The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime in London wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice regarding proposed victim funding allocations. The Deputy Mayor argued that allocating funding solely based on population would seriously disadvantage London and underestimate the needed funding. London has higher crime rates, a larger number of victims, and greater demand for victim services than the proposed funding allocation reflects. The Deputy Mayor requested an urgent meeting to discuss revising the formula to properly account for London's unique crime profile and victimization levels to ensure victims in the capital receive adequate support.

1. MAYOR OF LONDON
M
P
4
orric,-
C
FOR POLICING
.NC’
CLIMI
Helen Grant MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1 H 9M
12 September2013
Victims Funding Allocations
I am writing regarding the recent communication on victim funding allocations.
It is very alarming that you are proposing to allocate the victim funding for local areas based
solely on population, which would mean London receives less than 15% of national funding.
believe this approach is misguided and would seriously disadvantage London by
underestimating the funding needed to cater for victims and witnesses.
The starting point should he that as this funding is allocated to commission services, the
principal objective should be to allocate funds according to demand for those services.
Demand for victim and witness services flows largely from the volume and nature of crime in a
given area, alongside demography and urban density. The size of population alone is therefore
a simplistic and narrow proxy measure for demand.
I appreciate that measures of crime have their limitations, but that is no reason to exclude any
crime factors from your funding allocation and by doing so, your proposal means that London
and other urban forces would have to spend an equal per capita share of funding on a much
larger number of service users.
Assuming the full amount (E56m) is raised for victims nationally, our proposed share of the
local budget (1 4.69%) would yield funding of 18.2m for services annually. However, on a
number of accounts, the demand in London is significantly more than this.
Crime rates lead to variable demand in terms of the number of victims and the MPS area
accounts for between 20-25% of recorded offences. Furthermore, up to a third of offences in
London are committed by foreign national offenders, which drives a higher per capita crime
rate, and this contributes to higher levels of victimisation which are not accounted for by a
crude population allocation. According to HMIC, in the year to 31 March1 the MPS recorded
78.5 victim-based offences per 1,000, compared to 49.8 in the Thames Valley area:
rAa
jThndon
{jamesVaUey
TotaTrecordecijshareofE&W
VicUm-based
201 2/13
total offences
offences per 1,009J
J_20:8%
78.5
I
1133,653
3.6%____________
Currently, the allocation from Victim Support for London is 23.8% of national funding and the
Moi publication from May 2013 also shows that percentage of personal incidents where
support is wanted in London is 26%, the second highest of all regions in England and Wales.
Tel 020 7983 4 84
-
EMAIL stephen.greenhaIghIondon.gov.uk
-
Fix 020 798fl 4008
CITY HALL, THE QUEEN’S WALK, MORE LONDON, LONDON SE1 2A1

2. Whilst funding also covers witness services and not all victim-based crimes have equal
need
for service support, a simple comparison illustrates the point. By assuming no fundin
g support
for witnesses and one unique victim per victim-based offence, then the under-provis
ion for
London is clear:
LAioca;yve
_j_londonshare(Q,1
-_______
-
—-
-
I Fundin based_on share of recorded chre
-
lL6m______________
offenses
[,jundjp9 based on current /ictim Support aocation
Him______________
1 3.3rn
Furthermore, MOPAC have estimated funding per victim and compared London
with the
national average, and also with a neighbouring force, Thames Valley. On this basis, your
proposed formula would mean victims in Thames Valley would receive 60% more
funding per
head, with London receiving just 70% of the national average allocation per victim:
Areas
MPS
Thames Valley
England & Wales
Total Victim based Crime
648,134
113,281
3,099,705
Funding
£8.2m
£2.3m
£56m
Spend per victim
£12.65
£20.30
£18.07
In summary, by excluding any consideration of crime rates and victimisation levels from
the
formula, you risk creating a major imbalance between dense and diverse urban areas
with high
demand for victim services including for complex, high-harm cases and the
rural areas
where such crimes are less common and where overall number of victims are lower.
—
—
Considering crime rate, victim demand, or victim-offences per capita, if funding
was allocated
on any of these terms, then the share allocated to London would be significantly
higher, and
in London we therefore estimate that far from resulting in higher expenditure, the propos
ed
MoJ formula could lead to a shortfall of between £3-5m per year. Such an outcom
e would
seriously undermine our ability to commission the services to support victims in
London.
A fair funding share for London would be in the region of 20-25%, and my office
is happy to
discuss with your officials the host of additional reasons why a more intelligent fundin
g
allocation is needed that reflects the unique demographic and crime profile in Londo
n.
Nevertheless this early assessment on its own is cause for serious concern and in
light of this, I
request an urgent meeting with you to discuss how the formula can be improv
ed to reflect the
true demand in London, and to ensure that victims in the
capital are not short-changed.
Yours sincerely
StepHn Greenhalgh
Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime
CC: Rt Hon Damian Green MP
Tel 020 74:3
184
-
EMAIL stephen.greenhaIqh@london.yov.uk
CITY HALL, THE QUIENN’S WALK, MORE LONDON
-
Fix 020 7983 4008
LONDON E1 ThA