Identifying emerging issues: a partnership approach

1
Identifying emerging issues a partnership
approach Horizon Scanning for the 2008
Partnership Strategic Assessments in
Northamptonshire
Matt Chester, ComPaSS Manager Natalie Benton,
Senior Intelligence Analyst
2
Partnership Strategic Assessment Setting the
Partnership Context
3
Setting the Scene Northamptonshire

• Two tier authority 1 County Council and 7
  District/Boroughs

• Three tiers 2 BCUs and 6 CDRPs

• Four tiers 41 Safer Communities Teams and 18
  Neighbourhood Management Areas (incorporating
  Neighbourhood Renewal activity) and 3 Rural
  Renewal Clusters

4
Setting the Scene The customers
Corby Borough Council
Borough Council of Wellingborough
Kettering Borough Council
Northamptonshire County Council
Northamptonshire Criminal Justice Board
South Northamptonshire Council
Northamptonshire Police
Wellingborough Community Safety Partnership
Daventry District South Northamptonshire Safer
and Stronger Partnership
Northamptonshire Fire Rescue Service
Victim Support
Northamptonshire Probation Area
Government Office for the East Midlands Region
Daventry District Council
East Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership
Safer Stronger Northampton Partnership
Northamptonshire Drug Alcohol Action Team
Northamptonshire Teaching Primary Care Trust
Children Young Peoples Partnership
Northamptonshire Domestic Abuse Forum
Third Sector
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council
Northamptonshire Observatory
Youth Offending Service
5
Setting the Scene Applying lessons learnt
2007
2008
Police contribute analytical expertise Guidance
available and reference to other examples Clearer
understanding (still needs work!) Steering Board
developed (becoming a CDRP Development and
Support Group) and technical group Improve
management of the tasking processes Stakeholders
Consultation and Horizon Scanning Event and
Critical Readers as contributors
Police contribute data Lack of guidance Lack of
understanding purpose and planning
process Limited steer Limited milestones Critical
Readers license to be critical
6
Setting the Scene The Assessment Structure

• Decision made to undertake a Joint
  Police/Partnership Strategic Assessment 2
  documents
• Feeding the BCU Control Strategy, CDRP
  Partnership Plan refresh, Level 2 Police
  Strategic Assessment, County Community Safety
  Agreement, Northamptonshire Local Area Agreement
• Geographic and Thematic Approach

• Environment
• Vulnerable People
• Offender Management Repeat Victimisation
• Substance Misuse
• Community Cohesion

• County 1
• BCU 11
• CDRP 24

• More traditional Crime/Offence Groups

7
Horizon Scanning for the Partnership Strategic
Assessment

• We needed to complete horizon scanning for
  current, emerging and future issues across the
  whole partnership (everyone from Police to Third
  Sector organisations)
• We needed to cover traditional PESTELO issues
  for each agency, under the key themes identified.
• How do you do this effectively and efficiently
  under significant time pressure? How do you
  obtain good quality information?
• There is a risk when analysts interpret the
  potential impact of PESTELO issues.
• Practitioners are better able to tell us what
  each
• issue means for their agency.

8
What information sources were available?

• Existing analysis and publications countywide
• The last Partnership Strategic Assessment
• Horizon scanning completed for the Force
  Strategic Assessment
• Community consultation data
• The knowledge of our practitioners
• How could we best capture all of these data
  sources?
• Questionnaires, talking to analysts in different
  agencies
• Using previous data that was still relevant and
  valid
• Reviewing existing PESTELO scanning material in
  Force
• Working closely together to interpret
  consultation data
• Data collection plan, horizon scanning event

9
Development of Data Collection Plan

• Workshop held with analysts/representatives from
  different agencies.
• Breakout sessions held and ideas formalised in a
  data collection plan.
• The plan included
• Data needed
• Questions to be answered
• Priority of the data set
• Collation Method
• Responsible person
• Problem much of the data we
• needed was soft data

10
Horizon Scanning Workshop

• AIMS
• To draw on practitioner and policy lead knowledge
  and experience
• To help prioritise what we should include
• To engage with the wider partnership community,
  to give a sense of shared ownership and support
  for the process
• STRUCTURE
• 1 day event, thematic in the morning and
  geographical in the afternoon
• Representatives from a huge range of agencies
• Breakout groups facilitated by staff writing the
  document
• Risk assessment process used

11
Risk Matrix
Key Impact Factors
12
Priorities Selected
County Level
13
Effectiveness of the Workshop

• Helped us prioritise issues to develop further
• Provided direction on the content of the
  document
• Allowed us to produce a document containing
  issues that were collectively identified as
  important
• Saved us wasting time analysing issues only to
  be told to take them out at the critical readers
  stage
• Lots of lessons learned before critical readers
  event

14
Critical Readers Event
Production of the Critical Readers drafts of
the assessments

• An opportunity to
• Refine the priorities identified
• Identify any emerging issues/priorities not
  covered
• Review content
• Review, refine and contribute to the SWOT
  analysis
• Undertake risk analysis
• Review and refine the recommendations

15
Critical Readers Event Tasks
Thematic groupings
1) What is going on nationally that is not
represented in the document? 2) Is there anything
that is fundamentally incorrect? 3) What
evidence-based recommendations should be included
or refined which agency should be identified as
the suggested lead? 4) What gaps are there and
who/which agency is responsible for closing this
gap?
16
Critical Readers Event Tasks
Partnership groupings

• Identify additional (S)trengths, (W)eaknesses,
  (O)pportunities and (T)hreats
• Complete local Risk Analyses for each partnership
  theme
• What evidence-based recommendations should be
  included or refined which agency should be
  identified as the suggested lead?

17
Critical Readers Event Tasks
STRENGTHS Achievements and/or activity in 2007/08
which had a positive impact on a particular
issue WEAKNESSES Plans to cease activity or
deprioritise, and areas of current
concern OPPORTUNITIES Plans for future activity
to positively impact on a particular
issue THREATS Emerging issues of concern
18
Critical Readers Event Tasks
Risk (the possibility of harm occurring) threat
x impact
19
Lessons Learned

• Planning, planning and more planning
• Dont try to do too much in one day
• Define roles and responsibilities
• Give people time to prepare before events and a
  clear briefing
• Ask attendees to bring relevant documents with
  them
• Dont use the analytical staff both as a scribe
  and a facilitator
• Venues are important
• Obtain a budget for workshop events

20
Overall Outcomes

• A better, more informed, tailored product
• PESTELO issues recognised, interpreted correctly
  and included throughout the analysis
• Effective management of partnership expectations
• Engagement with the Partnership Community
• Sense of ownership achieved
• Agreement to take recommendations forward
• Development opportunity for staff involved

21
For the Future

• We want to do better next year
• We need
• More time
• Some money
• Staff dedicated to the project
• It is important for us to build on the processes
  we have in place to make us even more effective
  next year, but we have a good foundation in
  place.

22
Contact Details

• Matt.Chester_at_compassunit.com
• Natalie.Benton_at_northants.pnn.police.uk