Thames Valley Partnership Landscape 1.0 Purpose and scope of exercise Once elected on 15 th November 2012 the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) will arguably become the most influential player in the Criminal Justice partnership landscape within Thames Valley. As part of the Police Authority transition planning process it was felt necessary to undertake a partnership landscape mapping exercise to achieve the following key outcomes: Inform prospective candidates and subsequently the elected PCC of the current and future partnership landscape in which they will be operating, specifically highlighting the complexities, risks and issues of operating at a level which covers three historic counties. To gain a holistic overview of community safety services provided in partnership to aid understanding of how and where PCCs can commission, influence or be involved in the delivery of such services from April 2013. To inform the Police Authority/PCC engagement strategy for involving partners in the formulation of the first Police and Crime Plan to be published by the PCC in March 2013. To inform the draft PCC community consultation and engagement strategy for obtaining the views of the public, victims and ratepayer s representatives on policing matters including the setting of the Police and Crime Plan and the budget with particular focus on arrangements to consult in partnership with other authorities. 2.0 Legislative requirements What the Act says The Police Reform and Social Responsibility (PR&SR) Act 2011 sets out the following specific duties on PCCs in relation to partnership working: Section 10 Co-operative working This is the key section of the Act which focuses on partnership working. This section places a reciprocal duty on the PCC and Responsible Authorities as defined by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to act in co-operation with each other. Furthermore, the PCC, when exercising its functions, must have regard to the relevant priorities of each Responsible Authority.
Responsible Authorities to which this duty applies are Police, Local Authorities, Fire, NHS and Probation. Further details on each of these partners in the Thames Valley are covered in more detail under section 3.0 of this paper. This section also confers a responsibility on the PCC and the criminal justice bodies in the police area to make arrangements (so far as it is appropriate to do so) for the exercise of functions so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for the police area. The explanatory notes which accompany the act note that in practice the criminal justice bodies will be the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty s Court Service, the National Offender Management Service, or other providers in relation to prisons or probation, and Youth Offending Teams. Section 88 and Schedule 11 Crime and Disorder Strategies Section 88 introduces Schedule 11. Schedule 11 makes amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 including the removal of all references to police authorities in section 5, without replacing them with references to PCCs, thus not making PCCs a member of Community Safety Partnerships. Instead, Schedule 11 passes current responsibilities of the Secretary of State down to PCCs in relation to approving mergers of CSPs; having the ability to call all CSPs in a police force area together and requesting a report from a CSP on the exercise of its functions if the PCC believes it is not performing its functions adequately. Sections 9 and 21 27 Financial Matters These sections of the Act move all financial matters previously applicable to police authorities over to PCCs. This includes the maintenance of a single police fund; the ability to receive grants and the power to issue a precept. It is the intention of the Home Secretary that PCCs receive funding streams, such as the Community Safety Fund, which are currently received by other bodies and organisations and not police authorities. This new power to commission extends the previous remit of police authorities from solely being responsible for police funding to the broader crime and community safety funding arena. This has clear implications for partners and service providers currently dependent on this funding and consequently intensifies the need for PCCs and Responsible Authorities to act in cooperation and have regard to each others priorities as stated it Section 10 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act gives PCCs the power to award a crime and disorder reduction grant to any person in order to secure or contribute to securing crime and disorder reduction in the police area. The grant may be subject to any conditions that the commissioner may deem appropriate.
