EXEMPT

Strategic & Operational Policing Committee – 8th January 2009

Report by Assistant Commissioner Specialist Crime Directorate

SummaryThis paper proposes arrangements by which the MPS will introduce mediation services to help resolve conflict situations between London Gangs and individuals, as set out in the 2008-11 MPS Youth Violence Strategy. It seeks MPA approval for the selection of the organisational body to provide such specialist services and the allocation of up to £300K already set aside for initial management and mediation costs for MPS referrals, over a two-year start up period 2009-11. 

A. RECOMMENDATIONS – That

1. MPA approve the selection of the Capital Conflict Management Company (CCM) as the organisation to provide mediation services for the MPS

2. MPA approve the award of a single tender contract of £300k to pay for costs associated with the management and provision of mediation services for the first 2 years of operation (2009-11)

3. In the event that MPA cannot reach final approval of proposals on the 8th January a conditional grant of £55K is allowed to CCM for the 3 month period February – April 2009 to:

Further develop the management infrastructure and business planning process.

Continue registered office services Further develop the selected mediators in readiness for

operations Repay the SLF interest free loan of £25K provided to CCM to

maintain its operation pending final funding approvals.

It should be noted that no operational services would be started in this period.

4. MPA note that the above will be subject to the agreement of appropriate legal documentation between MPS and CCM

B. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

EXEMPT 1

EXEMPT

Background and Initial Development

1. MPS research and analysis (SCD3 2008) has identified 100 distinct street gang hierarchies within the London Region. These gangs are made up of approximately 1600 “high impact players”, displaying extreme violent behaviour, whilst a further 2000 associates have been identified who are closely linked to each gangs criminal activity.

2. In 2007/8 there were 18 London murders directly attributable to gang conflict situations. In 2008/9 so far (15th Dec) there have been 12 such murders. Linked to these gangs are very substantial levels (000’s) of serious and mid level violent incidents (GBH & ABH) using an assortment of weapons. According to Home Office research 2007/8 each homicide equates to a total community, health and criminal justice cost of £1.5 million and each GBH a cost of £500K

3. Many conflict situations are made up of a variety of historical and spontaneous grievances over drug market activity or incidents of disrespect requiring retribution to maintain individual honour. Peer group pressures in the gang can become irresistible with dynamics that amplify violent behaviour. Due to the absence of any objectivity or proportionality being applied to such situations there has been an alarming increase in the quick propensity to extreme violence.

4. Conflict management through mediation is a tactic to counter this social development. It is not designed as a soft option but as a method of preventing the escalation of such situations into murder or serious injury. Moreover it gives local communities real reassurance that something positive and practical can be introduced at times of high tension where a degree of independent objectivity and skill is required to diffuse the situation.

5. The MPS 2008-11 Youth Violence Strategy recognises this factor and specifies that a key tactic to reduce inter gang and individual violence is through the use of independent highly trained mediators to identify the causes of conflict and to help resolve those differences, thereby preventing serious injuries or death.

6. On 17 July 2008 MPA Finance Committee (Item 12A ”Improving prevention and reassurance in reducing serious youth violence”) agreed to the provision, under the specialist action section, of £300K to SCD3 to develop “Gang Tension level 1 Mediation Services”

7. There will be three principle activities undertaken by such mediators, namely:

Proactive intervention: to facilitate negotiation between differing factions. This is at a high level risk

Post-event intervention: To mediate and prevent retaliation and escalation between gangs

EXEMPT 2

EXEMPT

Facilitate delivery of support: to encourage those who wish to exit the gun and gang culture to do so.

8. During 2007-8, The Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD) formed a Programme Board, which included the Safer London Foundation (SLF), Government Office for London, The MPS Violent Crime Directorate and the London Probation Service. This researched:

What had been done in this specialist area elsewhere in the UK Potential sources for the provision of high level risk mediation9.

Some good practice and experience was identified within Northern Ireland and in the West Midlands, where a specialist organisation called The West Midlands Mediation and Transformation Service (WMMTS) had been operating since 2004. This organisation was started by two former West Midlands Police Detectives, Kirk Dawes QPM and Detective Superintendent Peter O’Neill. Members can find more details on this project by using the following link http://www.wmmts.org.uk/10. There are no high-level risk mediation services anywhere within the South East Region particular to gang and serious individual violence. The only services available are those for low-level risk situations involving anti social behaviour and neighbour disputes. Certain independent people operate in London but they are untrained, unaccredited and not professionally managed.11. SCD are now seeking to adopt the West Midlands approach in London but tailored to reflect the regions unique requirements and modified to incorporate the learning from their experience.12. To this aim, the MPS has in conjunction with SLF and the Home Office Tackling Gang Programme overseen the establishment of an organisation called Capital Conflict Management CIC (CCM) (Registered April 2008) that will provide such mediation services. Mr Peter O’Neill was appointed as Managing Consultant to progress the phased start up.13. A CIC company is a Community Interest Company – a private company limited by guarantee (£1 for company officers) that is: Created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit,

Not purely for private advantage. Based on a "community interest test" and "asset lock“ (any assets

and profits are dedicated to these benefits) decided by a Regulator14.This independent organisation was initiated using Home Office

Tackling Gang Action Programme monies and SLF grants. It is still awaiting the £300K of MPS monies as approved in July 2008 (see paragraph 6 above), pending procurement and legal decisions. It has however commenced the selection and training of mediators together with the selection of a senior management team to run the organisation. In addition, It has a small fledgling board of Directors

15.To enable CCM to continue its development beyond January 2009 (expiry of current funding streams) and for MPS to access CCM mediation services the following decisions are needed from the MPA:

If it wishes to use CCM to provide such services?EXEMPT 3

EXEMPT

If yes what legal relationship does it wish to use to interact with the organisation?

What specific risks should be addressed in that relationship?

16.The advice of the then Deputy Chief Executive of the MPA was sought with regard to the appropriate legal vehicle. He felt that the appropriate mechanism under which the MPS should engage is through the award of a grant to CCM. Legal advisers Sharpe Pritchard have been commissioned to support the drafting of necessary documents. See Appendix 4 for the CCM application for an MPA grant.

17.Since this time, Sharpe Pritchard have further reported that there are greater advantages to a single Tender Contract which would provide greater influence over CCM operating standards and service provision with clearer mechanisms of financial repayment in a default situation. See Legal Implications Section E.

18.As the legal grant document is based upon MPS standard terms for services, it will be easy to revise the documentation to a contract if this committee recommends that a single tender contract is the more appropriate form of legal relationship.

Risk Management

19.There are a number of particular issues related to mediation services that MPA should be aware of and of the actions that have been taken or are in train to mitigate assorted risks:

The commissioning of mediation services and associated referral/ risk assessment procedures

20.SCD3 in conjunction with CCM, MPS Corporate Risk Unit and Operational units such as SCD7 Kidnaps have designed two forms and linked guidance notes. These will be available electronically on the MPS Intranet System to enable any officer (Inspector authority) to make a referral to CCM 24/7. See Appendix 4

Form A - Referring Officer information to SCD3 that sets out the aims & objectives of mediation, background information about the immediate and historical context to the conflict situation together with intelligence about the known subjects and geographical area concerned. It also identifies areas of known risk of relevance to a mediation deployment.

Form B – SCD3 document to CCM which contains sanitised information requesting a deploymentGuidance Notes – Available for each section of form A.

21.SCD3 will act as the sole gate-keeper for all MPS referrals to CCM, thereby allowing adequate quality assurance controls and single point of contact co-ordination.

EXEMPT 4

EXEMPT

22.Form B will be passed electronically via a GSI provision to CCM, but will contain information no higher than restricted status. CCM will transfer this information to a stand-alone IT case management system using ISO standard 27001 information management procedures.

The status of CCM Mediators and Management Staff

23.CCM has commenced work in ensuring that they are appropriately staffed:

24 level 1 (High Risk) Mediators have been selected and received initial training using experts from West Midlands to a nationally accredited NVQ certificated standard. They now await the appointment of an Operations Manager together with approved Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). The Operations Manager has been selected and awaits offer of contract.

Each Mediator has or is expected to sign an individual contract with CCM to be available for commissioned work as requested. All are under no obligation to accept any job.

Each Mediator and selected Manager is being vetted by MPS to CTC standard. This is a higher level than normal but reflects the sensitivity of the work.

An Operations Manager of a very high calibre has been selected and awaits offer of contract. A 4-week notice will be required in his case to terminate current employment, which means at the earliest taking up post second week of February 2009.

An Executive Chairman of Directors has been selected. This person is also of a very high calibre with broad probation and youth experience. A greater degree of flexibility in taking up post is available in her case. She is available from the beginning of January for part time work. It is CCM’s intention to invite her to become a registered Director and paid Executive Chair as soon as possible in January.

The Data Controller post remains unfilled and further efforts will be made to select a suitable candidate once funding streams are confirmed.

A part time administrator is already in post.

24.Allowing for management appointments, hand over briefings and familiarisation the first operational deployments are not feasible until early March 2009.

