Guidance

Local forums and the role of police and crime commissioners

Published 30 May 2019

Purpose

This Local Operating Framework sets out how Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) can play an active role in local Criminal Justice System (CJS) forums to improve co-ordination and achieve shared CJS outcomes.

Within this framework, we have referred to the role of the PCC in relation to the criminal justice system. It should be understood, however, that the PCC does not have authority over the criminal justice system from the decision to make a criminal charge, through to the award of sentence. In devolving greater responsibility to PCCs, the boundaries around the independence of criminal justice processes between charging and sentencing must be respected.

All local forums must respect both prosecutorial and judicial independence and decision making. Whilst taking account of independence issues, there will still be occasions where it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to participate in conversations.

Local Operating Framework

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 set out in law the reciprocal duty on PCCs and other Criminal Justice agencies to work together to provide an efficient and effective CJS for police force areas. One way this works effectively is through Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs). The Criminal Justice Inspectorate report stated:

we were told that PCCs were shaping the way that local partnerships were working, based on their outreach into the community in general and to victims of crime in particular.

By taking a leading role in local CJS partnership arrangements, PCCs can help CJS partners and agencies become more visible in the local area and help align and set priorities and address cross-cutting local issues.

This is already happening in many areas. The independence of the prosecution and judiciary must be reflected within any partnership arrangements. To ensure engagement is appropriate we therefore propose the following minimum standards to encourage appropriate local CJS engagement in each local area, consistently across England and Wales. This protocol may also apply to Regional Partnership arrangements, as well as local partnership arrangements such as Local Criminal Justice Boards.

Membership

The view of the National Criminal Justice Board (CJB) is that PCCs should chair local forums which, to be effective, should include membership and engagement from all CJS partners. At the local level, it is recommended that membership should include:

• the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
• a Chief Police Officer
• a representative from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
• a representative from HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)
• a representative from HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)
• a representative from the National Probation Service (NPS) / Community Rehabilitation Company (CRCs)
• a representative from the Youth Offending Team
• a Legal Professional e.g. solicitor, barrister
• a victims and witnesses service provider
• a representative from the other rehabilitation service providers e.g. education /health
• a member of the judiciary, where appropriate, in an advisory capacity

Effective local forums also include members beyond immediate local CJS partners. Closer working locally is increasingly important as collective budgets have tightened, with collaboration key to increased efficiencies. To reflect this, local forums could include membership from:

• a member from a local victims’ panel
• other rehabilitation service providers, in particular Education and Health
• legal profession
• health
• county council officials
  • safety in communities lead
  • engagement in communities lead
• Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs)
• a representative from the Parole Board

The role of the PCC

PCCs will play a leading role in these fora. This will require them to facilitate engagement with all local partners to agree how to engage with nationally-determined programmes and meet local needs. In short, PCCs should use their position to provide leadership and transparency for the CJS at a local level, whilst respecting prosecutorial and judicial independence.

PCCs’ specific responsibilities are listed below. Overall, they are responsible for the totality of policing in their area and for commissioning services for victims of crime locally. Under the terms of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs must:

• secure an efficient and effective police force for their area
• work with local CJS partners to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for the police area
• appoint the Chief Constable, hold them to account for running the force, and if necessary require them to retire or resign
• set the police and crime objectives for their area through a police and crime plan
• set the force budget and determine the precept
• contribute to the national and international policing capabilities set out by the Home Secretary
• bring together community safety and criminal justice partners, to make sure local priorities are joined up.

Role of PCCs and victims

PCCs are responsible for commissioning the majority of local services for victims and are well placed to have oversight of how the CJS locally is meeting the needs of victims. While there is some good local practice, there needs to be improved reporting, monitoring and transparency on whether victims are receiving the entitlements in the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victims’ Code).

The Criminal Justice Board has recognised the importance of PCCs’ roles locally and signed off a new approach to compliance. At a local level, Police and Crime Commissioners will be responsible for regularly monitoring and identifying issues though local criminal justice partnership arrangements so they can determine effective local intervention. PCCs will provide reports to the Criminal Justice Board and responsible Ministers so they can monitor delivery at a national level and address cross-cutting issues with national service providers.

A new compliance framework is being developed in conjunction with the APCC to set out the detail of PCCs’ responsibilities, as well the responsibilities of other agencies. The compliance framework will build on the monitoring model that many PCC areas have already put in place.

As the protocol for engaging PCCs in national policy makes clear, PCCs are responsible for communicating information on national developments and Criminal Justice Board and ministerial priorities within their local areas. This will help to ensure priorities are addressed locally, as well as helping to support the implementation of national reforms and policies locally, as agreed with national policy leads.

Setting local priorities and the scope to adapt national plans and innovate

Local CJS partners are responsible for delivering national policies at a local level, both those that come from their own organisations and those agreed by the Criminal Justice Board. The successful delivery of PCC Policing and Crime Plans also requires cross-CJS cooperation, and the priorities set out in these Plans should be taken into account in the priorities agreed by CJS partners in local partnership forums. A local forum is a means by which the delivery of these local priorities can be agreed and delivery of them monitored. Local forums also offer the opportunity to test and review innovative approaches for the delivery of local priorities.

The way in which national CJS departments and agencies have committed to engage with PCCs through the national protocol, means that PCCs will be engaged on major reforms influencing the local context and updated on the implementation of national polices and key reforms. PCCs will also be updated on ministerial and National Criminal Justice Board priorities to enable these priorities to feed into LCJBs.

National platform and best practice

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) is an effective national platform through which PCCs can share best practice from their local area and how LCJBs have worked particularly well. LCJBs also offer the opportunity to share best practice, data, and any future downstream impacts through the system between partners locally.

It is sensible to draw upon and improve existing structures and networks, by using LCJBs to identify local best practice, and encouraging PCCs to feed these into the existing national platform of the APCC, so that CJS partners are not under increased pressures to create such forums and networks.

We recommend that local forums use the APCC network to highlight what approaches have been working well and where there are barriers and tensions, liaising with national policy leads. Local forums may also wish to escalate matters of national importance to the Criminal Justice Board through the PCC representative.

Due to the nature of PCC’s role and genuine oversight and interest in many aspects of the CJS, PCCs are able to tap into existing structures and funding to achieve shared outcomes. For example, in at least one LCJB the PCC joined up with health to use existing schemes in place to help rehabilitative measures in the CJS. We strongly encourage all agencies to be more outward facing and to engage with wider agencies in achieving shared outcomes.

Sharing information to identify trends, and manage risks and emerging threats

Sharing information across agencies can help local forums assess what is and isn’t working and why, to address shared outcomes of reducing crime and reoffending and to support victims and witnesses.

Local forums should also use their own data and intelligence to identify emerging local trends or patterns in offending behaviour to allow local agencies to plan and adapt to emerging threats. Where local areas collate their own data, this should be shared both between CJS partners in each area, as well as nationally to identify where there is significant progress. Sharing data on local trends may also alert other areas to those trends. In the interests of transparency and accountability, local CJS performance data could also be published.

PCCs are well placed to assist with predicting demand and circulating this among other areas, through representation at the Criminal Justice Board and the APCC network. The APCC provides a forum in which emerging local trends can be reported and national patterns escalated where required, which could enable practical measures to be taken in each part of the CJS to react to demand.

PCC representation at the Criminal Justice Board ensures that PCCs are informed of emerging priorities and trends raised nationally, which they can communicate locally as appropriate.

Next Steps

This protocol will be periodically reviewed by the APCC, working with the Ministry of Justice, to identify emerging examples of good practice and what further action might be needed to support improved local CJS co-ordination.