Section 14 Arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing This section refers to the requirement of the PCC to obtain the views of the public, victims of crime and ratepayer s representatives before issuing the Police and Crime Plan and making key decisions on budget setting. To reduce what has been termed as consultation fatigue, local public bodies are encouraged to consider arrangements for consulting the public in partnership. By understanding the partnership landscape and what, when and how partners consult the public, the PCC and their office will be able to carry out this duty in the most cost effective and efficient way. Section 1 and Schedule 16 Safeguarding Children The Act confers the same duty on PCCs as Police Authorities currently have regarding the safeguarding of children as imposed by the Children Act 2004. Sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004 place a duty on both Chief Constables and Police Authorities/PCCs to cooperate with relevant partners to improve wellbeing and make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare. Section 1 of the PR&SR Act also places a duty on the PCC to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of their duties under the Children Act 2004. 3.0 Crime and Disorder Responsible Authorities Thames Valley Police Force and Police Authority are both responsible authorities as defined by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. As mentioned previously, the 1998 Act was not amended to include PCCs and so they will not become responsible authorities. Appendix A provides a diagrammatic overview of the responsible authorities structures across the Thames Valley. The remainder of this section explores the structure and roles of the Thames Valley responsible authorities in more detail. 3.1 Local Authorities The Thames Valley area covers the three historic counties of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are both two-tier authority areas operating with a county and district councils. Milton Keynes is serviced by its own unitary authority separate from the rest of Buckinghamshire. The historic county of Berkshire is serviced by six distinct unitary authorities. In total this means that the Thames Valley area consists of two county, seven unitary and nine district councils (18 local authorities in total). Local authorities have many responsibilities in terms of community safety and each one employs a Community Safety Manager and varying sized support teams
depending on the size of the authority area. In addition, the Police and Justice Act 2006 placed a requirement on two tier areas to form a county level strategic partnership so both Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire also employ Community Safety teams to coordinate community safety at a county level. The nine upper tier councils (i.e. the two county and seven unitary councils) currently receive funding from the Home Office in the form of a Community Safety Fund. This fund, along with other funding streams still to be agreed, will be received by the PCC from April 2013. 3.2 Fire and Rescue There are three Fire and Rescue Services covering the Thames Valley - Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue, Berkshire Fire and Rescue and Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue. Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service is accountable to Oxfordshire County Council whereas Berkshire and Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services are accountable to the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority and the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority respectively. Each Fire and Rescue service has its own community safety team. 3.3 NHS The NHS in Thames Valley is delivered through five Primary Care Trusts (PCTs); Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes, Berkshire East and Berkshire West. There is also a Thames Valley Primary Care Agency which provides support services to the five PCTs. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 will radically change the structure of the NHS at both a national and local level from April 2013. PCTs will be abolished and their commissioning responsibilities will be split between a national NHS Commissioning Board, local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and local authorities. The Department of Health published implementation guidance on 31 January 2011 on the 2011/12 NHS Cluster Operating Framework. In order to facilitate a smooth transition from current to future NHS provision, PCTs have been clustered with a single executive team managing each cluster until April 2013. The PCTs operating in the Thames Valley area have been clustered as follows: Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Cluster Berkshire Cluster Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire Cluster The Act places much more responsibility on local authorities to lead improvements in public health and places a duty on upper tier authorities to employ a Director of Public Health and set up a Health and Wellbeing Board. Health and Wellbeing Boards are discussed further in section 6.3 of this paper but it is likely that these
boards will be the key interface between local NHS provision and PCCs. There will be nine Health and Wellbeing Boards across the Thames Valley area. Nonetheless, it is believed that Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) will become Responsible Authorities under the amended s5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, following the abolition of Primary Care Trusts on 31 March 2013, thus making them members of Community Safety Partnerships. All CCGs will be represented on their local Health and Wellbeing Board and so it is felt that, particularly in the Thames Valley, it would be best for the main interface for the PCC to remain at the Health and Wellbeing Board level. 