Mediator Safety and Training

25. Twenty-four level 1 (High Risk) Mediators have been selected and received initial training using experts from West Midlands to a nationally accredited NVQ certificated standard. In addition to this basic training MPS are going to seek the following CCM standards towards development training and safety:

EXEMPT 5

EXEMPT

Mediator training in safe client meeting and counter surveillance techniques

A general risk assessment of operational deployment considerations, which will form one part of CCM’s Operational Policy and Standard Operating Procedures. This will include assessment of any threats to the Mediators domestic address.

A local crime prevention survey of the mediator’s home address. This will ensure basic levels of physical and personal security are in place, with recommendations for improvement where necessary. The level of improvement will be directly linked to the risk assessment as described above.

The provision of mobile communication equipment with adequate cellular coverage for deployment areas.

The provision of safety stab proof vests for high risk deployments, when deemed necessary by the operations manager.

CCM HQ Building Security

26.The CCM base in SE London is located within a managed estate with a secure inner car park and an entry phone system.

27 CO6 MPS have completed a full security survey of the current CCM HQ location and have made a number of recommendations for improvement including:

The introduction of new cylinder locks to the outer entrances of the office itself. These should be linked to a new intruder alarm system

The introduction of a new centrally monitored intruder alarm system overseen by “Metcall”

The provision of collapsible metal grille over the windows and timber panels fitted internally.

The provision of a SEAP Class cabinet to house the new stand alone computer system

The provision of an adequate paper shredder.

28.No clients will be taken to this building for mediation purposes and will be used solely by management staff and mediators for administration and de briefing purposes.

MPS/CCM Information Exchange and Management

29.MPS Department of Information (DOI), SCD3 and CCM have during 2008 drafted procedures and policy for the secure and efficient exchange of information from MPS to CCM, which include Information management standards. These include:

The completion of ISO 27001 accreditation by CCM. This will include a written policy and operating procedures for the IT

EXEMPT 6

EXEMPT

systems, processes and people operating them. This ISO standard is designed for the management of sensitive company information. Once completed this will be checked and approved by DOI before information exchange can commence.

SCD3 to sanitise police information received in Form A from the referring officer before transfer to CCM on Form B. The transfer will be at no greater level than “Restricted” on the GSI E mail system.

CCM will transfer this information to a stand alone IT system to avoid internet hacking. This system will have a designed case management software system bespoke for CCM mediation purposes

Mediator Personal Insurance Cover

30. Individual mediators are contractors to CCM and, as such, are in theory responsible for their own insurance provisions. However, In the event that a mediator was to suffer physical harm or death, there is some reputational risk to the MPS, as a referring stakeholder.

31.The MPS Insurance Management Team have carried out some initial research with brokers Heath Lambert and established that for a fee of £2300 per year (including commission and IPT tax) CCM could arrange cover of £100K death (5x annual income) and corresponding benefit for all of the 24 mediators in the event of death or serious personal injury whilst carrying out mediator duties.

32.As the fees are relatively low the MPS should consider making this a requirement for CCM to arrange on behalf of their mediators rather than leaving it to their individual discretion.

33.MPS Insurance Management Team will also ensure CCM have adequate employers and company liability insurance by making this a condition of grant or contract.

Separation between MPS and CCM

34. In order to ensure that CCM are seen as an impartial arbiter for all parties, it is envisaged that the relationship between CCM and the MPS is kept very low key. There will be no public launch of the initiative by the MPS. It is proposed that no MPS employee is placed on the CCM Board to ensure complete independence and to avoid conflict of interest risks. Alternative control mechanisms have been established as follows:

Stakeholders Reference Group

35.A new Stakeholders Reference Group has been established which is independent of CCM. Currently this includes senior representation from MPS, Southwark CDRP, London Councils, Government Office for London, London Probation Service and is attended by the Managing Director of CCM. This group is designed to give the direct investors

EXEMPT 7

EXEMPT

and key interested agencies a forum to influence CCM strategic direction, represent concerns to CCM, and overcome obstacles without any threat from conflict of interest interests involving CCM operational deployment and the commissioning relationship.

Joint Commissioning Group

36. It is planned to establish a Joint Commissioning Group for CCM service users to meet bi-weekly and prioritise commissioned work under an agreed framework between them. It is designed for agency practitioners from YOT, MPS and Local Authority Community Safety Managers. In the start up phase this will include the MPS and Southwark Community Safety Office.

Next steps

37. Following relevant approvals, the MPS will sign an appropriate grant or contract document with CCM by mid January 2009, who will then confirm contract offers to the identified managers.

38. In relation to recommendation 3, If for any reason MPA SOP Committee defers final approval of contract on 8th January it will be essential to provide interim funding to CCM to avoid insolvency beyond 31st January 2009. In these circumstances It is proposed that a conditional grant of £55K is allowed immediately to allow CCM:

To recruit the Executive Chair on a short 3 month contract to allow management leadership and funding stream agreements.

To continue accommodation security over period Feb – April 2009 together with a part time administrator

Repay the interest free SLF loan of £25K provided as a stop gap pending final funding agreements

39. If such an interim grant is provided this will only be used for non-operational purposes to stabilise CCM. No mediator deployments would be made until final MPA approval is given and sufficient funding is available to appoint an Operations Manager.

40. Internally, SCD3 will have completed all MPS system and personnel arrangements by the end of January 2009. This unit will work part time on this function apart from the principal operations officer who will be full time. The referral unit will comprise:

Chief Inspector Programme Manager (20% time @ £80K) An Inspector Programme Principal Operations Officer (100%

time @ £75K) Three deputy police officers to allow 365 day on call rota to

collate, assess and transmit referrals to CCM with on going liaison responsibilities (25% time @ £61K)

41.SCD3 is preparing full standard operating procedures, an explanatory police notice and intranet based referral forms with guidance notes.

EXEMPT 8

EXEMPT

The unit will act as the conduit and single liaison point for all MPS Business Groups regarding Gang Mediation affairs

42.Briefings are being organised for all SCD Senior Investigating Officers, TP Gang desks and other interested parties in January and February 2009.

43. It is envisaged that CCM will be able to start operational deployments from the 2nd week of March if approval and authorities are given on the 8th January.

C. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS

1. This initiative is aimed at decreasing violence between gangs, a number of whom are based upon ethnic, geographical or religious grounds. Mediators will be drawn from all representative communities and therefore this initiative could be said to promote equality and diversity

D. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

CCM Financial History

1. CCM was registered at Companies House in April 2008 and is a new enterprise. The MPS cannot therefore apply the normal financial evaluation to the previous three-year period, required of contract awards.

2. CCM has already received to November 2008 approx £145k in grants & loans to cover costs of set-up, staff selection/training and administration as follows:

£75K grants from the Safer London Foundation (SLF) £45K grants from the Home Office Tackling Gangs Action

Programme £25K interest free loan from SLF to cover basic management and

accommodation costs over three month period (Nov-Jan 09), pending investor fund allocations.

3. CCM prepared an initial Business Plan in 2007 and the fund raising part of this was revised in August 2008. See Appendix.1 and 2

CCM Expenditure

4. According to the CCM Budget for 2008-11 See Appendix 3, the following costs would be incurred for the first year of operation:

£145K fixed costs for management salaries £123K fixed costs for general overheads (some of

this has already been paid from existing funding streams) £ 33K towards mediator training and coaching

EXEMPT 9

EXEMPT

Variable costs for mediator time as commissioned by the stakeholders. This is a separate cost paid for by the stakeholders through the purchase of mediator blocks of time in advance

CCM Income

5. The new CIC Company CCM is completely dependant for its immediate future on the allocation of funds from four sources:

£300K from MPS (approved for mediation purposes by MPA July 2008) over the next two years 2009-11. It is proposed to use this for both a CCM management cost funding contribution and to pay for MPS referral mediation time.

£81K from Southwark CDRP to pay for CCM management costs for 1st year operation 2009-10. Further funds are to be put aside for actual mediation time for Southwark local authority referrals

£210K grant from London Councils for 2009-12 to fund further mediator selection and training together with community engagement marketing.

Commissioned mediation work by investors and non- investors. For non-investors this will be charged at full commercial rates (£200 per team hour) on a pay as you go basis. For investors an hourly rate of £120 will be charged. These rates have a large element of executive cost provision built into them (50%)

MPS Benefit from CCM Investment

6. There will be three principal benefits to MPS of contributing to CCM management costs in the first two years:

The clear opportunity of helping to prevent further gang related homicides and serious injury with their related costs, equating to £27 million in 07/08 murders alone.

Mediator time will be reduced in cost from £200 per team hour (2 mediators) to £120 equating to a 40% reduction. £100K provided for mediator time will equate to approximately 1000 team hours.

MPS referrals will be given a priority over other commissioning agencies who are not investors

CCM Financial Monitoring Requirements

7. A pre-requisite of MPS funding will be the requirement for quarterly returns from CCM, which clearly set out:

Expenditure on salaries Expenditure on mediation time and a clear tally of remaining hours

available to MPS on account Expenditure on overheads

EXEMPT 10

EXEMPT

CCM Sustainable Funding Year 3 Onwards

8. London Councils have now accepted an invitation to be represented on the Stakeholders Reference Group (SRG) see below. London Councils have asked to be involved closely with a future funding bid plan for year 3 funding and beyond, investing into CCM on behalf of all 33 local authorities. This would be a major opportunity to both CCM and MPS securing executive costs and enabling further expansion of mediator geographical coverage.

Single or Open Tender Arrangements Beyond Year Two

9. It is accepted by MPS Procurement Department that due to the absence of any other high level gang mediation providers in the SE England Region that the initiation of an open tender process is inappropriate under EU Procurement law.

10. A single tender type contract or conditional grant would be more appropriate in the circumstances. However it is also accepted that after a suitable operating period of about two years an open tender should be further considered. See legal implications Section E below.

Start Up Period Considerations

11. The first two years of operation are therefore critical to get CCM established and operating effectively. Linked to this factor are the following considerations:

12. The two prospective appointees to the Management Team (Operations and Executive Chair) have clearly indicated that they would like an offer of contract of not less than 2 years, albeit subject to successful probation and yearly performance review. However, due to the venture characteristics of the enterprise this could not be guaranteed and the contract would probably have to be of a term type with a termination clause of convenience allowing for income realities.

13. Two years is the basic planning horizon necessary to get CCM going over a practical period of time and achieve a good degree of operational stability to prove its worth.

14. Following approval by MPA SOP Committee it is proposed that the MPS funds are allocated as follows

£200K to CCM 2009-11 towards CCM central Management costs. To be paid in quarterly advance transfers.

Up to £100k is contributed to CCM in quarterly advance payments over the first 2 years (2009-10) to pay for blocks of MPS commissioned mediation time.

The first payments to occur by mid January 2009 The provisional profile of payments to CCM is as follows in Table 1

EXEMPT 11

EXEMPT

Table 1 – MPS Funding Profile to CCM Financial Years 2008-11

(‘000’s) Q4 08-9

Q109-10

Q209-10

Q309-10

Q4 09-10

Q110-11

Q210-11

Q310-11

CCMManagementCosts

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

MediationTime

12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5

Total 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5

15. For practical reasons of new start up expediency it is highly recommended that a degree of flexibility is applied to the ratios being applied between management costs and mediation time. This will enable MPS and CCM to get operations going effectively

16. Any subsequent grants, new business cases or contract award recommendations for the period beyond the period Q3 2010 will be the subject of separate papers to the MPA Finance and Resources Committee

MPS/CCM Maximum Financial Liability

17. Based on this profile, the maximum financial exposure to the MPS, in the event CCM were to go into administration or liquidation, a possible risk for a new organisation such as this, is approx £37.5K. The quarterly payments can be stopped at any time if CCM suspends services due to inadequate income.

18 From CCM’s perspective their main liabilities will be to:

Provide mediation services already paid for by stakeholders Honour any contractual obligations to management staff Pay for any outstanding rent and business rate costs for

accommodation

19. CCM will mitigate these risks by:

Provision of a termination clause in management staff contracts Reducing or terminating further commissions to the mediators

acting under separate contract Operating a monthly accommodation termination contract with the

managing agents

Additional CCM Funding Requirements

20. This report has acknowledged that there may be further costs to CCM not envisaged in the July 2008 report to the MPA Finance Committee as follows:

An additional £2300 each year for CCM to provide £100K death benefits to each mediator (To be taken from existing funds)

EXEMPT 12

EXEMPT

Additional physical and personal security provision for the CCM office and mediators domestic property (To be assessed vide free crime prevention survey and funded separately by CCM)

Additional training in counter surveillance and client meeting procedures (To be provided by SCD3 MPS personnel free of charge)

Immediate Liquidity Risk to CCM

21. On or about 31st January 2009, all current funds held by CCM will cease and staff/accommodation will have to be relinquished. This will render the new company insolvent. This position has been reached due to the length of time it has taken the confirmed investors to put in place appropriate legal relations with CCM based on EU procurement rules and reach agreement over high standards of risk management. See next steps above under Section B for contingency proposal.

E - LEGAL IMPLICATIONS By DLS and SHARPE PRITCHARD

There are three principal areas of legal consideration:

Historical Relationship of MPS to CCM

1. MPS have been instrumental in instigating this initiative. In 2007 a multi agency programme board was established to help develop the initiative with grant income from SLF and Home Office. An ACPO lead (Commander Sue Akers) was assigned and discussions between the Violent Crime Directorate, Territorial Policing and SCD led to its inclusion in the 2008-11 Youth Violence Strategy.

2. Not with standing this, Sharpe Pritchard’s clear view is that this historical link between MPS and CCM in no way compromises the present or future relationship. CCM cannot legally be considered part of the MPS and is an independent organisation in its own right. This will be further recognised by the fact that MPS will not take up a position on the CCM Board and will have an oversight role on the Stakeholders Reference Group instead.

Conditional Grant vs Single Tender Contract

3. There are advantages and disadvantages to both the provision of a conditional grant or single tender contract:

A conditional grant is a much simplified legal relationship which allows:o Advance payments to be madeo Not as much detailed content required from either CCM or MPSo A gift to CCM subject to certain actions being made in return

However,

EXEMPT 13

EXEMPT

A contract makes the relationship much more explicit by:o Specifying the services that will be provided in more detailo Allowing a legal claim for funds provided in cases of dispute or

default and providing for early contract terminationo Funds are normally paid after receipt of the serviceo More explicit conditions can be attached to the contract such as

insurance, operating standards and training.o Enabling the MPS to vary the service conditions in the contract

4. DLS and Sharpe Pritchard have a clear preference for a contractual relationship between MPS and CCM

MPS Legal Liability to CCM & Mediators

5. Not withstanding that CCM is an independent company and will have its own contractual relationship with its mediators including operational independence, the MPS could still be liable for a claim from the Mediators in the following areas:

Any failures in the MPS referral and risk assessment process leading to personal injury or death

Any failures in the CCM risk assessment and deployment process based on incorrect MPS information

MPS still has a duty of care under article 8 of the Human Rights Convention for suffering or loss incurred by the mediators albeit they are operating under the management of CCM. Any claim made on CCM’s employers liability or personal insurance may lead to an additional claim against MPS as the commissioning agency. This will be irrespective of any liability conditions attached to the contract or grant.

Report author: James Cooke

Background Papers

Appendix 1 – CCM Business Plan 2007

Appendix 2 – CCM Fund raising Strategy 2008-11

Appendix 3 – CCM Three Year Budget

Appendix 4 – SCD Referral System and Guidance Notes

EXEMPT 14

EXEMPT

Appendix 1

PROJECT MATS

MEDIATION AND TRANSFORMATION

EXEMPT 15

EXEMPT

PROJECT INITIATION

10 December 2007

Prepared by: P A O’Neill BSC (Hons) MBA Project Lead – Mediation

1. PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this document is to outline a formal project initiation for project MATS (mediation and transformation service.)

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 4 December 2007, the project board reviewed and approved a proposal for MATS, surrounding its structure, terms of reference and governance arrangements. It was agreed that the Safer London Foundation (SLF) become the project sponsor and Tony Shepherd, Chief Executive Officer, the Project Executive.

2.2 Project MATS is initiated under the auspices of the 5 boroughs alliance, which has set out a collaborative approach to reduce gun and weapon enabled crime across South East London. The project is but one tactic in a much wider strategy, which proposes to add a 24 hour mediation and conflict resolution service to existing tactical options. In addition, and chiming with the spirit of mediation, the project also aims to establish a transformation service, developing exit programmes for those wishing to leave a culture of violence behind and transform their lives.

3. PROJECT STRUCTURE

3.1 Our Purpose

3.1.1 Through a unique mix of our people, knowledge and expertise, assist all those who wish to resolve conflict; explore alternative understandings of that conflict and develop sustainable pathways to peace and transformation.

3.2 Our Mission

3.2.1 Saving lives, preventing serious injury and providing alternatives to violent conflict.

3.3 Our Aim

EXEMPT 16

EXEMPT

3.3.1 Establish an independently operated service which has the support of the community, credibility of the authorities and respect of those involved in conflict.

