan may provide an ideal opportunity of achieving this?
It may now be beneficial to develop a more structured, more cohesive delivery mechanism which minimises the impact of cross border and cross agency boundaries. There are significant challenges in bringing together organizations with very different boundaries, capacities, capabilities, structures and strategic and geographical spans, and there should perhaps be a focus on simplifying the structure rather than trying to work around it. That may mean unpalatable consequences for some agencies and services. However, unless this issue is tackled effectively, the situation will only become more difficult as society becomes more and more complex.
2. Strategic Policy Framework
2.1 Is the place of the community strategy in the wider policy framework clear enough? Are there any national or local areas of uncertainty that need to be clarified?
Response:
The requirements for the strategy are clear, but how it fits in with other plans is as yet not so clear. Some of the aims of the statutory strategy are broadly looked at being ‘influenced’ by other strategies and plans (C&YP Strategy; Health, Social Care and Wellbeing; Spatial Plan; Economy and Regeneration; Older People Strategy etc). If great care is not taken, this could serve to dilute these current strategies or create uncertainty as to who is responsible for what, causing tension in areas where we would ideally be looking for harmonisation of approach.
2.2 How readily can community strategies be integrated with other strategies and plans, whether statutory or not? What if any, are the obstacles to this?
Response:
Individual plans and strategies, from whatever source, will inevitably have considerable cross-over, and the community strategy will provide both a focus and direction for the individual strands of work. A true continuum of partnership working between the constituent agencies should overcome any obstacles against integration of strategies. However cognisance must be given to the fact that non-devolved authorities are under the central government umbrella with their own performance measures and targets for local services with national reporting.
There are potential risks for non-devolved agencies like the police, faced with competing and sometimes conflicting accountabilities, responsibilities and performance frameworks. The police service is increasingly finding itself being marginalised in the England and Wales context without being fully embraced in the Welsh context. A good example of this is the way in which the Assessments of
Policing and Community Safety (APACS) Performance Framework is being applied to both the police and local authorities in England, but only to the police in Wales. This is an issue that the Welsh Assembly Government should acknowledge and pay due regard to within this document to ensure an appropriate alignment.
2.3 How readily can community strategies reflect regional and national issues and planning frameworks? Again, what if any, are the obstacles to this?
Response:
The reverse of this question has equal value given that the primary objective of planning strategies should be citizen focused. Plan rationalisation should be at the heart of the strategies and therefore a bottom up approach should not be an obstacle. However, given that such rationalisation confers significant freedom upon authorities allowing them to abstain from setting out plans, outside the statutory planning requirements, the question has to be asked, how does Welsh assembly Government plan to capture those community issues which could influence the national framework?
In relation to regional and national issues appearing within Community Strategies, there may be a need for some strategic priorities to be identified from the Welsh Assembly Government for consideration by all local groups for implementation within their strategies.
3. Local Service Boards and Agreements
- Is the role and the purpose of local service boards and local service agreements sufficiently clear at this development stage?
Response:
The guidance issued on the subject of local service boards emphasises that their key purpose is to ensure a strategic assessment of local need, and the collaboration of all partners to ensure the achievement of cohesive and coordinated delivery of services to the public. These boards must be seen as the logical next step in a maturing relationship that leads to the improvement of services across the country. However, the key to success is who is leading, who is accountable, and how action links into and complements existing partnerships. The shaping of these boards in each local authority area will be crucial over the coming 12 months to evaluate this.
At this early stage it seems that some LSB`s are as yet unsure of their role. It appears that they are struggling to identify new strategies and may ‘cherry pick’ from existing strategies, again potentially leading to uncertainty in relationship to ownership and accountability for service delivery. The unresolved debate as to oversight and governance issues for the boards will not be helping this situation and should be resolved as quickly as possible.
- Do you think LSB`s/LSA`s as described will adequately improve (a) local partnership working and (b) long term wellbeing and quality of life? If not what improvements and alternatives would you like to see?
