Best value review of consultation

Report: 11
Date: 14 December 2000
By: Clerk

Summary

This report summarises the work that has been undertaken as part of the best value review of consultation and asks the members to approve the key recommendations from the Review.

A. Supporting information

Background

1. To support the development of effective community consultation, the MPS initiated a review on existing consultation methods in 1999. The nature of the review was influenced by two further factors:

• the new statutory duty of Best Value came into force on 1 April 2000;
• the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority in July 2000 to take over the functions of the Home Secretary with respect to supervising and scrutinising the MPS. The MPA is the best value authority for the police in London.

2. It was therefore decided that the MPA and the MPS should undertake a joint review of consultation and that the review would be undertaken according to best value parameters. This means the review had to:

• challenge why consultation is done and how it is provided;
• compare the way in which the MPS consults with the approaches of other organisations;
• consult with internal and external partners, service users and the general public
• consider fair competition.

The two key outputs from the review are the best value review report and a consultation strategy.

3. The review was conducted as a project with formal terms of reference. The Project Board, which managed and controlled the review, was chaired by Assistant Commissioner Dunn. The Board included MPA and MPS representatives. The project reported to the MPA's consultation, Diversity and Outreach (CDO) Committee.

4. Full details of the conduct of the review are included in Appendix 1. Members will note that the process involved extensive consultation with a very broad range of stakeholders.

Main findings

5. The main findings of the review are set out at Appendix 2. Broadly they demonstrate that:

• no-one had overall responsibility for consultation;
• it is not possible to identify the resources going into consultation or the overall cost;
• PCCGs have no consistent pan-London coordination and are patchy in their organisation and effectiveness. No systems exist to assess their performance;
• expectations generated by consultation are poorly managed and feedback to those consulted is inadequate;
• more needs to be done to consult "hard to reach" groups;
• planning timetables need to be coordinated;
• although there is much energy, professionalism, commitment and good practice, no mechanisms exist to share best practice;
• consultation is central to effective policing and ought not to be outsourced;
• to improve processes and get the best out of consultation it will be necessary to invest extra resources.

Key principles

6. The review has found that current arrangements fall somewhat short of being able to deliver the aims and objectives of the proposed strategy. This has led to a number of significant recommendations for change. It is important to understand, when considering these, the key underlying principles governing all such recommendations. These are:

• the MPA has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the community of London is adequately consulted and their views reflected in the Policing Plan. All London's diverse communities must be able to make their voices heard;
• the MPA is independent of the MPS and has the political will and ability to hold the service to account;
• the MPA does not want to be involved in the management of consultation for its own sake. Its involvement must add value;
• the MPA must ensure that minimum standards are met which allow flexibility for local practices and local evolution;
• the MPA should seek to implement a consultation strategy covering a range of consultation approaches, including local consultation groups.

Key recommendations

7. Members are asked to approve a number of key recommendations that will allow work to implement the proposed strategy for consultation to proceed. These recommendations have been taken from the draft Best Value Review Report. A copy of the full list of recommendations is attached at Appendix 3. It should be noted that the consultation strategy document (see Appendix 4) provides a helpful context for these recommendations.

R1. There should be a consultation strategy which seeks to achieve the aims and objectives set out in Appendix 5.

R2. The consultation strategy should be owned by the MPA with the implementation of the strategy being the joint responsibility of the MPA and the MPS.

8. Rationale: The MPA has a statutory responsibility to ensure effective consultation with London's community. Ownership by the MPA would demonstrate the high priority which the authority places on consultation with the public. It would allow the Authority to lead this important process, and take forward its own vision of increasing community involvement and participation bringing the police service and community closer together.

R3. The MPA should assume responsibility for PCCGs, their constitution, their funding and their administration.

9. Rationale: The review has revealed that the current system of leadership, administration, accountability and evaluation of PCCGs is poor. It is apparent that to be effective PCCGs need to have clear direction and ownership. Someone must take responsibility for ensuring a co-ordinated approach and accountability. A significant amount of public money is invested in PCCGs and future resourcing will need to demonstrate effective outcomes in line with the proposed consultation strategy. In order to improve quality and to create a greater measure of independence this ownership and responsibility should now pass to the MPA. This is common practice in other police authorities throughout the country.