3.4 Probation Thames Valley Probation Trust covers an area which is coterminous with the Force area. The Trust operates locally through five Local Delivery Units: Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes, Berkshire East and Berkshire West. Thames Valley Probation is responsible for preparing presentence reports on convicted offenders and services all magistrates and crown courts in Thames Valley. Probation manages sentenced offenders who are subject to community orders which can include supervision and unpaid work requirements. Probation is also responsible for offenders serving over 12 months prison sentences, all of whom are subject to supervision on licence when released from custody. For offenders subject to supervision, Probation delivers a range of interventions aimed at reducing reoffending. Examples of the focus for interventions include alcohol related violence, domestic violence, sexual offending and substance misuse. The twin aims of Probation are to reduce reoffending and protect the public. Public protection responsibilities include the assessment and management of risk and dangerousness, working with the police and other agencies, liaising with victims of more serious crimes and the delivery of restorative justice interventions. Probation staff work in the six Thames Valley prisons, five Approved hostel premises as well as courts and main office locations. 4.0 Partnerships involving Crime and Disorder Responsible Authorities 4.1 Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) Formally known as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, CSPs bring together all the responsible authorities in a given area to tackle community safety issues in partnership. CSPs are statutory partnerships formed under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and this has not been changed by the PR&SR Act. In general, CSPs act as both commissioners and providers but their areas of focus, the ways in which they
organise themselves and the manner in which they are funded varies greatly across the 15 district level and 2 county level partnerships. In recognition of their combined complexity, the Thames Valley CSPs have joined together to write a Community Safety Partnership Briefing Paper: The role of partnerships in supporting our communities. This first paper sets out the current community safety landscape and details the type of activities the CSPs undertake and/or commission. The second paper, due to be published in late August, will look further into the risks, challenges and opportunities the appointment of a PCC will bring and will consider potential future models of delivery. 4.2 Youth Offending Teams Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) were also introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and became operational in April 2000. The Act introduced the primary statutory aim of the Youth Justice System: to prevent offending. These teams form a multi-agency partnership. The Act established governance arrangements for YOTs through a multi-agency partnership Board chaired by the Chief Executive of the Local Authority and, as a minimum, senior representatives from the Police, Health, Probation, Children s Social Care and Education. These agencies were charged with financially resourcing the YOT and providing seconded staff. Substantial additional resources for the YOT comes from the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, historically channelled to the YOT via the Youth Justice Board. In February 2012 Police Authorities were notified by the Home Office that the Home Office contribution to the YOTs funding would be routed through Police Authorities rather than the Youth Justice Board. Thames Valley Police Authority wrote to all nine of the Thames Valley YOTs (2 county level and 7 unitary) to inform them of the change and to request information on how they intend to spend the funding inline with the Home Secretary s terms and conditions as set out in the original letter. Each YOT responded and the information provided has been filed for the PCC s future reference. 4.3 Integrated Offender Management Integrated Offender Management (IOM) is the strategic umbrella or overarching framework that brings together agencies across government to prioritise intervention with offenders who cause crime in their locality. It builds on and expands on existing offender-focused programmes, such as Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO), Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and the Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) which is implemented within the Force as the Custody Intervention Programme (CIP). It manages a selected and locally defined cohort of offenders who are in the community, regardless of whether they are under statutory supervision or not. This cohort is selected by a multi-agency
group using information from a wide range of sources. In targeting those of most concern, IOM aims to manage them consistently, using pooled local resources to turn them away from crime, rehabilitating and reforming them as appropriate. Following the Local Policing Model restructure, the IOM and Youth Justice departments within the Force combined to make one unit managed by a Chief Inspector. The unit operates out of three geographically based hubs - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, and Berkshire. It was felt that the new IOM unit would be able to deal with the highest risk offenders across these areas in a much more integrated way regardless of the age of the offender. 4.4 Drug and Alcohol Action Teams Drug and Alcohol Action teams (DAATs) are responsible for overseeing and implementing the Government s National Drug and Alcohol strategies. DAATs are largely commissioning bodies and the host organisation is usually the Local Authority or PCT. There are nine DAATs operating in the Thames Valley. Oxfordshire DAAT is hosted by the PCT, Buckinghamshire DAAT by the Local Authority and the unitary authorities are a mixture of PCT and Local Authority hosted partnerships. 5.0 Criminal Justice Bodies In addition to the Crime and Disorder Responsible Authorities as outlined in section 3.0, the PCC must also work with Criminal Justice Bodies in the Thames Valley to ensure an efficient and effective Criminal Justice System for the police area (PR&SR Act). The Police Authority currently engages with the Criminal Justice Bodies through the Thames Valley Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) but has no statutory obligation to do so. This new requirement on PCCs is an unprecedented new relationship which offers opportunities but also requires consideration as to the mechanism and engagement interface for the PCC to fulfil their statutory obligation. The remainder of this section focuses on the Criminal Justice Bodies operating in the Thames Valley as defined by the PR&SR Act. 5.1 Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) CPS Thames and Chiltern covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Thames and Chiltern is the current Chair of the Thames Valley LCJB.