Response:
The success or otherwise of Local Service Boards will be illustrated by the commitment of all partner organisations in agreeing a framework of individual and collective contributions to the locally agreed agenda. There is little doubt that where this is achieved the long-term outcomes will be reflected by continuous improvement. However, there is a very real danger of duplication and ‘partnership fatigue’ setting in with senior managers attending a series of meetings with ill defined roles and outcomes. Additionally, in the absence of a real will to streamline the process, progress towards what we are all seeking to achieve may be slow, cumbersome and overly bureaucratised. The proposed strategic framework is unlikely to add significant benefits unless it is supported by a compatible and complimentary delivery mechanism.
However, there is a real potential for LSB`s to successfully oversee the delivery of cross sector services, but given the different levels in the effectiveness of partnership working across Wales the introduction of a duty co-operate may be important to achieve this.
4. Delivering the Community Strategy
- How readily can community strategy objectives be measured and reported? Are there any obstacles to this?
Response:
By having simple and clear expectations and outcomes. In order to succeed, the engagement plan must be sound and agreed objectives must truly reflect the community needs and expectations. Once these are known and quantified then success can be measured in terms of tangible outcomes set against those needs and expectations. Every effort must be made to avoid the creation of a bean-counting culture and the development of an effective performance management system, shared by all stakeholders will be the key to success.
- How should Local Service Boards account for the progress they have made in a way, which adds value to individual organisations’ accountability mechanisms?
Response:
Again, by setting realistic expectations and outcomes within the short, medium and long term framework. Some development work will be required to create a weighting system, which illustrates the additional benefits gleaned from their own and partner contributions to agreed objectives and targets.
- What, if anything, do local partners and national organisations (including Welsh Assembly Government) need to do to strengthen performance management and performance measurement by partnerships?
Response:
Current systems are adequate and in some instances, partnerships are already suffering from micro management. However, authorities must ensure that there exists a robust method of involving the wider community. The desired outcomes must be clear and measurable with transparent processes. That ‘supporting architecture’ and its subsequent outcomes must be subject to periodic inspection.
With the drive for improved performance and accountability across all sectors, the wide variety of methods and processes used to manage and oversee performance can often prove problematic and bureaucratic. More commonality and standardisation of performance management used by partnerships particularly in light of more joint PI`s being introduced on a national basis would be of benefit.
5. Engagement and Scrutiny
- How effectively can partnerships engage with all community and citizen interests in the community planning process? What obstacles are there to this, and what might be done about them?
Response:
Whilst recognising the improvements made by many partnerships, particularly Community Safety Partnerships, there is still much work to be done in terms of achieving truly effective engagement with communities. In order to improve public engagement community strategies must be able to deliver tangible outcomes for communities. The theoretical must give way to real progress at grass roots level.
The importance of partnership and agency engagement with communities and citizens cannot be overstated within this process. As is outlined in the guidance there is a need for greater consultation and community engagement. There are many models of public consultation in existence amongst differing agencies, with varying degrees of success and public engagement.
A good example of a community engagement process with the potential to involve wider public sector involvement is the approach that has been implemented by the Police Service right across Wales. To support the implementation of the National Neighbourhood Policing Programme, Partnership and Communities Together (PACT) meetings have been introduced. This example of achieving public engagement through face to face meetings with a pro-active approach to resolve low level problems in quick time has been most effective in both reassuring local people and creating a feeling of local accountability and influence. The success of the broader neighbourhood policing concept highlights the potential benefits to be derived from the development of neighbourhood management as the basic local delivery mechanism for joined up, citizen centred public services.
The Welsh Assembly Government has an important role to play in setting standards in this area. We await the eventual publication of the Core Principles for Public Engagement that are being developed through the Making the Connections Agenda to see if they will assist public services in this regard.
