Public Service Agreements, 200811 PSA 23: Make Communities Safer

1
Public Service Agreements, 2008-11PSA 23 Make
Communities Safer

• Chris Seward, Home Office, PCSD
• Ian Knowles, Ministry of Justice, NOMS

2
This presentation

• This presentation provides an overview of
• the governments new crime strategy
• the new public service agreements announced with
  the recent comprehensive spending review
• the detail of PSA 23
• Serious violent crime
• Serious acquisitive crime
• Local priorities (crime ASB)
• Re-offending

3
The new PSA framework
4
The Crime Strategy

• In July 2007 the Home Office published a new
  crime strategy, Cutting Crime, a new partnership
  2008-11. It set out
• a stronger focus on serious violence
• continued pressure on anti-social behaviour
• a renewed focus on young people
• a new national approach to designing out crime
• the importance of continuing to reduce
  re-offending
• a greater sense of national partnership
• the aim of freeing up local partners, building
  public confidence
• A key part of operationalising the new strategy
  is through changes in the governments
  performance framework

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/crime-strategy-07/
5
The Comprehensive Spending Review

• In October 2007, HM Treasury published the
  results of the Comprehensive Spending Review for
  the period 2008-11. This included
• A set of Departmental Strategic Objectives (DSOs)
  for each department
• 30 new Public Service Agreements (PSAs), setting
  out cross-government objectives on key issues,
  and the performance indicators that will show
  progress towards meeting those objectives
• Each PSA is accompanied by a Delivery Agreement,
  setting out the objectives, delivery strategy,
  contributing partners and measurement
  considerations

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/
6
Public Service Agreements, 2008-2011

• Several cross-government public service
  agreements have relevance for crime reduction and
  community safety, including

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/
7
PSA 23 Make Communities Safer

• Elements of the crime strategy are reflected in a
  number of PSAs.
• The Make Communities Safer PSA reflects the
  direction of the crime strategy, and quantifies
  many of the headline objectives.
• The PSA is divided into four parts, aimed at
  ensuring a balanced response across the whole
  spectrum of crime as well as highlighting the
  need for cross-government effort
• To help establish a more mature way of working
  between government and delivery partners, the PSA
  moves away from specific national targets focused
  on volume crime which are cascaded wholesale to
  local areas
• Instead the objectives and the national targets
  associated with them have been designed to
  promote local flexibility whilst ensuring that
  the most harmful issues are given the priority
  they deserve

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
8
The new framework making the links

• One of the key changes between the new PSA regime
  and the SR04 one is the attempt to make things
  even more joined-up
• PSAs cross-refer to each other some indicators
  are shared, others are aligned (e.g. links
  between PSAs 23, 24 and 25)
• PSAs are cross-government, and will be governed
  in that way
• PSAs have been created with a greater awareness
  of how and by who they will be delivered
• PSAs link to the wider performance landscape in a
  way that was not possible before, in particular
  where possible they set out links to
• The developing Assessments of Policing and
  Community Safety framework (APACS)
• The Local Government Performance Framework for
  England (LAAs etc)

9
PSA 23 Priority Action 1

• Reduce the most serious violence, including
  tackling serious sexual offences and domestic
  violence
• Most harmful violent crimes important that these
  issues are tackled in all localities
• Change from previous PSAs which havent provided
  for a focus on seriousness
• Seeking national reduction and all areas expected
  to take this objective into account when
  considering local priorities
• Each locality expected to determine its own
  specific priorities and strategy, drawing on the
  national strategy for assistance
• No explicit indicator/target in the PSA on sexual
  offences because of risk of perverse incentives
  more sophisticated approach promoted

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
10
PSA 23 Priority Action 1

• Serious violent crime - offences to be included
  in the indicator

Will also include racially and religiously
motivated offences (8_33, 8_40, 8_46)
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
11
PSA 23 Priority Action 1

• Serious sexual offences - offences considered to
  fall under the remit of the objective

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
12
PSA 23 Priority Action 2

• Continue to make progress on serious acquisitive
  crime through a focus on the issues of greatest
  priority in each locality and the most harmful
  offenders particularly drug-misusing offenders
• Most harmful acquisitive crimes burglary,
  robbery, vehicle crime
• Significant reductions delivered over last 10
  years, but important that focus on these crimes
  continues, and further reductions are possible
• Challenges vary by locality, so PSA indicator
  only covers those areas with a relatively high
  level of these crimes when compared to what has
  been achieved elsewhere
• Beyond that, local areas free (but encouraged) to
  set own level of ambition