3.3.2 In pursuit of our mission and through achievement of our aim, Project MATS will be:

1. RELEVANT – to the quality of life experienced by local communities

2. RESPONSIVE – to the daily operational needs of police commanders and senior investigating officers.

3. COLLABORATIVE – working within the existing framework of partnerships and alliances.

4. PURPOSEFUL AND OUTCOME FOCUSED – with a clear mission to save lives and prevent serious injury.

3.4 Project Phases

3.4.1 Phase 1 is a scoping and presentation phase (November 2007-30 April 2008)

3.4.2 Phase 1 Objectives are:

~ Completion of a project proposal clarifying the set up, planning and control of the project. (November 2007)

~ A full project initiation document(December 2007)

~ Completion of an operational business model(January 2008)

~ A 3 year business plan(January to April 2008)

~ Engage and persuade targeted partner agencies and local community groups, of the utility and benefits residing in our chosen business model(January 2008-April 2008)

~ Agree a legal, accountable body, to independently manage, administer and govern the service(February 2008)

~ By the conclusion of Phase 1, secure sufficient alignment to move the model forward, from concept to implementation.(December 2008 to April 2008)

3.4.3 Achievement of these objectives will result in the following outcomes:

EXEMPT 17

EXEMPT

~ Clarity surrounding the scope and scale of the model

~ A clear business model which describes what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it, and how it makes a difference

~ An economic analysis of costs to benefit and risk to benefit

~ A business plan which proposes moving the business forward, marketing it and communicating across London

3.4.4 Phase 2 is the training implementation and review phase, across the 5 south east London Alliance Boroughs. Of necessity, there is some overlap with Phase 1, to ensure ‘on time’ operability.(March 2008 to 31 may 2008)(May 2008 to 31 August 2008)

3.4.5 Phase 2 objectives are:

~ Identify, contract and induct a management team, sufficiently resilient to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and integrity(February 2008)

~ Identify, contract and train sufficient mediators to provide a 24 hour service across the 5 borough alliance(March 2008 to April 2008)

~ Identify and procure suitable premises to house the service and its management team(March 2008 to April 2008)

~ Identify a procurement process, capable of acquiring equipment and facilities to run the service(March 2008 to April 2008)

~ If not through an existing legal entity, identify and induct a suitable board, to provide both strategic direction and oversee governance(April 2008)

~ Implement the service across 5 alliance boroughs(By 31 May 2008)

~ Initiate an ongoing operational evaluation (May 2008 – August 2008)

~ Agree a marketing and communication plan, robust enough to handle reactive statements and pro-active messages(March 2008 to May 2008)

3.4.6 Achievement of these objectives will result in the following outcomes:

EXEMPT 18

EXEMPT

~ An operational service supplying programmes, surrounding conflict management, resolution and mediation, fit for purpose and operating across the 5 ‘alliance’ boroughs

~ A communication and marketing plan, responsive to media questions about the service and proactive in the sense of reinforcing identified keynote messages

3.4.7 Phase 3 is the planning, presentation and design of a potential pan London mediation and transformation service, should this be the chosen course of action.(June 2008 to 30 September 2008)

3.4.8 Phase 3 Objectives are:

~ Design and agree ‘wrap around’ exit and transformation programmes

(June 2008 to September 2008)

~ Identify within the current operating model: What is; what could be; what should be?(June 2008 to August 2008)

~ Identify a set of criteria to ‘roll out’ the model across agreed borough clusters(July 2008)

~ Complete a project plan, to ensure compliance with geography, timescales and projected cost(July 2008)

~ Modify the existing model to incorporate improvements surrounding – ‘what should be’(August 2008)

~ Identify a procurement process to acquire premises and equipment for phase 4 implementation(August 2008)

~ Engage and persuade target partner agencies and focal community groups, of the utility and benefits residing in the chosen business model(August to 30 September 2008)

3.4.9 Achievement of these objectives will lead to the following outcomes:

~ A pan London organisation(s) capable of running, administering and governing the service across identified boroughs.

~ A pan London model, tested, evaluated, modified and the best it can be

~ Relevant and effective ‘wrap around’ exit and transformation programmes, to augment mediation and conflict resolution

EXEMPT 19

EXEMPT

~ A pan London incremental ‘roll out plan,’ congruent with agreed criteria and inclusive of cost and revenue streams

3.4.10Phase 4 is the commencement of training and implementation for identified borough clusters(October 2008 to TBD)

3.4.11Phase 4 objectives are:

~ Identify and contract existing agencies capable of providing exit and transformation programmes(Commence NOVEMBER 2008)

~ Identify, contract and induct sufficient management resilience, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and integrity across identified London hubs(Commence October 2008)

~ In line with the Pan London organisation structure and business model, initiate procurement of sufficient premises and equipment to enable ‘roll out’(Commence October 2008)

~ To an agreed time line and plan, roll out the service incrementally across borough clusters(Commence October 2008)

~ Identify, train and contract sufficient mediators to provide a service across identified boroughs(Commence November 2008)

3.4.12I do no propose to move beyond this point in setting out Phase 4. To do so would be pure guess work, concerning possibilities and probabilities, time, money, people, systems and performance metrics. As the project moves closer to Phase 4 and building upon the learning contained in Phase 2, more specific and time focussed objectives will emerge.

3.5 Strategy Platform

3.5.1 It is common for many ‘non profits’ to operate without a clear and coherent strategy. This inclines an organisation to either ‘stick’ rigidly to its original mission, even in the face of environmental change, or respond too quickly to market pull (usually suppressed demand) so that it is stretched way beyond its capacity to deliver. In both cases, exposure to this ‘stick or stretch’ syndrome results in organisations moving forward, but quickly reverting back to where they were.

3.5.2 Good strategy will always be a trade off. No organisation can do everything – nor should it seek to do so. The essential trade off outlines what we should not do, in order to be better at what we wish to do. Moreover, it becomes less inviting to stretch

EXEMPT 20

EXEMPT

programmes to suit the purpose of a funder, rather than develop core business.

3.5.3 In the case of project MATS we are in the business of resolving and mediating high risk potentials. We are positioned so because our level of training, expertise, experience and knowledge creates a value chain which is not offered by anyone else within London. We have chosen to be better at what we do by being different – a strategy platform which will not entice us to become stretched beyond what we do best.

3.6 Success Criteria

~ An effective and efficient mediation and transformation service, operating across identified London boroughs.

~ Mediation and conflict resolution approach subsumed and integrated into the overall strategy to reduce serious violence across London.

~ Transformation programmes subsumed and integrated into the overall prevention of youth crime and serious violence.

~ A mediation led approach subsumed and integrated into local area agreements (LAG)

3.7 Quality Criteria

3.7.1 The following are target areas for development, which will become explicit statements of outputs, outcomes and measures within the agreed and finalised business model.

~ Compliance with suggested model and core processes

~ Compliance with service level agreements

~ Strong positive trends with improving results

~ Satisfaction with the service from stakeholders, partners, customers and clients

~ Balanced scorecard of individual and partnership performance measures

~ Improving income generation and reducing dependence upon funding

3.8 Legal Entity

3.8.1 It is proposed that the service be delivered through an accountable body, legally constituted, willing and able to discharge core legal functions and those of governance, financial accountability, risk indemnity and systems management.

3.8.2 An accountable body must not only be capable of indemnifying the public authorities and its sponsors against risk, but also

EXEMPT 21

EXEMPT

demonstrate that it has sufficient gravitas and savvy to assuage any emergent concerns in the following areas:

~ The employment status of mediators

~ Duty of care owed by the parent organisation

~ Governance and financial accountability

~ Reputation and image

~ Sustainability

~ Integrity and security of data

~ Trust, credibility and delivery

~ Independence and neutrality

3.8.3 For these reasons, existing charities and non-profits are unlikely to either accept the level of risk, or may perceive that their present missions and business models are simply incompatible.

3.8.4 The most practical and effective solution seems to be the constitution of a stand alone organisation, in the shape of either a charitable enterprise or private limited company (not for profit.) This would re-enforce neutrality, remove direct risk from public authorities, permits the employment of personnel or the incorporation of associates as independent contractors, facilitate the generation of revenue – whilst strictly controlling its re-investment for the public good. Non profit status also precludes a need to pay corporation tax and allows public authorities to fund identified programmes.

3.8.5 The designated and accountable body may already be established, with a constituent management structure, articles of association and objects, together with a board and constitution. It is envisaged that mediation teams will be independent contractors who are associates of the accountable body. They will be contracted on an assignment basis and will not be registered as permanent or temporary employees.

4. BUSINESS CASE

4.1 Costs

4.1.1 Whilst all phases of the project are scoped within this document, I do not propose to project costs beyond Phase (2), which is implementation across the alliance boroughs. Phase (3) and (4) costs can and will become more accurate and apparent as we move forward, and indeed, should a pan London option be embarked upon. It is worth noting, however, that even Phase (2) costs are subject to the following constraints at present:

EXEMPT 22

EXEMPT

~ No forecasting benchmark of interventions across the alliance boroughs

~ No historic data upon which to extrapolate unit costs per intervention

~ No major event upon which to benchmark long term mediation costs

4.1.2 The cost structure of a mediation and transformation service is heavily skewed towards unit labour costs per intervention. Overheads, management on costs and other fixed costs usually represent around 30% of the total cost base. The remaining 70% of cost is variable, and contingent upon the range and scale of events open to conflict resolution or mediation.

4.1.3 At this point in time it is worth reflecting upon what we do not know:

~ We do not know what or who the accountable body is likely to be

~ We do not know the precise management structure

~ We do not know whether ‘back of house’ systems and processes will be franchised or licensed, or whether they will be designed exclusively for this project.

This becomes crucial in preparing costs, because a franchise option can potentially reduce start up costs by typically 25%. Conversely, a new start up option can add cost exponentially, because design and electronic systems implementation usually results in several weeks trial and error. Consulting fees therefore become punitive.