5.2 Does this chapter adequately describe other organisations role in, and contributions to community planning?
Response:
Whilst the chapter on Community Engagement does set out the role of specific organisations there would be considerable benefit in local and regional agencies looking at their wide range of Community Engagement activities with a view to bringing more co-ordination and consolidation. There is a danger of some community groups being over-consulted whilst not necessarily getting to some of the real local problems. A model of more joint/partnership community engagement would be beneficial to both agencies and communities.
The guidance does not take account of the fact that other partners may have core responsibilities, which may conflict in the process or at least cause tension in terms of capacity to participate. Also, guidance that LSA`s should ‘consider how best to engage business communities’ could be stronger and more effectively spelt out. Business communities by their very nature exist to make profit. Therefore, the underlying strategy principles must accurately describe how it is going to deliver a ‘competitive, high added-value economy’ in order to attract the business sector participation.
This should not be considered to be a definitive list and additions should be allowed as the process matures and a need is identified to add to the list. There is real potential for the proposed duty to have a significant impact in securing the active involvement of all key stakeholders in community planning. However, it is worth highlighting that Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created a responsibility for named agencies to work in partnership with each other and the community, but that 9 years on, this responsibility has still not been fully embraced by all stakeholders.
The Possible Duty to Co-operate – Further Comments
In addition to my responses to the above consultation questions, I would like to add some further observations on the proposals for the Welsh Assembly Government to create a duty to co-operate from a purely policing perspective. In doing so, I would like to stress that although policing is not a devolved service, I speak on behalf of all of my Chief Constable colleagues when I say that the Police Forces in Wales are totally committed to collaborating with each other, and with the Assembly and the wider public services across Wales.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill has now received Royal Assent. Schedule 17 makes provision for amendments to Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, enabling the National Assembly to pass Assembly Measures in respect of Field 12 of its devolved powers namely Local Government. Specifically, in relation to the issue the Assembly are considering, in respect of Matter 12.4, it is stated that the Assembly will be able to make:
“Provision for and in connection with strategies of county councils and county borough councils for promoting or improving the economic, social or environmental well-being of their areas or contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom, including provision imposing requirements in connection with such strategies on other persons with functions of a public nature.” The wording of this paragraph appears to be wide enough to enable the Assembly to impose a specific duty in the terms set out in Annex A of the consultation document.
It is noted that of the bodies listed at paragraph A7, all (with the exception of police authorities and police forces) exercise functions in areas which are within the devolved responsibilities of the Assembly. It is, therefore, our view that an enabling provision such as that contained in respect of Matter 12.4 in Schedule 17, and any Assembly Measure made in pursuance of it cannot impose the necessary duty on police authorities and police forces, responsibility for which has not been devolved and which are governed by the Police Act 1996 as amended. In other words, in order to impose the duty it will be necessary for the latter to be specifically amended. In this respect it is interesting to note paragraph 4 of Schedule 17 which would enable the National Assembly to alter a police area as a result of a change to a local authority area. However, this can only be done if the Secretary of State consents. Thus the role of the Secretary of State in the tripartite governance of the police would, at the least, require a similar provision to be inserted in order for the proposed duty to co-operate to be imposed on police authorities and police forces.
In summary, our early observations are that in order to impose such a duty to co-operate upon the Police Service there would need to be an amendment to the Police Act 1996, which would include requiring the consent of the Secretary of State before such a duty could be imposed. I would also add that it would, of course, be of some constitutional significance if the National Assembly were to acquire a power to impose a duty on Chief Constables in the way envisaged. Engagement between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Home Office, therefore, appears to be essential if it has not already occurred.
Finally, I understand that this is an early consultation exercise and that any Measure making proposals will be brought forward during 2008 for further consultation. Therefore, I ask that consideration is given to the Police Service being involved in any discussions with Assembly policy and legislation teams as early as possible. Such contact should be made initially through the Police Liaison Office at the Assembly.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Brunstrom
Chief Constable/Prif Gwnstabl
