2.1 The LGA welcomed the 2022 announcement of a review of community safety partnerships (CSPs). Our members share our view that more than twenty years since they were established and with an increasingly complex community safety landscape, there is a need for a strategic review of CSPs, their objectives, funding, and relationship with other partners and bodies.
2.2 We are however disappointed with the narrow focus of phase one of the review, which only considers information sharing and accountability between CSPs and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), and anti-social behaviour. While we understand that a later, phase two of the review is planned to consider the issues outlined above, including CSP funding and capacity, there is a clear risk that the outcome of this consultation will pre-empt the findings of a later, more strategic review of the role of CSPs.
2.3 The LGA believes that a preferable approach would have been to start with a review focusing on the fundamental role and operation of CSPs; the legislative framework, guidance and funding that directs and supports them; and linked to that, how they work with PCCs, violence reduction units (VRUs) where they exist, and other partners and structures. The outcome of that review could then have informed any necessary measures around accountability, information sharing or anything else.
2.4 There is significant concern among the LGA’s member councils that proposals to make CSPs accountable to PCCs (for example by requiring CSPs’ strategic assessments to demonstrate the CSP is delivering against the PCC’s police and crime plan) will create a top down relationship between PCCs and CSPs and undermine the partnership basis on which CSPs were established.
2.5 There are good reasons why the work of CSPs and PCCs may partially diverge in some places, given their differing footprints and the different community safety challenges within large areas (for example, urban/rural). Our key objectives should be for CSPs and PCCs to work together effectively in a way that makes sense for their areas, and for each to be appropriately resourced to do so, for example in terms of developing strategic assessments.
2.6 We believe that many of the proposals in the consultation and the overall spirit of them may already be achievable under existing legislation, again suggesting that what is required in the first instance may be a review of current requirements and clear updated guidance on it, rather than new duties.
2.7 Notwithstanding our concerns, if the Home Office moves forward with the measures outlined in the consultation ahead of its strategic review, it will be important that it provides guidance on how the proposed new duties are expected to work in practice (for example, how CSPs can evidence that they have taken PCCs recommendations into account, and the process for when recommendations are not accepted by the CSP) as well as what additional actions are expected from CSPs and PCCs beyond the current arrangements. Consideration should also be given to ensuring all the proposals are reciprocal.
2.8 Any new burdens associated with any new requirements must be adequately funded. In particular, local government officers have highlighted the need for effective data analysis support and wider capacity to help conduct strategic assessments and implement local strategies effectively.