4.1.4 Whilst we can forecast mediation costs, it would be unwise to attempt the same with organisation costs – and probably wildly inaccurate. At this stage, therefore, suffice to say that the service is unlikely to cost less than 1 million across the 5 boroughs alliance. When organisation structures are agreed and finalised, a full breakdown of costings can be fleshed out.

4.2 Benefits

4.2.1 Conflict resolution, mediation and transformation services, offer a range of cross cutting benefits.

4.3 Communities

4.3.1 The purpose of mediation and conflict resolution is entirely consistent with the overall vision for London and hence strategic fit with local area agreements. Peace, tranquillity and safety is consistently raised by communities as a priority aspiration for good quality of life. When conflict resolution and mediation operates effectively, communities can expect to identify with the following changes:

EXEMPT 23

EXEMPT

~ Less violent crime

~ Less hate generated crime

~ Willingness to enter dialogue

~ More understanding and tolerance of differences

~ More confidence in the civic authorities

~ Less adverse reaction to rumour, myth and innuendo

~ Independent medium to voice concerns regarding rising tensions

4.4 Borough Civic Authorities

4.4.1 Borough Authorities have a need to develop, communicate and execute policy. Economically, they seek to provide an environment attractive to business, investment, tourism, leisure and quality living. This entails the creation of a strong brand and a trusted reputation – contemporary style backed by deliverable substance. Nothing will undermine that brand and destroy reputation quicker than serious violence -whether in the form of shooting, stabbings or serious disorder. They are all committed in public space and subsequent headlines are always big and always ugly. Resolving conflict and mediating those high risk, very public events, translate into the following benefits:

~ Strengthens community safety messages

~ Helps to reduce fear within communities

~ Mitigates and reduces damage to reputation

~ Chimes with regeneration efforts and promotions

~ Enhances the competitive context for business and commerce

~ Enhanced outreach and transformation programmes

~ Access into communities: deeper, quicker

~ Trusted communication medium between communities and public authorities

~ Enhanced ‘temperature gauging’ of community tension

~ Peer programmes enhance social and emotional intelligence

~ Additional programmes create local jobs and increase skill levels

EXEMPT 24

EXEMPT

~ Promotes local problem solving by local people

4.5 Business and Commerce

4.5.1 Economist Milton Friedman once famously argued that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. There are two implicit assumptions underpinning Friedman: that social and economic objectives are separate and distinct; that corporations, when they address social objectives, provide no greater value than individual donors.

4.5.2 Companies do not function in isolation from the society around them. In fact, their ability to compete depends heavily upon the circumstances of the locations in which they operate. The more a social improvement relates to a company business, the more it leads to economic benefits as well.¹

4.5.3 A safer environment, more confident investors, workers and tourists, can only benefit London business. Conversely, pockets of public violence, constant branding surrounding ‘unsafe’ and a dearth of vibrant, educated, motivated future workers, can only damage prospects. Private enterprise has a huge stake in securing a safer London.

Note: (¹) Michael Porter has extensively argued that social and corporate objectives, within a competitive context, are mutually re-inforcing

4.6 Police Benefits

4.6.1 There are pivotal benefits to the police – proactive and reactive – within both the neighbourhood and investigation of serious crime arenas. Police Borough Commanders will hold a direct stake in the concept of safer neighbourhoods, less community tension and longer term alignment. Police Senior Investigators will not wish to see linked and retaliatory attacks; tension created by myth and inaccurate information, surrounding specific investigations, and community intransigence borne out of cultural misunderstanding and miscommunication. Economically, the Home Office has costed a serious homicide at 1.1 million. This takes account of set up and investigation costs, trauma, counselling and prosecution. The saving of

every homicide major investigation eradicates sunk costs and permits reinvestment in different and more innovative solutions. The return on a mediation investment, therefore, is usually swift, tangible and yields both in the short and long run. In best value terms, the argument is no different to that posited in health, regarding the reduction and eradication of lifestyle disease. Specifically, police commanders can expect the following benefits:

~ Less homicide and serious injury

EXEMPT 25

EXEMPT

~ Reduced opportunity cost

~ Less direct conflict and community tension

~ Expert knowledge during operational planning

~ A good foil to harder edged enforcement crackdowns

~ Pro-active dialogue to build longer term alignment

~ Enhanced police family relationships in major investigations

~ Less ‘tit for tat’ retaliation

~ Myth busting and clarification of key messages into the community

~ Trusted broker between police and specific interest groups – particularly in high profile serious investigations

4.7 Client Group

4.7.1 The primary client group are those individuals and families who will become end users of the service – usually through referral. Experience suggests there will be a plethora of reasons behind referral, which precludes the possibility of a comprehensive list of benefits. The below listed, however, are good exemplars of client benefits.

~ A service which gives direct voice to client feedback

~ A point of mediation between high risk clients and families

~ A point of mediation between high risk clients and communities (post release)

~ An opportunity to resolve conflict - whilst incarcerated

~ An opportunity to mediate between groups who wish to eschew violence and pursue other alternatives

~ An opportunity to exit violent lifestyles, resettle and transform their life

~ An opportunity for communities in conflict, to diffuse tension and settle conflict rather than resorting to attrition and disorder

4.8 Summation of Benefits

4.8.1 Whilst it has not been the intention within this paper to sequentially list all stakeholder benefits, the final reflection is, perhaps, a focus

EXEMPT 26

EXEMPT

upon the potential outcomes of conflict resolution and mediation, which yield cross cutting benefits across all stakeholding agencies.

~ Less homicide

~ Less serious injury

~ Less community fear

~ Less rising community tension

~ Less reputational damage

~ Less political turbulence

~ Resettled offenders

~ Less violent re-offending

~ Less criminal justice costs

~ Safer neighbourhoods

~ More competitive business locations

4.9 Cost to Benefit Analysis

4.9.1 Undertaking economic analysis within the public sector is more of an art than a science. Outputs are complex, multiple and imprecise. This is no more evident than within personal social provision, where clients are more likely to value the process – close personal interaction – more than the outcome. The nature of outcomes, therefore, serve only to exacerbate the challenge, being inter-related, dependent upon context, difficult to isolate and, hence, attribute. The standard tools of economic analysis are, therefore, a poor barometer of public sector financial performance. Significant exemplars are the benefits alluded too. How do we place an economic value on reducing community fear? Less community tension? A better reputation for London? Within a mediation context, how do we prove that a mediated intervention saved a life or prevented a violent course of action? We can infer from what the client tells us that mediation may have contributed towards prevention outcomes, but then so might enforcement and the threat of detection. Outcomes, therefore, are truly inter-related, difficult to isolate and attribute in any scientific sense.

4.9.2 This not withstanding, it is possible to isolate and attribute outputs, link them to outcomes and infer that, on a balance of probability, they were the major contributory factor. This can be supported by asking: what does the client group say? Were there any other factors at the time which could have led to the outcome (i.e. key nominals incarcerated)? Moreover, what were the trends in other areas, across the same time series, where mediation was not occurring?

EXEMPT 27

EXEMPT

4.9.3 On this basis alone, we know that the net cost of every homicide is 1.1 million (sterling). We also know that a serious wounding costs £130k (sterling)². The cost of bringing a case through the criminal justice system alone makes these figures compelling, let alone the costs of investigation, trauma and incarceration.

4.9.4 A weighing of the tangible benefits of less homicide and serious injury alone makes out the economic case for resolving and preventing conflict, when juxtaposed with the cost of running a service. The prevention of one homicide per year realises an immediate return on the yearly operating costs. In other words that saving pays for the service for one year. The prevention of eight (8) serious woundings, likewise, pays for one year’s operating costs.

4.9.5 For the reasons stated, an economic comparison of less tangible aspects is more difficult, but can be compared conceptually. We can imagine the impact of continual and incremental news items, counting and reiterating the toll of deaths on London streets in a calendar year. Because violence in public is a ‘signal crime,’ it sends out messages to everyone that the streets are unsafe, the authorities have lost control and perception is hugely disproportionate to the reality. Unfortunately, in the communication business, perception becomes reality, and the fear generated is corrosive and undermines all other good news stories. We can also imagine the reaction of investors and potential tourists. Bad news is now within the control of the click of a mouse. With 24 hour news, blogs and websites, those bad news stories are not only broadcast but continually re-iterated, debated and re-enforced via the web. Bad news in particular, does indeed travel fast.

4.9.6 Political aspects are equally challenging. Every time local and national government wish to move forward on the positive, a public shooting bucks that trend and places them on the back foot. Now forced to defend a rising homicide count, pro-active, social change and cohesion policies become less convincing, while people are dying.

Note: (²) The Home Office produced a series of costings 2004-2006 which attributes economic costs to crime.

Until the guns are less active and fewer people are being injured, social change will take place in a political maelstrom and a sterile debate about yesterday rather than tomorrow.