In Thames Valley, the CPS operates in the following Magistrates and Crown Courts: Magistrates Courts: Crown Courts: Slough, Maidenhead, Reading, Newbury, Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Banbury and Oxford City. Reading, Oxford and Aylesbury (sitting at Amersham) Three Witness Care Units (WCUs) were launched in Thames Valley in 2005 under the national No Witness, No Justice project jointly led locally by the Force and CPS. There are now two WCUs located in Reading (Berkshire and Oxfordshire Unit) and Aylesbury (Buckinghamshire Unit) staffed by teams of witness care officers who provide a single point of contact for victims and witnesses throughout the life of a case; from when the defendant is charged through to sentencing. 5.2 Her Majesty s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) HMCTS was created on 1 April 2011. It brings together HM Courts Service & Tribunals Service into one integrated agency providing support for the administration of justice in courts and tribunals. The agency is responsible for the administration of the criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals in England and Wales. HMCTS currently runs 24 establishments across Thames Valley including Crown, County and Magistrates Courts, Fixed Penalty Offices and a Probate Registry. A full consultation on court estate reform took place in 2010 which resulted in the Secretary of State deciding to close 93 magistrates' courts and 49 county courts across England and Wales. The Court Estates Reform Programme was split into tranches with tranches one and two of the programme now complete and tranche three due for completion by July 2012. In the Thames Valley area two Magistrates Courts were closed in the first tranche Amersham and Witney from the 1 April 2011. Newbury County Court (with retained hearings) was closed from 1 July 2011 as part of tranche two and Bicester Magistrates Court is due to close in April 2013 as part of tranche five. 5.3 National Offender Management Service (NOMS) NOMS is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, bringing together the headquarters of the Probation Service and HM Prison. The two bodies remain distinct but have a strong unity of purpose to protect the public and reduce reoffending. NOMS is responsible for commissioning and delivering adult offender management services, in custody and in the community, in England and Wales. Specifically, NOMS directly manages 120 public sector prisons and contract manages 14 private sector prisons, 35 Probation Trusts and Third Sector Providers. The Agency also
manages system-wide service delivery including a range of contracts such as the Prisoner Escort Service; Electronic Monitoring and Bail Accommodation. The Agency has recently undergone a large restructure, dismantling its regional structure in favour of a structure which supports HQ and Central Services front line delivery at much reduced cost ( How NOMS Works, March 2012). 5.3.1 Her Majesty s Prisons Service (HMPS) HMPS is responsible for holding those in the custodial system safely and securely in order to protect and uphold the safety of the public. The HMPS are providers of prison establishments across England and Wales. In Thames Valley there are seven HMPS run establishments, which are: Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution Bullingdon Prison Grendon Prison Huntercombe Foreign National Prison Reading Young Offenders Institution Spring Hill Prison Woodhill High Security Prison 5.3.2 Probation The Thames Valley Probation Trust was covered in detail in paragraph 3.4 above. Historically the Police, and consequently the Police Authority, have focussed on the Offender Management end of the Probation Trust s work. The new duty on the PCC would suggest that the PCC must consider the totality of the Probation Trust s work and consider and engage with them on their Interventions work as well to help reduce re-offending. 5.3.3 Youth Offending Teams The Youth Offending Team structure in Thames Valley was explored in more detail in paragraph 4.2 above. Similarly to above, the PCC will need to engage with YOTs in Thames Valley across the whole spectrum of services they offer in order to reduce reoffending and decrease the level of youths entering the criminal justice system. 6.0 Strategic Governance Structures The PCC will potentially hold the most influential and visible governance role in the new policing and crime arena but they must also be aware of, and engage to a greater or lesser extent with, several other key governance structures.
6.1 Police and Crime Panel Police and Crime Panels, established under the PR&SR Act, were created to provide the checks and balances and to scrutinise the work of the PCC between elections. Hosted by Bucks County Council, the Shadow Panel comprising of 18 locally elected councillors from each Local Authority in the Thames Valley, held its inaugural meeting on 19 July 2012. The Panel elected Trevor Egleton (Bucks CC) as Chair of the Panel and Kieron Mallon (OCC) as Vice-Chair. The Panel will seek to appoint two independent members to bring the Panel to its maximum legal membership of 20 by time it becomes fully functioning in October. The PCC will have the closest working relationship with the Panel and must attend Panel meetings and provide papers as requested. The Panel has the power to review and make recommendations on the Police and Crime Plan and has the power to veto the PCCs proposed policing precept and proposed candidate for Chief Constable. Bucks County Council have appointed a Police and Crime Panel Scrutiny Officer who will liaise closely with the OPCC and Force on matters relating to the Panel s function of holding the PCC to account for their performance. 6.2 Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) The Thames Valley LCJB is chaired by Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Thames and Chiltern. The membership of the Board includes chief officers from the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Crown and Magistrates' Courts, the Prison Service, the Probation Service, Victim Support and Youth Offending Teams, plus a Local Authority Chief Executive and representative of the Police Authority. The LCJB supports the National Criminal Justice Board, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice in terms of consultation and implementation of national and local initiatives. In particular, the Board is managing the implementation of the Criminal Justice Programme. The Board has several structures operating below it, including the Programme Delivery Group, the Prosecution Team Performance Meetings and Local Criminal Justice Groups which are geographically based groups attended by the operational leads from each organisation in that area. In addition, there are currently eight thematic delivery groups covering areas such as Domestic Violence, Victims and Witnesses and Mental Health. These groups may prove to be a useful engagement interface for the PCC as well as an information resource on specific issues. A small secretariat team, led by David Colchester, support the work of the Board and the structures below it.
6.3 Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) The Health and Social Care Act 2012 established HWBs as part of the major restructure of how NHS services are managed and delivered across England and Wales. The Department of Health define HWBs as a forum where key leaders from the health and care system work together to improve the health and wellbeing of their local population and reduce health inequalities. (DoH website) Each upper tier council will have its own Board with responsibility for conducting a joint needs assessment of its community, producing a Health and Wellbeing Strategy and for encouraging commissioners to work in a more joined up way. HWBs have been operating in shadow form since April 2012 and will take on statutory functions from April 2013. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 will transform the structure and governance of the NHS. National bodies will be abolished along with Primary Care Trusts and new national bodies will be established and Clinical Commissioning Groups will be introduced at the local level. Although the changes affect the whole of the NHS, the changes to public health will be of most significance to the PCC. Public Health England will encompass all aspects of public health including service delivery, research and awareness raising. This new body will oversee delivery of drug and alcohol services, subsuming the role and structures of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. The local budget for Public Health, including a large proportion of the drug and alcohol services funding will be held by Local Authorities who will become the employers of local Directors of Public Health. Directors of Public Health are statutory members of HWBs. Much research has been undertaken proving the links between drug and alcohol abuse and crime rates. The PCC will need to engage with the Directors of Public Health and HWBs across the Thames Valley in order to influence the decisions around funding and commissioning drug and alcohol treatment services. It is believed that the funding will not be ring-fenced and so early engagement will be crucial. In the Thames Valley there will be nine separate HWBs and nine Directors of Public Health. It would be unrealistic to expect the PCC to personally have strong links with each of them. A paper published by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse titled Treat addiction, cut crime suggested that it could be the role of the Force (i.e. through Local Commanders) to engage with their local HWBs, rather than the PCC who they hope would make drug treatment a priority and would actively contribute to continued investment in services. This would appear to be a sensible model for the Thames Valley subject to the approval of HWBs across the area agreeing to include a representative from the Force on their Board (police are not statutory members of HWBs).