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
13
PSA 23 Priority Action 2

• Serious acquisitive crime - offences included in
  the indicator

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
14
PSA 23 Priority Action 3

• Tackle the crime, disorder and antisocial
  behaviour issues of greatest importance in each
  locality, increasing public confidence in the
  local agencies involved in dealing with these
  issues
• Beyond limited number of defined most harmful
  issues, local debate should determine which
  things to set as priorities
• Local agencies and partnerships must determine
  and address local priorities, drawing on national
  strategies and support as appropriate
• Progress, nationally, measured by proxy through
• confidence in local service providers (new BCS
  question)
• perceptions of anti-social behaviour

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
15
PSA 23 Priority Action 3

• Confidence in local service providers, BCS
  question

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
16
PSA 23 Priority Action 3

• Perceptions of anti-social behaviour, BCS
  question

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
17
PSA 23 Priority Action 4

• Reduce re-offending through the improved
  management of offenders
• Seeking reduction in volume and severity of
  re-offending, nationally
• Change from the previous PSA which focused on
  whether offenders re-offended or not
• National target will be informed by regional and
  local partnership decisions about the key
  priorities in individual areas
• Supports the other three strands by its focus on
  reducing the number of re-offences committed and
  reducing the number of serious offences

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/4/pbr_csr07_psa23.p
df
18
New measures of re-offending

• Why change?
• Reminder of the existing measure and its
  strengths and weaknesses
• How do the new measures help
• Limitations of the new measures
• Publication dates and content

19
Existing measure

• Actual rate of proven re-offending
• Does the offender re-offend at any point in a
  two year period following release from custody or
  commencement of community sentence, where this
  offence is proven by a court conviction in either
  this two year period, or in a further nine
  months
• Predicted rate of proven re-offending
• Given the known characteristics of the offender
  (such as age/gender/previous criminal history)
  what is the probability that they will commit a
  proven re-offence in this period
• Predicted rate based on data in 2000 to
  determine how offender characteristics linked to
  proven re-offending.

20
Existing measure strengths/weaknesses

• Strengths
• Simple measure of re-offending, yes or no
• Allows a degree of control for changes in
  characteristics of offenders
• Follow up period allows time for even very
  serious cases to work through CJS system
• Weaknesses
• Blunt measure of re-offending volume
• Blunt measure of re-offending seriousness
• Time lag is too long for useful management
  information use
• Places incentives on dealing with medium/low risk
  offenders
• A proxy for re-offending

21
The case for change

• Four offenders A, B, C and D
• All released from custody at same time, for same
  offence, with same long criminal history, same
  age/gender. All have a predicted rate of
  re-offending of 65
• Offender A commits no re-offences
• Offender B commits one proven re-offence for
  shoplifting and gets a fine
• Offender C commits ten proven re-offences of
  various acquisitive types and gets a community
  sentence
• Offender D commits two proven re-offences, the
  second of which is murder for which they receive
  custody
• Existing measure regards A as a success, and B, C
  and D as equal failures

22
The new measures frequency and severity

• Frequency of re-offending
• Number of proven re-offences committed per 100
  offenders in the cohort
• moves incentive to work with higher risk/more
  prolific offenders
• a closer proxy to re-offending
• Seriousness of re-offending
• Number of proven re-offences committed per 100
  offenders in the cohort which are classified as
  serious
• can be considered as an of which of the
  frequency measure
• Previous example Now able to be more exact on
  re-offending of each offender
• Time lag The new measures will be based on a 1
  year follow up period, allowing 6 further months
  for re-offences to be proved

23
The new measures - limitations

• Reduction in time lag
• Roughly 80 of proven re-offending in two years
  is committed in first year (on binary basis)
• But this is lower for the more serious offences
• Predicted rate
• Lack of robust model to predict frequency and
  severity of re-offending
• Effect of custody on frequency measures

24
Publication dates and content

• End April 2008
• 2000-2005 data for Adults and Juveniles on the
  new measures
• 2005 data on the existing measure
• September 2008
• 2006 data for adults and juveniles on the new
  measures
• 2006 juvenile data on the existing measure (final
  year on existing measure)
• March 2009
• 2006 adult data on the existing measure (final
  year on existing measure)
• April 2009
• 2007 data for adults and juveniles on the new
  measures
• Then every march or earlier for future years