Crime Reduction as a Result of "Street Pastors" Project

Dear Mr Wardman,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009110005715
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/11/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* " I would like to find out how effective the Street Pastors project
has been in reducing crime or reducing fear of crime.
* Please would you send me the research and analysis which has been done
by the MPS to evaluate these benefits, or research which you have
commissioned from external bodies.
* I believe that the MPS makes a signficant contribution to the core
costs of Street Pastors via a grant to the Ascension Trust.
* Please would you send me a copy of the evaluation as part of the
grantmaking process.
* You may respond to this request in whichever format is most convenient
(e.g. HTML, PDF, word, screenshot JPGs). "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your
right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Katie London on telephone number 02071613907 quoting
the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Katie London
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Wardman,

Thank you for your email.

I have added this new request for responses to your original request
(reference number 2009110005715).

Kind regards,

Katie London | FOIA Policy and Support Officer
Public Access Office | Directorate of Information
Phone - 0207 161 3907 | Met Phone - 783907
Metropolitan Police Service
Address - Public Access Office, PO BOX 57192, London SW6 1TR

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Wardman

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009110005715

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/11/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

1) I would like to find out how effective the Street Pastors project has
been in reducing crime or reducing fear of crime. Please would you send
me the research and analysis which has been done by the MPS to evaluate
these benefits, or research which you have commissioned from external
bodies. I believe that the MPS makes a significant contribution to the
core costs of Street Pastors via a grant to the Ascension Trust. Please
would you send me a copy of the evaluation as part of the grant-making
process.
2) If FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked could you
please include your responses to those requests.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Territorial Policing Headquarters.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located some information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to refuse access to question one pursuant to Section
12(1) and Section 22(1) of the Act.

With regard to question two, about similar requests concerning street
pastors, I can confirm that the information cannot be located. Therefore
this information is not held by the MPS.

This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Question One

The information that you have requested in question one is scheduled for
publication by the Metropolitan Police Authority in February 2010.
However, can I take this opportunity to explain that the MPS do not
provide funding for programmes via grants, but sometimes make charitable
donations, as in this case.

Street Pastors is an initiative developed and run by an independent,
charitable organisation, the Ascension Trust. The scheme has been running
in a number of boroughs for several years and the feedback from various
sources has been very positive. So much so that the scheme was
incorporated into the Met's Youth Crime Strategy and, with a view to
increasing the coverage and diversifying their activity, funding in the
form of charitable donation was made available to the Ascension Trust. The
funding has enabled the Trust to train a large number of new pastors and
to introduce schemes in a number of areas not previously covered.
With regard to evaluation, this scheme, along with other elements of the
Youth Crime Strategy, has been the subject of an evaluation and the
findings of this evaluation will be presented in the New Year to the
Metropolitan Police Authority. At that time, the report will be placed in
the public domain and will therefore be available to you through the MPA
website. This information is therefore exempt under Section 22(1) of the
Act - Intended for Future Publication. Please see the legal annex at the
end of the response for the relevant extract of the legislation.
As this exemption is qualified I am required to provide you with a public
interest test.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

To provide this information would ensure the Metropolitan Police Service's
accountability with regard to the use of public funds. It would show the
Service to be open and transparent when dealing with finance. Disclosure
would therefore serve to increase public confidence in the MPS that funds
are being used for suitable causes.

Increasing public awareness in the programme may also highlight the
benefits of the scheme and encourage more people to participate.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

The Freedom of Information Act legally allows members of the public to
request any information held by a public authority. In order to supply
this information, resources are allocated to locate and retrieve it. The
Section 21 and 22 exemptions were specifically laid down by parliament to
benefit those authorities who proactively publish information. To
constantly produce new and up to date elements of the currently published
information, in order to satisfy an additional need outside of the
predetermined schedule, will render these exemptions less effective and
remove the benefits of proactive publication.

The MPS are currently in the process of collating the information required
to present to the MPA who have commissioned this evaluation. There are
ongoing consultation processes which may be hindered if we were to
disclose this information at this stage. As the time of publication is
extremely soon, it is my opinion that this strengthens the argument for
non-disclosure.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to the
evaluations into street pastors at this time.

With regard to additional evaluations held by the MPS, this letter is to
inform you that it will not be possible to respond within the cost
threshold. This information is therefore exempt by virtue of Section
12(1) of the Act.

Street Pastors is an inter-denominational Church response to urban
problems. Each city project is set up by Ascension Trust and run by a
local coordinator with support from Ascension Trust and local churches and
community groups, in partnership with Police, Council and other statutory
agencies.

The Street Pastors website shows that this scheme is running in 23 of the
32 London boroughs. Searches within our central unit have failed to
locate any evaluations into the benefits of the project other than that
which will be published by the MPA (see refusal above). However, I am
aware that if there was to be any research conducted it would be conducted
by the borough within which the scheme would operate. Therefore manual
searches of information on each of the 23 boroughs would need to be
conducted to ascertain how much information we hold on this.

We estimate that the cost of complying with this request would therefore
exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in
regulations and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at
*450.00. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18
hours [at a rate of *25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the
information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Under Section 16 (duty to assist) we are required to offer you the
opportunity to redefine your request within the cost limit. I would also
like to assist you further by informing you of a possible way to redefine
your request in order to ensure it would be complied with within the 18
hours. If you were to suggest a number of boroughs you were interested
in, for example Croydon, Bexley and Greenwich, it may be possible to
answer your request. However, I would like to take this opportunity to
explain to you a public authority's right to aggregate requests of a
similar nature from an applicant.

Section 12 (4) of the Act provides:
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for
information are made to a public authority-
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

Therefore, if you were to submit a separate request asking for this
information from each borough, we would be within our rights to aggregate
these requests. This is set out in Section 5 of The Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations
2004. See the legal annex for the relevant passage.

You may also be interested to know that a separate evaluation was carried
out in the Portsmouth area and copies of the report are available from the
Ascension Trust. Again, the findings were positive and indicate that this
initiative, which remains independent of the police, adds value to the
task of reducing crime and building reassurance.

Legal Annex

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

Section 12 of the Act provides:

(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

Section 22(1) of the Act provides:

(1) Information is exempt information if-
(a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its
publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date
(whether determined or not),
(b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at
the time when the request for information was made, and
(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should
be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a).

Section 5 of The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate
Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 provides:

"5. - (1) In circumstances in which this regulation applies, where two or
more requests for information to which section 1(1) of the 2000 Act would,
apart from the appropriate limit, to any extent apply, are made to a
public authority -
(a) by one person, or

(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the total costs which may be taken into account by the authority, under
regulation 4, of complying with all of them.

(2) This regulation applies in circumstances in which-
(a) the two or more requests referred to in paragraph (1) relate, to any
extent, to the same or similar information, and

(b) those requests are received by the public authority within any period
of sixty consecutive working days.
(3) In this regulation, "working day" means any day other than a
Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank
holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971[4] in any part
of the United Kingdom."

Therefore, you would need to leave a 'reasonable' period between
submitting such requests, which is '60 consecutive working days'.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Deborah Solomon on 020 7321 7078 or at the address at the top of
this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Rabot
Superintendent - Youth Team

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections