Community Police Engagement Group delivery and funding 2011/12

Report: 4
Date: 14 February 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines the budget proposals for borough based community engagement from 2011 to 2014 and seeks member approval for the 2011/12 allocation process.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members approve the release of an interim payment to all community and Police engagement groups equivalent to 20% of the 2010/11 allocation;
2. Members note the development of the funding allocation formula for the community police engagement groups; and
3. Members receive a further report to the next sub-committee meeting on 14 April 2011, detailing the final borough community engagement allocations.

B. Supporting information

1. The Community Police Engagement Group (CPEG) funding process follows the financial year, with the application process usually beginning mid-December. However, this year the process has been delayed due to the late announcement of the MPA’s budget settlement for 2011 to 2014. There have also been a number of other matters that relate specifically to the CPEG budget, which has made it more appropriate to defer decisions on this matter until the latter part of the financial year.

2. The first of these was the action arising from the last meeting of this sub-committee, which was for the chair to attend the Business Management Group (an internal member group comprised of the chairs of the main committees) to raise and discuss a number of specific points about CPEG funding arising from the sub-committee meeting. This meeting took place on 14 January 2011 and the chair presented a report, which incorporated the range of views expressed and also highlighted the risks associated with the proposal to reduce the CPEG budget. The paper proposed that any CPEG budget reduction in 2011/12 be limited to 15%, which could be accommodated by maintaining this year's CPEG budgets at current levels (not all groups have received the full £50,000) and with a more challenging 40% reduction to the London Communities’ Policing Partnership’s (LCP2) budget. This would then allow sufficient time for plans to be developed in line with the development of the Mayor's Office for Police and Crime (MOPC) [1].

3. The range of issues was discussed and as a result it was agreed that:

• officers would work through the (MPA) budget implications of deferring and limiting the CPEG budget reduction in 2011/12 and that this would be considered on a sliding scale from 15% - 50%;
• Future support for LCP2 would be reviewed - with consideration given to the implications of discontinuing all financial support from 2011/12;
• that a range of options for community engagement in the future would be developed within the implementation plans for the MOPC.

4. In discussions with the Deputy Treasurer, it is proposed that the 2011/12 budget reduction be limited to 17.6%. However, it should be noted that in order to meet the overall budget requirements further reductions are still likely to be necessary in 2012/13 and 2013/14 (although the timing and size of these will be dependent on the size and shape of any future community engagement structure) and that the entire MPA/MPS budget is still subject to further discussions at both the joint Strategic and Operational Policing and Finance and Resources Committee meeting on 17 February 2011 and at Full Authority on 24 February 2011, which could alter the budget requirements further.

5. As discussed at the last meeting of this sub-committee, officers have been developing a formula on which to base future annual borough community engagement allocations. The key component of the new formula will be to allocate funds according to differential borough needs rather than working on the basis that all boroughs should receive an equal allocation. After considering a range of different measures, it is our view that the best measurement of the relevant variables would be provided by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007). The IMD is already used by central government and other bodies to build programmes and allocate resources to the areas of greatest need, so this dataset has already been evidenced for use for funding purposes. A further advantage is that this data is collated and verified centrally and independently of the MPA by the Office for National Statistics. The underlying datasets are also updated as and when appropriate to ensure the best information available at the time is used.

6. The indices use statistical techniques to combine information on economic and social issues to produce scores for areas across the whole of England. These are relevant to this exercise because of the correlation between deprivation and reduced levels of civic engagement and conversely increased levels of crime and victimisation. Seven distinct dimensions or `domains’ of deprivation are included in the IMD 2007 and these are made up of 37 separate indicators. The domains are income deprivation, employment deprivation, health deprivation and disability, education, skills and training deprivation, barriers to housing and services, living environment deprivation and crime. One weakness in using this measure is the fact that it has not been updated since 2007, but this is mitigated by the fact that all borough allocations will have been subjected to the same limitations. In addition, officers have sought to off-set this by using the more recent 2009 mid-year population estimates rather than 2001 census data as another dimension in the formula.

7. There are further issues to be considered in building a funding formula and these would include the question of whether or not to apply upper and lower limits to all allocations. At present, the MPA has implemented a £50,000 cap on all CPEG allocations (but no minimum). In developing a new formula officers would seek to introduce a minimum borough allocation, but the maintenance of a budget cap is potentially problematic, because to do so limits the effect of weighting boroughs on the IMD factors since the monies in excess of the cap are simply redistributed to those with below cap allocations regardless of the relative need. This work is ongoing and should be finalized and reported to committee in April 2011.

8. Officers have held initial discussions with LCP2 in respect of the proposal to cease funding the organisation with effect from 1 April 2011. Clearly there are concerns for LCP2 about the implementation of such a budget reduction and officers have asked LCP2 to consider the implications, particularly in respect of any ongoing contractual obligations, for example, and to provide the Authority with a plan of how the transition period might be best managed with a view to providing as much assistance as possible and mitigating any negative impact.

