Identifying emerging issues: a partnership approach

1. Identifying emerging issues: a partnership approach Horizon Scanning for the 2008 Partnership Strategic Assessments in Northamptonshire Matt Chester, ComPaSS Manager Natalie Benton, Senior Intelligence Analyst

2. Partnership Strategic Assessment: Setting the Partnership Context

3. Setting the Scene: Northamptonshire • Two tier authority: 1 County Council and 7 District/Boroughs • Three tiers: 2 BCUs and 6 CDRPs • Four tiers: 41 Safer Communities Teams and 18 Neighbourhood Management Areas (incorporating Neighbourhood Renewal activity) and 3 Rural Renewal Clusters

4. Setting the Scene: The ‘customers’ Corby Borough Council Borough Council of Wellingborough Kettering Borough Council Northamptonshire County Council Northamptonshire Criminal Justice Board South Northamptonshire Council Northamptonshire Police Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service Wellingborough Community Safety Partnership Daventry District & South Northamptonshire Safer and Stronger Partnership Victim Support Northamptonshire Probation Area Government Office for the East Midlands Region Daventry District Council East Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership Safer Stronger Northampton Partnership Northamptonshire Drug & Alcohol Action Team Northamptonshire Teaching Primary Care Trust Children & Young Peoples’ Partnership Northamptonshire Domestic Abuse Forum Third Sector Northamptonshire Race Equality Council Northamptonshire Observatory Youth Offending Service

5. Setting the Scene: Applying lessons learnt 2007 2008 Police contribute analytical expertise Guidance available and reference to other examples Clearer understanding (still needs work!) Steering Board developed (becoming a CDRP Development and Support Group) and technical group Improve management of the tasking processes Stakeholders Consultation and Horizon Scanning Event and Critical Readers’ – as contributors Police contribute data Lack of guidance Lack of understanding – purpose and planning process Limited steer Limited milestones Critical Readers’ – license to be critical

6. Setting the Scene: The Assessment Structure • Decision made to undertake a Joint Police/Partnership Strategic Assessment = 2 documents • Feeding the BCU Control Strategy, CDRP Partnership Plan refresh, Level 2 Police Strategic Assessment, County Community Safety Agreement, Northamptonshire Local Area Agreement • Geographic and Thematic Approach: • Environment • Vulnerable People • Offender Management & Repeat Victimisation • Substance Misuse • Community Cohesion • More ‘traditional’ Crime/Offence Groups • County 1 • BCU 1+1 • CDRP 2+4

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

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

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

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

11. Risk Matrix Key Impact Factors

12. Priorities Selected County Level

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

14. Critical Readers’ Event [Production of the Critical Readers’ drafts of the assessments] An opportunity to: • Refine the priorities identified • Identify any emerging issues/priorities not covered • Review content • Review, refine and contribute to the SWOT analysis • Undertake risk analysis • Review and refine the recommendations

15. Environment Offender Management and Repeat Victimisation Vulnerable People Substance Misuse Community Cohesion Critical Readers’ Event: Tasks Thematic groupings 1) What is going on nationally that is not represented in the document? 2) Is there anything that is fundamentally incorrect? 3) What evidence-based recommendations should be included or refined – which agency should be identified as the suggested lead? 4) What gaps are there and who/which agency is responsible for closing this gap?

16. Critical Readers’ Event: Tasks Partnership groupings • Identify additional (S)trengths, (W)eaknesses, (O)pportunities and (T)hreats • Complete local Risk Analyses for each partnership theme • What evidence-based recommendations should be included or refined – which agency should be identified as the suggested lead?

17. Critical Readers’ Event: Tasks STRENGTHS Achievements and/or activity in 2007/08 which had a positive impact on a particular issue WEAKNESSES Plans to cease activity or deprioritise, and areas of current concern OPPORTUNITIES Plans for future activity to positively impact on a particular issue THREATS Emerging issues of concern

18. Critical Readers’ Event: Tasks Risk (the possibility of harm occurring) = threat x impact

19. Lessons Learned Planning, planning and more planning • Don’t try to do too much in one day • Define roles and responsibilities • Give people time to prepare before events and a clear briefing • Ask attendees to bring relevant documents with them • Don’t use the analytical staff both as a scribe and a facilitator • Venues are important • Obtain a budget for workshop events

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

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

22. Contact Details Matt.Chester@compassunit.com Natalie.Benton@northants.pnn.police.uk