4.9.7 Economically, we also know that by increasing incentives, we bind parties into a relationship whereby they have much to lose. The case for mediation travels this path, by resolving conflict and holding out more peaceful lifestyles, those previously locked in conflict increase their stake in society. This stake begins to build whereby, like the rest of us, opting out means we all simply have too much to lose. This does not mean a complete absence of conflict. There will always be conflict between individuals, groups and even nation states. Most accept, however, that they have too much to lose to let their disagreements get out of control. So they debate and argue, but they do not start shooting.

EXEMPT 28

EXEMPT

4.9.8 Economics has been called the ‘dismal science’ and dismal it has all too often been. It seems, therefore, that economics is a strange place to look for hope in taking out the conflict, building a greater stake in society and realising the benefits this will bring. On a basic economic analysis, the project costs are significantly outweighed by its benefits.

4.10 Risk to Benefit Analysis

4.10.1Whilst the economic case may be sound, the yield of benefits to risk also demands scrutiny. Before dealing with specific project implementation risks let us first review the operational risk to benefit case.

4.10.2The benefit side has already been well rehearsed and needs no further clarification. On the operational risk side, the point needs to be made quickly that the proposed service will deal at the higher end of risk – both at individual and group levels. Therefore mediators will be asked to interact with people who, in some cases, have been at the margins of society, and intervene in situations of high dudgeon. This is precisely the business model that deviates from many people’s perception of mediation - moderate individual, workplace and community disputes. Specifically, operational risks in this arena are:

~ Poor and incomplete risk assessment

~ Mediators are blamed and targeted for subsequent arrests

~ Mediators are followed and attacked

~ Mediators are viewed as intelligence agents for the police

~ Mediation is not perceived as neutral

~ Poor mediation technique, which exposes other parties

~ Mediators become fearful and opt out

~ Public authorities expect persuasion to be a ‘one off’ not a process

~ Mediation teams feel under pressure to deliver instant results

~ A mediator brings an action for negligence and wins damages

~ Success is expected as an outcome of every intervention

~ Mediation becomes solely event and crisis driven

~ Public authorities do not share information

~ No long term, strategic referrals

EXEMPT 29

EXEMPT

~ Referrals are channelled through a single agency rather than a partnership, which cements the perception of being a tactical arm of that agency

4.11 Can the Risks be Mitigated?

4.11.1In short, mostly they can. The risks cannot be entirely removed, because we are dealing with some unstable people in an unpredictable operating environment. The chance of an unforeseen event occurring cannot be ruled out. This, however, is the risk that is taken independently and voluntarily by mediators. They accept assignments, each on their merits; they are not salaried and cannot be compelled into acceptance. They operate as independent contractors although this has not yet been tested in court. Mitigating measures include the following:

~ Contracts – outlining independent status

~ Good risk assessment – which features the assignment, the information, the person, venue and contingencies

~ The best training on offer – including risk assessment and counter surveillance techniques

~ Documented case logs – which track each assignment from information through to ‘sign off’

~ After action reviews – which document positive and negative features, then fed in real time into the next assignment

~ A central clearing house for referrals – which is through a partnership rather than each agency referring

independently

~ Accountable body – which is a separate legal entity, with its own articles of association and objects, detached from the public

authorities

~ Principle of ‘do no harm’ - no assignment is accepted if it breaches this principle, either to an individual, group or reputation

~ Strict governance through a strong and challenging board – people who not only review an option but continually ask why?

~ Better stakeholder understanding – and a need to grasp that mediation is a tactic not a stand alone strategy, it

cannot deliver on its own and results are not always instant

4.11.2Whilst the economic case is clear cut, perhaps the risk to benefit case is more opaque. There are risks attached to running the service undeniably so, but surely the central question remains: do the potential benefits justify the higher risk and can some of that risk be mitigated? I feel on balance the answer is yes; providing stakeholders are assured of the confidence, competence, integrity and expertise of the accountable body. Perhaps what tips the

EXEMPT 30

EXEMPT

balance is a look at a similar operation. In Birmingham a high risk mediation service has been in operation for 3 years, its stakeholders facing the same issues and decisions. During that time, no mediator has even come close to being injured. Whilst past performance is no guarantee of future success, it is perhaps the best indication we have that it can be done safely and effectively.

4.12 Project Implementation Risk

4.12.1We should all by now, I believe, accept that this is no ordinary project. By its nature, the concept is new and different to most, let alone its constituent risk and political connotations. But nothing worthwhile was ever achieved without much trouble and we should expect the bar to be set higher for implementation of a project of this nature. The most clear and present risks to implantation are:

~ No credible accountable body to run the service

~ Insufficient funding to kick start the implementation phase

~ Poor or no stakeholder ‘buy in’ to the concept and/or business model

~ Powerful opposition from key stakeholders

~ Strong community resistance

~ Planning setbacks delay implementation phase

~ Unforeseen events delay the process

~ Unforeseen events change stakeholder’s views

~ Operational pressures to implement compromises quality

~ Insufficient people with the right skill sets to become mediators

~ Poor drive and lack of leadership during implementation phase

~ Poor vision fails to mitigate threats and capitalise upon future opportunity

~ Failure to establish early independence from the public authorities

~ Strong resistance from the client group to engage in dialogue

~ Poorly forged partnerships fail to open the right doors into communities

4.13 Can these Risks be Mitigated?

EXEMPT 31

EXEMPT

4.13.1In short, yes, in nearly all cases. The risks broadly breakdown into the following categories.

~ The right business model for London

~ The right people in the right positions

~ A robust 3 year Business Plan

~ Stringent review and monitoring of costs and processes by project board

~ A targeted communication plan

~ Strong bonds between operational partners

~ Capacity to quickly review and rectify what is not working

5. PROJECT CONSTITUENCIES

5.1 There is a tendency in public sector projects to use transferable terminology, which becomes lost in translation and confusing to communities. For operational reasons, this project in particular must be clear about its various constituencies, which were agreed at the first board meeting on 4 December 2007.

5.2 Stakeholders

5.2.1 Everyone who holds a direct stake in the purpose, performance and outcomes of a mediation and transformation service. These would typically be current organisations represented in CDRP and community safety partnerships. They would also include those organisations charged with economic development and promotion of London as a city. Most importantly – communities and the 5 boroughs alliance.

5.3 Partners

5.3.1 Those who share a common purpose and, most importantly, can enhance the mission through customer service improvements or assist growth.

5.3.2 Not every stakeholder can be a partner nor would they wish to be. Typically a mediation and transformation service will partner with existing borough mediation teams, MPS, National Probation Service, YOS and those around the MAPPA table. Also, because of their propensity to influence growth – those who fund or sponsor the service.

5.4 Allies

5.4.1 Organisations with whom it is desirable to collaborate, but do not meet the criteria for stakeholding/partnership

EXEMPT 32

EXEMPT

5.4.2 These would embrace a range of third sector organisations.

5.5 Customers

5.5.1 Direct corporate end users of the service – usually commissioning direct referrals.

5.6 Clients

5.6.1 Direct individual, group and community end users of the service, for or by whom referrals are commissioned.

6. REVIEW AND CONTROL MECHANISMS

6.1 The primary purpose of the project board is to ensure the project is delivered: on time; to the correct specification; on budget. It discharges those functions by reviewing project milestones, controlling cost and expenditure and ensuring the business model is fit for purpose.

6.2 The board, on reviewing the formal project proposal document, decided to discharge their functions during fortnightly meetings. The project plan, issues, risks and budgets, will be reviewed against the following criteria:

~ RED – High probability of non compliance with forecast. Immediate remedial action required.

~ AMBER – Generally on course for compliance, but requires ongoing focus and scrutiny.

~ GREEN – high probability that it will meet compliance criteria

7. PROJECT PLAN

7.1 Social projects of this nature do not tend to lend themselves to rigid GANTT charts or critical path analysis. The process is often unpredictable and subject to frequent change. To that end, therefore, the board agreed to a project plan which sets out:

~ Project Phases (Appendix 1)

~ Project Milestones (Appendix 2)

~ Planning Matrix (Appendix 3)

~ Risk Analysis (Appendix 4)

8. PROJECT ORGANISATION

EXEMPT 33

EXEMPT

8.1 The project is currently structured around 1 project manager, reporting to a project board, and assisted by an administrator. There is effectively no project team.

8.2 It is envisaged that, as the plan matures, management staff and mediators will be recruited and become part of the implementation process. Indeed, they will become central figures in the procurement process and selection of suitable premises.

8.3 In addition, key people at borough level, both within existing mediation service providers and the statutory authorities, will perform inputs during the implementation phase. In effect, there will be a series of virtual and transitory project teams.

9. FUNDING

9.1 Starvation of funds is, perhaps, one of the chief ongoing threats to the start up and sustainability of the service. Even at this early stage, it is possible to envisage that the first year costs will be at least 1 million (sterling), and subsequent years no less than 8-900k (sterling), for each cluster of 5 boroughs. This is a sizeable pot of money by any standards and it is important that the business plan identifies and actions every potential ‘profit pool’ and income stream available. The business must eke out increasing self sufficiency over the medium to long run.

9.2 Funding for year one is not yet underwritten – save for the scoping and planning phase. It is highly likely that at least 80% of the first year’s implementation costs will need to be found from 08-09 statutory authority budget allocations and possibly 20% from other funding sources. This aspect will be explored throughout the whole of phase 1 and some of phase 2.

10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Resolving conflict, making and keeping the peace is about more than the absence of conflict. It is the presence of decency. Decency provided through mechanisms of dialogue, opportunities to explore mutual respect and accommodations, along with programmes to make a difference to those who wish to eschew violence.

10.2 The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, is on record stating that, apart from terrorism, serious youth violence is the biggest threat facing London. This might be said of most of our major cities at present and the problem requires no further emphasis.

10.3 Project MATS is a solution based tactic which, when operated effectively, holds out the prospect of saving lives both in the short and long run. It is costly, bears more than the normal operating risks and comes with no guarantees of success. It is, however, the only tactic on offer which takes out the conflict. From arrest to incarceration, the conflict remains, and increases the chances that tomorrow will simply bring more of today.

EXEMPT 34

EXEMPT

10.4 A London mediation and transformation service has a real opportunity to lead the field, with some ground breaking work surrounding conflict resolution. Sure there are risks. Sure there are imponderables. With the right level of planning, evaluation, and majoring on what works, however, those risks can be overcome. This project can and will overcome those difficulties and provide London with a first class service. I commend the project to you.

Peter A O’NeillProject Manager

EXEMPT 35

EXEMPT

Appendix 2

CAPITAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT (CCM)

BUDGET AND FUNDING FORMULAE 08 – 2011

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to outline funding proposals for the next 3 years. It should be read in conjunction with CCM budget projections.

2. BACKGROUND

The following funding formulae was proposed and submitted by The Metropolitan Police service (MPS), at the last stake holder reference group meeting, held on//. It is based upon the premise that investing agencies make a contribution towards the central overhead costs of the organisation and, in addition, buy operational mediator time at a preferential rate. Agencies who do not wish to commit funding ‘up front’, can still purchase case work, on a ‘pay as you go’ basis, at a more costly rate.

Additionally, founding investors, who have committed monies in year 1, will retain their preferential rate in years 2 and 3 (capped). New investors, seeking to commit money in year 2 or 3, will still receive a better rate than case work clients, but will not receive the capped rate - available to year 1 investors. All investors will receive 100 complimentary operational hours, in recognition of their commitment to CCM.

The following paragraphs outline in detail, how the numbers support the concept.

3. YEAR 1.

Contribution to overhead

MPS have agreed to under write all central management salaries (year 1 only).

This amounts to £123,200 of central fixed costs (MD, ops manager, data manager).

Remaining borough investors would need to fund the balance (£162,660.) The aggregate of both central contributions, will fund the first year overhead total of £285, 860. On a sliding scale of contributions, Boroughs would need to commit the following monies:

EXEMPT 36

EXEMPT

5 Boroughs 32.6K each4 Boroughs 40.7K each2 Boroughs 81.4K each

Pricing model

In addition to their central contribution, investors will be required to purchase operational time, in blocks of hours, at £120 per hour. This hourly rate, buys a team of 2 trained conflict engagement specialists (CES). A representative sample of block purchase would amount to the following:

20 hours - 2.4K50 hours – 6K100 hours – 12K

Investors would be at liberty to purchase blocks, dependant upon preference and need. The only caveat being that hours must be paid for in advance.

Case work clients, purchasing at the ‘pay as you go’ rate, would pay the following rates:

20 hours – 4K50 hours – 10K100 hours – 20K

4. YEAR 2.

Contribution to overhead

32 Boroughs 8.1K each20 Boroughs 12.9K each18 ‘hot spot’ Boroughs 14.4K each5 Boroughs 51.6K each

Pricing Model

In year 2, new investors will be invited to buy operational time at £150 per hour, per team of 2 (CES). A representative model of block purchase would resemble the following:

20 hours – 3K50 hours – 7.5K100 hours – 15K

Year 2 case work clients will pay the same rate as year 1 (£200 per hour). Therefore the breakdown of block purchase hours is the same.

EXEMPT 37

EXEMPT

5. YEAR 3

Contribution to overhead:

32 Boroughs 8.3K each20 Boroughs 13.3K each18 hot spot Boroughs 14.8K each5 Boroughs 53.2K each

Pricing Model.

The CCM pricing model for year 3 is identical to that in year 2. Therefore the breakdown of block purchase remains the same.

6. FINAL CAVEATS

Year 1 is very much a bench mark year in terms of demand, income and expenditure. Year 2 and 3 projections will need to be revised accordingly and when we know the impact of demand upon overhead.

For example, whilst year 1 overhead costs are fixed, they may become variable in years 2 and 3. We may have to add a further operations manager, or invest more in training CES teams. This will depend upon demand and exponential growth.

Operational costs will always remain variable, contingent upon the level and nature of demand. It will be possible, however, to predict a range of operational cost, once we have some bench mark data and are able to determine control limits (upper and lower). At this juncture, there are no advance plans for MPS to invest beyond year 1.

P.A. O’NeillFor and on behalf of CCM

EXEMPT 38

EXEMPT

Appendix 3

CCM BUDGET       

 Year One

Total  Year Two

Total  Year Three

Total

EXPENDITURE - Training                     

         

   

   

Mediator training 16,920   17,000   20,000

Operations coaching 16,500   17,000   20,000

     

  33,420     34,000    40,000

           

EXPENDITURE – Management Staff & Overheads          

           

Managing Director 30,000   31,000 32,000 Part Time (20hrs per week)

National Insurance 3,600   3,708   3,800

  33,600   34,708   35,800

           

Operations Manager 60,000   61,500   63,000 Full-time

National Insurance 6,000   6,200   6,400

           

Data Manager 30,000   31,000   32,000 Full-time

National Insurance 3,600   3,708   3,800

           

Administrator 10,000   10,600   11,218 Part time (20hrs per week)

National Insurance 1,860   1,916   1,973

           

Management salaries and costs 145,060   149,632   154,191

           

Rent 25,000   25,750   26,523

Meeting room hire 5,000   5,150   5,305

Rates and water 12,000   12,360   12,731

Light and heat 1,000   1,030   1,061

Insurance 15,000   15,450   15,914

Telephone and internet 10,000   10,300   10,609

Printing and stationery 2,000   2,060   2,122

Postage and couriers 500   515   530

Equipment upgrade and maintenance 5,000   5,150   5,305

Capital spend on ICT 5,800   0   0

   

Travel and subsistence 10,000   10,300   10,609

Entertainment 2,000   2,060   2,122

Book-keeping and accountancy fees 11,500   11,845   12,200

Legal fees - contract and general advice 10,000        

Marketing & Community consultations 2,000        

Review and evaluations 6,000   6,180   6,365

           

  122,860   108,000   112,000

 Total operational and overhead expenditure

 302,000

 

 292,000

 

 306,000   

EXEMPT 39

EXEMPT

EXEMPT 40

Appendix 4AForm A RESTRICTED SCD3 Reference……………

Referral to Capital Conflict Management (CCM)

PART I – Commissioning

1.1Rank /Name of referrer

1.2 24Hr Contact detailsMobile telephone Office Telephone Email

1.3 OCU / Borough

1.4 Date of request

1.5Operation / Event Name

1.6 Officer Completing

PART II – Situation Information

2 Why is mediation being requested?

2.1Give details of [1] recent events leading to request and [2] brief general historical background of the gang including any changes of offending / violence/ group dynamics within the last 6 months

1] Recent events leading to requestChronological details of the event, which triggered the reason for the referral. To include precise details of intelligence including dates, venues and key personnel and suspected cause.

E.g. On 25th August 2008 information was received (B2) that Mr B from the SMALL gang was seen going out to a party with Lara Dunn. Lara is the current girlfriend of J the leader of the BIG gang. J was in prison when this occurred but having been released a few days ago, he has just found out and J is planning to stab Mr B in revenge (B3) [2] Brief general historical background of the gang including any changes of offending / violence/ group dynamics within the last 6 months.Short précis of the gang including – area, estimated numbers, apparent leaders, general dynamics, criminal enterprises, offending history, violence used and weapons.

E.g. The BIG gang are affiliated with the North estate and boast around 60 members. It has been established over the last 12 months. The current leaders are J, K and M. The gang membership includes mainly white males aged 14-20 and have an established hierarchy. The BIG gang have an ongoing turf war with the SMALL gang over parts of the North estate; this maybe linked to the supply of crack The gang is linked to the supply of cocaine and cannabis. They have been involved with tit for tat violence, stabbings, street robberies, possession of weapons including firearms and armed robberies. A firearm was discharged during one offence. Recent information shows that the BIG gang are trying to expand and increase their street credibility.

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

2.2What other police responses are being undertaken, e.g. ongoing investigations, disruption / intervention activity.

Part III- Identified Gang / Group Risks

3 Identification of risk

3.1

Violence: State the gangs’ propensity for violent acts. Provide details of relevant intelligence references

Provide details of relevant intelligence and other references (Crimint+, CRIS, CAD etc) to include levels of violence used in crimes, injuries caused, numbers involved, violence involved in previous revenge attacks.

3.2

Weapons: State what weapons are known or believed to be in possession of the group and are there any reported instances of their use.

Give types of weapons believed to be held and or used and in the case of firearms whether there has been instances where they have been threatened or discharged.

3.3

Previous events: have there been any previous conflicts / allegiances between the two groups/key individuals and what was the result of these interactions

Have there been any previous conflicts / allegiances between the two groups/key individuals and what was the result of these interactions. Any previous mediation or intervention methods used

3.4

Geographical issues:

Give believed or known territorial boundaries and areas where territorial conflicts are prevalent.Are there any areas close by that are ‘controlled’ by other groups/rival gangs?

3.5

Other information: Is there any other information known that is non-disclosable but may affect the Risk Assessment: State whether this raises or lowers the risk in any wayConsider: Community tension indicators, public fear etc.

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

Part IV – Subject Details and Identified Risks

4 Details of key individuals requiring mediation intervention

Give information / intelligence known concerning key individuals and groups involved.Please include the following information and assign appropriate evaluation coding (For 5x5x5 evaluation see end & guidelines)

Subject 1

4.1 Name4.2 Street Name(s)4.3 Date of Birth4.4 Address4.5 Contact Details4.6 PNC Warning Signals4.7 Believed member of which gang(s)

4.8 Geographical boundaries: gang territory/areas frequented.5x5x5 rating

Ref and Date

4.9 Access to firearms direct/indirect and other weapons believed to be carried

4.10

Propensity to use/display violence (as an individual and associated group)

(Include previous convictions and other intelligence) Give report details / references (Crimint+ etc)

4.11

Is the individual subject to any supervision order or other licence condition?If so, give contact details of persons supervising subject e.g. Youth worker / Probation Officer

4.12

Details of any persons able to facilitate access / dialogue with subject or gang

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

Subject 2

4.13

Name

4.14

Street Name(s)

4.15

Date of Birth

4.16

Address

4.17

Contact Details

4.18

PNC Warning Signals

4.19

Believed member of which gang(s)

4.20

Geographical boundaries: gang territory/areas frequented.5x5x5 rating

Ref and Date

4.21

Access to firearms direct/indirect and other weapons believed to be carried

4.22

Propensity to use/display violence (as an individual and associated group)

(Include previous convictions and other intelligence) Give report details/references (Crimint+ etc)

4.23

Is the individual subject to any supervision order or other licence condition?If so, give contact details of persons supervising subject e.g. Youth worker / Probation Officer

4.24

Details of any persons able to facilitate access / dialogue with subject or gang

Indices Search (Used to inform Part IV)

4.25 Indices Checklist

DATABASE Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5

PNC

IIPCRIMINT + (Previous 24 hours)INFOS

Additional information: State

INI

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

PART V– Aims and objectives of mediation request

5Aim of mediation Please state your specific aims and objectives for the mediation referral.

5.1 Primary aim /objective

S.M.A.R.TState timescalesE.g. to prevent retaliatory events / reduce occurrence of violence for a set time period

5.2 Secondary aims /objectives

S.M.A.R.TTo include long term approach to prevent and reduce incidents of serious violence/ reduce community tension /increase public confidence

5.3Is there any other information that cannot be passed to CCM that affects the degree of risk?Please state how the risk levels may be altered.

Part VI - Authorities and key commission details

6.1 Initial mediation hours authorised

6.4Person authorising (Must be rank of Inspector or above)

Part VII – Quality Assurance

SCD3 use only

7.1

All key information present and clear

Criteria: Geographical B(OCU)- LX / MD / ZD Serious violence / threat Serious disturbance / public unrest MPS reputation at stake

7.2

SCD 1, 7, 8 Alliance BOCU / CDRP

7.3

Criteria met

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

Part VIII - Updates

8.1Ongoing Updates

5x5x5 rating

Date of infoDate

MPS Information Handling Codes

Information and intelligence handling codes 5x5x5

SourceAAlways reliable

BMostly reliable

CSometimes reliable

DUnreliable

EUntested

Intelligence

1

Known to be true without reservation

2

Known personally to source but not the officer

3

Not personally known to source but corroborated

4

Cannot be judged

5

Suspected to be false

Dissemination

1

May be disseminated to other law enforcement and prosecuting agencies, including law enforcement agencies within the EEA[1] and EU. (No code or conditions)

2

May be disseminated to UK non-prosecuting parties (Code 3.7 conditions apply)

3

May be disseminated to non-EEA law enforcement agencies (Code 4.7 and / or conditions apply, specify below)

4

Only disseminate within originating agency / force. Specify internal recipient(s)

5

Disseminated Intelligence Receiving agency to observe conditions as specified below

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Appendix 4BForm B RESTRICTED SCD3 Reference……………

Referral to Capital Conflict Management (CCM)

PART I – Commissioning

1.1Rank / Name of referrer

1.2 24Hr Contact detailsMobile telephone Office Telephone Email

1.3 OCU / Borough

1.4 Date of request

PART II – Aims and objectives of mediation request

2 Aim of mediation Please state your specific aims and objectives for the mediation referral.

2.1 Primary aim /objective

S.M.A.R.TState timescalesE.g. to prevent retaliatory events / reduce occurrence of violence for a set time period

2.2 Secondary aims /objectives

S.M.A.R.TTo include long term approach to prevent and reduce incidents of serious violence/ reduce community tension /increase public confidence

Part III - Authorities and key commission details

3.1Initial mediation hours authorised

3.2Person authorising (Must be rank of Inspector or above)

3.3 SCD3 Gatekeeper

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

PART IV – Situation Information

4 Why is mediation being requested?

4.1 Give details of recent events leading to request.

4.2Brief general historical background of the gang including any changes of offending / violence / group dynamics within the last 6 months

Part V - Gang /Group Identified Risk

5 Identification of risk5.1

Violence: State the levels of violence displayed by the group or individuals. Give details of relevant previous convictions

5.2

Weapons: State what weapons are known or believed to be in possession of the group or individual and are there any reported instances of their use.

5.3

Previous events: have there been any previous conflicts / allegiances between the two groups/key individuals and what was the result of these interactions

5.4

Geographical issues: state what areas are deemed under “control” or occupied by the gang / individuals and possibly regarded as no-go areas for members of other gangs. State whether there is any conflict over theses territories.

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

Part VI – Subject Details and Identified Risk

6 Details of key individuals requiring mediation intervention

Subject 1

6.1 Name6.2 Street Name(s)6.3 Date of Birth6.4 Address6.5 Contact Details6.6 PNC Warning Signals6.7 Believed member of which gang(s)

6.8 Geographical boundaries: gang territory/areas frequented.5x5x5 rating

Ref and Date

6.9 Access to firearms direct/indirect and other weapons believed to be carried

6.10

Propensity to use/display violence (as an individual and associated group)

(include previous convictions and other intelligence) Give report details/references (Crimint+ etc)

6.11

Is the individual subject to any supervision order or other licence condition?If so, give contact details of persons supervising subject e.g. Youth worker / Probation Officer

6.12

Details of any persons able to facilitate access / dialogue with subject or gang

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

Subject 2

6.13

Name

6.14

Street Name(s)

6.15

Date of Birth

6.16

Address

6.17

Contact Details

6.18

PNC Warning Signals

6.19

Believed member of which gang(s)

6.20

Geographical boundaries: gang territory/areas frequented.5x5x5 rating

Ref and Date

6.21

Access to firearms direct/indirect and other weapons believed to be carried

6.22

Propensity to use/display violence (as an individual and associated group)

(include previous convictions and other intelligence) Give report details/references (Crimint+ etc)

6.23

Is the individual subject to any supervision order or other licence condition?If so, give contact details of persons supervising subject e.g. Youth worker / Probation Officer

6.24

Details of any persons able to facilitate access / dialogue with subject or gang

(Online form will have additional suspect generation capability)

6.25Is there any other information that cannot be passed to CCM that affects the degree of risk?Please state how the risk levels may be altered.

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox

Restricted

Part VII – Updates

8.1Ongoing Updates

5x5x5 rating

Date of infoDate

MPS Information Handling Codes

Information and intelligence handling codes 5x5x5

SourceAAlways reliable

BMostly reliable

CSometimes reliable

DUnreliable

EUntested

Intelligence

1

Known to be true without reservation

2

Known personally to source but not the officer

3

Not personally known to source but corroborated

4

Cannot be judged

5

Suspected to be false

Dissemination

1

May be disseminated to other law enforcement and prosecuting agencies, including law enforcement agencies within the EEA[1] and EU. (No code or conditions)

2

May be disseminated to UK non-prosecuting parties (Code 3.7 conditions apply)

3

May be disseminated to non-EEA law enforcement agencies (Code 4.7 and / or conditions apply, specify below)

4

Only disseminate within originating agency / force. Specify internal recipient(s)

5

Disseminated Intelligence Receiving agency to observe conditions as specified below

For further information Contact SCD3 on 02072303622/ 63622Send completed form to SCD3 Mailbox