9. The proposal to replace the police authority with a police and crime commissioner (PCC) and the establishment of a support organisation to be known as the Mayor's Office for Police and Crime has been indicated in the Police Reform and Social responsibility Bill, which also makes provision for these new arrangements to be put in place earlier in London than elsewhere in the country and potentially as soon as October 2011. It is therefore timely to more fundamentally review the current engagement model to ensure it will meet the future needs of the PCC.

10. Many of the PCC's proposed functions in respect of consultation and engagement mirror those of a police authority so there will be a continued need to provide engagement opportunities. However, given that the MOPC will not have a cadre of link members and the need to ensure the engagement structure is fit for purpose, there is a need to reconsider how engagement is conducted.

The key aims that should underpin the engagement model should be:

1. At a minimum it should meet the statutory requirements:
   • Police and crime plan consultation;
   • Strategy consultation; and
   • Budget consultation
2. It should provide opportunities for the PCC to engage with as many of the diverse communities of London as possible;
3. It should provide a variety of ongoing means to do so - including face the people-type meetings and new media and in diverse locations from town halls to shopping centres;
4. It should also continue to provide borough-based opportunities for local people to engage publicly with the borough commander and other partners on matters of policing and community safety;
5. It should have regard for existing local structures and should be complementary rather than duplicative.

11. There are a number of other matters to be considered in developing further options for engagement under the PCC. For example, the Directorate of Audit, Risk and Assurance (DARA) has recently conducted a review of the community engagement funding framework and have made a number of recommendations for action. The report has not yet formally been released, but has made some recommendations in relation to the funding process and ensuring the Authority’s funds are used appropriately and as intended. These will be reflected in the revised funding documentation, guidance and terms of grant, but will be equally important to carry forward into any future processes.

12. Another matter for consideration is that of a performance management framework for community engagement. Members have on many occasions sought reassurance on the delivery and performance of CPEGs and in response to some of the issues highlighted in the DARA review report, a regular set of performance metrics will be reported to the Authority through this sub-committee. This will have to be reviewed in the light of any changes to the engagement structures under the MOPC implementation plan, but for the time being the reporting mechanism will be focussed on the existing quarterly service level agreement review data and information gathered through the annual funding process, which is collated by the Engagement and Partnerships Team. This information will be reported to the next meeting of this sub-committee in April 2011.

13. In addition to the above, the Authority also needs to give some consideration to what it actually wants CPEGs to deliver. The MPA/MPS community engagement commitment (CEC) does not specifically address the definition of community engagement, but it is a matter that has repeatedly been raised by this sub-committee in the context of trying to understand what kind of activities we expect CPEGs to undertake. This is a pertinent issue, which is also being considered within the MPS. In understanding what we should expect CPEGs to deliver, it is necessary to understand why we are conducting engagement in the first place. The MPA, in line with the directions of the Home Office, has adopted an understanding of community-police engagement that has tended to be a more proactive, dynamic and accountable process of cooperation and collaboration between the police and communities. This approach is in line with the Government’s big society agenda, which envisages a proactive approach to harnessing the energies and knowledge of communities and partnerships, not only, retrospectively, (to hold the police to account), but also, prospectively, to help identify problems, negotiate and influence priorities for action, and participate in shaping solutions. With this in mind, it is clear that some of the activities undertaken or sponsored by CPEGs do not meet this criterion. For example, some of the sports-based youth activities CPEGs deliver are in essence diversionary activities. These are of course valuable, particularly to the police, but it is questionable whether they meet the needs of the Authority in terms of delivering opportunities for diverse communities to engage with the Authority and the MPS in order to shape services and solutions. Members may therefore wish to take a view as to whether these kinds of activities should be encouraged in future.

Funding Application and Assessment Processes

14. The 2011/12 funding round will be starting much later than in previous years, but essentially the process will be the same as last year with some amendments to the funding form, associated guidance and terms of grant. This will ensure all CPEGs have a full understanding of how their work should contribute to the Authority’s aims and objectives, that they utilise their grants accordingly and in line with good financial practice, and will also provide relevant management information for the Authority. The revised funding forms will be sent out to all Groups as soon as is practical after the MPA budget has been formally confirmed and signed off. However, to ensure CPEGs have sufficient operating monies to carry them through the delay in determining this year’s grants, it is proposed to make interim payments to all Groups as discussed in paragraph C5 below.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. A cumulative Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is being compiled in respect of this budget reduction process. Initial consideration indicates that CPEG staffing resources will feel the greatest impact of the budget reduction and this is likely to have a disproportionate impact since two thirds of administrators are female, and there will be further impact in terms of part-time workers and those from BME backgrounds. In addition, a reduction in the CPEG budget will have an impact on the delivery of specific CPEG projects, targeting specific groups, such as young people, BME groups and the elderly. Having identified the potential for adverse impact arising from this budget decision, it is incumbent upon the Authority to consider what could be put in place to mitigate that impact.

2. In putting together MPA budget proposals for 2011/12 the Deputy Treasurer has worked with Heads of Units within the MPA to ensure that despite the need to deliver significant savings resources remain effectively aligned to deliver the MPA business plan. Draft proposals have been scrutinised and approved by SMT and scrutinised by all members of the Authority as part of the budget approval process. Savings totalling £800 000 have been identified, and the MPA will also be making a contribution from reserves of £200 000 in 2011/12. Savings being delivered include a reduction in the Authority’s staffing establishment of 5 full time posts, a reduction in consultancy costs and on the training budget along with various other efficiency savings. In total, and excluding the contribution from reserves, the Authority is delivering a 6.5% reduction on the MPA budget. In addition, officers will work with CPEGs to identify specific issues and develop an appropriate way forward (see paragraph C9 below).

Consideration of MET Forward

3. The budgetary considerations for the delivery of the Authority’s community engagement functions are fundamental to the Met Connect strand of Met Forward, the key theme of which is ensuring our communities are properly informed and engaged with regard to policing matters to deliver increased confidence in policing. Ensuring continued delivery of CPEG functions will therefore support this aim.

Financial Implications

4. The proposed budget for community engagement in 2011/12 is £1.4 million, a reduction of 17.6% on the (£1.7 million) 2010/11 budget. If the £100 000 budgeted to support LCP2 is removed from the calculation and funding for borough-based engagement is considered separately the overall budget is reduced from £1.6 million to £1.4 million, which constitutes a 12.5% reduction. It should be noted that the budget process is ongoing and further discussions will take place at the joint meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing and Finance and Resources Committees taking place on 17 February, which could necessitate some changes to the budget proposals, and that the budget should be formally signed off at the Full Authority meeting on 24 February 2011.

5. Due to the protracted budget process this year, the CPEG funding process has been significantly delayed. In recognition of the potential impact of this delay on the operational capacity of the CPEGs, it is proposed that the MPA provide each Group with an interim payment to be effected from 1 April 2011. The proposal is that this should be limited to 20% of the total of the 2010/11 allocation (approximately £280 000) and that this sum would be deducted from the final 2011/12 allocation.

6. The full 2011/12 allocations will then be based on a similar process to last year, through which all expenditure will be examined and assessed. As in previous year’s the final allocation will take account of any un-used sums from the previous year’s allocations and may be retained by the Authority to ensure they are put to an appropriate use. A further report will be submitted to this sub-committee in April 2011 advising members as to the total of the allocations for 2011/12.

7. As is the established practice, allocations to CPEGs would normally be made in two tranches, the first in April 2011 and the second in December 2011, provided the group is compliant with the requirements of their service level agreement (monitored quarterly), which ensures the Authority can effectively manage any risks associated with investing monies in borough level engagement. However, given the need to make interim payments this year, CPEGs will receive their funding in three tranches - the interim payment in April 2011, a further payment in May 2011 following the next sub-committee meeting and the final payment in December 2011.

Legal Implications

8. The majority of CPEGs are unincorporated associations, but a number have attained either charitable status or are companies limited by guarantee (members should note that unincorporated associations cannot by law employ staff). Regardless of the form of each individual CPEG they are all separate entities, independent of the MPA. However, as either the sole or majority funder of CPEGs, the Authority has a responsibility and a right to ensure that the funds it contributes to this work are used efficiently and effectively.

9. Any considerations in reducing the CPEG budget must have regard to the fact that such a reduction will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the CPEGs’ ability to maintain current staffing levels and also potentially on their ability to maintain premises and other contracts. This being the case, CPEGs will need to consider any legal obligations in these matters and the Authority, although not legally obliged to do so, should also give some consideration as to how they might assist CPEGs in effectively managing these matters. This should include providing appropriate notice of any budgetary changes and could also include providing professional advice as appropriate.

Environmental Implications

10. There are no environmental implications arising from this report.

Risk Implications

11. The proposed budget savings are unwelcome amongst CPEGs and officers, but officers have been actively engaging with all Groups throughout this process to minimise any risks to the MPA-CPEG relationship and to the Authority’s reputation. Thus far, this strategy has been working and MPA/CPEG relationships remain constructive with Groups.

12. Any efficiency savings to the CPEG budget will need to be carefully managed to ensure continuity of service and the maintenance of effective relationships with both CEPGs and other partners. There is considerable potential for damage to the Authority’s reputation should this process be poorly managed and communicated. Members should be particularly mindful of the need to ensure sufficient time for consultation with affected employees and organisations delivering services to CPEGs through service level agreements and the complications in determining the budget this year are introducing additional delays, which are unhelpful in this regard.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Natasha Plummer, Engagement and Partnerships Manager, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback