Police and Crime Commissioners and Community Safety Partnerships Andy Thomas Head of Service Partnerships and Communities

Police and Crime Commissioner Partnership Requirements Recognize partnership priorities and plans in developing the Police and Crime Plan Engaging with communities Transfer of funding: Community Safety Fund, Drug Intervention Programme and Young Persons Drug Prevention Grant Passporting and subsequent ‘commissioning’ of funds and interventions PCC involvement in local governance

Community Safety Partnerships Changing landscape of reduced requirements- ‘Localism’ Significant reductions in local and national funding streams Reduced reporting and performance monitoring Focus on doing rather than planning Reduction in central Government policy and guidance Majority of funding from local authority

Community Safety Partnerships Statutory Requirements Executive meeting required: No guidance on who, what or frequency 3 year Crime and Disorder Plan Annual Strategic Risk and Threat Assessment Rolling Annual Plan

PCCs and CSPs: Relationship PCCs not a ‘responsible authority’ under the 1998 CDA Mutual duty to co-operate Due regard: Police and Crime Plan/CSP Plan Governance and strategy: Where does the PCC fit in Local accountability: City/County/District PCC to ‘sign off’ mergers of CSPs PCCs change the landscape

Making it work locally PCCs will have a big impact on community safety Commissioning could replace partnership working with a free market based on competition Local arrangements for ‘commissioning’ PCCs getting involved in local arrangements Are local arrangements fit for purpose? Risk/opportunity of CSP mergers Engaging and agreeing priorities through SIA, plans and CSF spend plans

PCCs and CSPs: The Derby Picture Developing effective relationships is key Pre and Post election Joined up Police and Crime Plan and city SIA priorities PCC and city council both Labour Overview and Scrutiny Chair on Police and Crime Panel Agreement to passport funding in PCC to sit on CSP Executive Group