6.4 Safeguarding Boards The Children Act 2004 placed a duty on children s services authorities in England (upper tier councils) to establish Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) in their areas to ensure organisations worked together to protect children and promote their welfare. LSCBs have a number of statutory partners, including Local Authority, health, police, probation, YOT, education providers, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and prisons. There are nine LSCBs in the Thames Valley and the Chairs and Business Managers meet regularly to look at shared policies and procedures. The six Berkshire LSCBs work together through two Pan-Berkshire sub-groups; the Child Death Overview Panel and the Policy and Procedures Group. There are also Berkshire West (Reading, Wokingham and West Berkshire) sub-groups and there is a focus on the Berkshire West LSCBs working more closely together in the future. Children s Trust Boards were also a statutory requirement on upper tier councils until the duty was removed by the Education Act 2011. Many LSCBs interact with their corresponding Children s Trust Boards to varying degrees but some Boards have or will be disbanded shortly. Although not a statutory partner on LSCBs, PCCs have a duty under the Children Act 2004 to cooperate with relevant partners to improve well-being and make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare. They also have a duty to hold the Chief Constable to account for their duties under the Children Act 2004. Consideration needs to be given to how the PCC could discharge this duty. It is envisaged that Health and Wellbeing Boards will have a role to play in safeguarding arrangements and so they could be considered as one of the mechanisms for engaging with this agenda. In 2000 the No Secrets report was published which set out statutory guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse. As a result, non-statutory Adult Safeguarding Boards were established in Local Authority areas. There are seven established Boards in Thames Valley; two county level boards, four unitary boards and one partnership board covering the west of Berkshire (Reading, Wokingham and West Berkshire). The Draft Care and Support Bill, which was published by the Government on 11 July 2012, intends to make Safeguarding Adults Boards a statutory partnership. This will put the safeguarding of vulnerable adults on the same footing as children. 7.0 The Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector There are several thousand voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations operating across the Thames Valley area who have links with the criminal justice system. These organisations range vastly in terms of size, purpose
and funding arrangements with some relying on fundraising and donations whilst others receive grants from central government, CSPs and other public sector organisations. The VCSE sector plays a vital role in delivering services at the grassroots level, particularly in providing support to victims and engaging with offenders and their families. They also often play a crucial role in maintaining and enhancing community cohesion and engagement. Historically, the Police Authority has had limited interaction with the VCSE sector and Thames Valley Police Authority has never chosen to award community safety grants directly to service providers in the VCSE sector or otherwise. The Government are keen for this to change under the PCC and have provided funding to Clinks (national charity that supports organisations working with offenders and their families) for the Safer Future Communities project. The project has been set up to support the VCSE sector in engaging with the PCC and the new commissioning landscape. A Safer Future Communities Network has been set up in each police force area. Police Authority officers have an established dialogue with the Thames Valley Network coordinator and attended the network launch event on 11 th July 2012. Very little funding has been assigned to the project but it is hoped that once set up, the network will continue to function and provide a VCSE sector voice in the Thames Valley. A clear strength of the sector is the ability for the VCSE organisations to engage with typically hard to reach communities and groups. An improved dialogue with the sector may create opportunities for the PCC to engage with these communities through these organisations. This will be explored in more detail in the PCC s community engagement strategy. 8.0 Conclusion It will be important for the PCC to recognise the crucial contribution of each organisation and partnership outlined in this document but it will be equally important for partners to appreciate that the PCC, as an individual, will not be able to maintain ongoing relationships with all partners. The remit of the PCC, in terms of working with partners, is far greater than that of the Police Authority despite the Police Authority s 19 Members being replaced by one individual. The Office of the PCC will prove crucial in supporting this area of work and an engagement strategy will be written to ensure the PCC fulfils their statutory duties concerning partnership working in an efficient and effective manner. Jemma Graham Acting Policy Advisor August 2012
Responsible Authorities in the Thames Valley (as at August 2102) APPENDIX A Local Authority Oxfordshire County Council Cherwell District Council Oxford City Council South Oxfordshire Council Vale of White Horse Local Police Area / CSP (merged) Fire and Rescue Service Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service Primary Care Trusts Oxfordshire PCT Probation Local Delivery Units Oxfordshire Local Delivery Unit West Oxfordshire Buckinghamshire County Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Chiltern District Council South Buckinghamshire District Council (merged*) Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service Buckinghamshire PCT Buckinghamshire Local Delivery Unit Wycombe District Council Milton Keynes Council Bracknell Forest Council Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council Slough Borough Council Reading Borough Council West Berkshire Council Wokingham Borough Council Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service MK PCT Berkshire East PCT Berkshire West PCT MK Local Delivery Unit Berkshire East Local Delivery Unit Berkshire West Local Delivery Unit (Councils in bold are upper tier councils) *Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire LPAs have merged but the CSPs continue to operate separately at present.