R4. PCCGs should be reformed and a new standard model established and adopted. The model should incorporate minimum standards in relation to delivering the relevant aims and objectives for the consultation strategy and a suitable means of assessing performance. The model should allow for local flexibility.

10. Rationale: There is little or no uniformity in PCCGs across London. While it is apparent that there are some areas of good practice there is scope for greater consistency. PCCGs need to be more representative and inclusive of the community they represent. PCCGs have recognised this problem and the London Forum for PCCGs has recently drawn up a 'good practice guide' which has been endorsed by both the MPS and ALG. The proposed model seeks to meet the aims and objectives set out in the consultation strategy and builds on this with good practice. The model will be the subject of further consultation over the coming few months with interested parties before a first version is agreed. The current draft version of the PCCG model is attached at Appendix 6.

R5. A professional Community Consultation Officer (CCO) should be appointed by the MPA to work with each borough. Initially it may be appropriate for some boroughs to share one CCO. The CCO should work closely with the Borough Liaison Officer and with the Community Safety Officer. The CCO should be assisted by an administrative officer.

11. Rationale: A complex and difficult programme of consultation will need to be delivered. This will need a dedicated member of staff, specialising in consultation, who will be able to support the delivery of corporate aims and objectives whilst allowing for significant local flexibility where necessary. This will address:

• the need to raise the profile of consultation in each policing borough;
• the need to support PCCGs and build on best practice for continuous improvement;
• the need to conduct an audit in each borough to identify gaps in the consultative process, and then to proactively capacity build to enable effective consultation;
• the need to assist the Borough Commander and delegated staff who have been assigned the responsibility for local consultation in the new strategy;
• the need to offer assistance to community safety officers who carry out consultation, especially for the crime and disorder strategies, but whose consultation is necessarily limited due to the primary focus being on the crime and disorder strategies; and,
• the need to help plug the gaps in consultation that exist, especially in relation to young people and minority ethnic groups.

The CCO will work closely with Borough Liaison Officers (BLOs), Community Safety Officers (CSOs) and PCCG chairs to improve the level of consultation given to the public. Key elements of the role include the need to:

• develop links with the local community and local consultative mechanisms;
• to participate in multi-agency partnerships in the delivery of consultation services to the local borough;
• to report on the outcomes of consultation to the MPA;
• to link with members of the MPA locally to discuss consultation issues in the borough;
• to maintain or set up local consultative arrangements with 'hard to reach groups'; and,
• to build local consultation capacity through the community and voluntary sector.

R6. The CCOs and their staff should provide professional and administrative support to PCCGs.

12. Rationale: As the CCOs and administrative support are to be provided, it would be logical and cost effective to use them to provide the administration for PCCGs. Funding used to support PCCG administration will be diverted to help pay for these new posts. All existing PCCG staff paid for from MPS funds will be affected by these arrangements. However there is no presumption that existing members of staff are not suitable for either of the new roles. In addition, no existing member of staff will lose employment without full consultation and a reasonable period of notice. It will be at least four months before any such changes can take place.

R7. A MPA Challenge fund of £250,000 be set up for which the CCO can coordinate bids from their community.

13. Rationale: Without these funds a number of key elements of the strategy will not be realised. Funds would be used to support capacity building, facilitate consultation with hard to reach groups and enhance partnerships.

R8. An initial injection of £10,000 should be provided for each borough to help the CCO undertake a local analysis and audit of consultation and help engage with capacity building and the voluntary sector. This would generate a one-off cost of £320,000 which would be spread over 2 years.

R9. A small consultation unit should be formed in the MPA to:

• recruit and manage CCOs;
• identify and disseminate best practice;
• set minimum standards and a performance monitoring regime for local consultation carried out by PCCGs and CCOs;
• liaise with MPS and other Pan-London bodies;
• provide a central point for consultation issues;
• support Pan-London/corporate processes and information handling.

R10. Corporate Development Group should be responsible for consultation on behalf of the MPS. It should identify and promulgate best practice, set minimum standards and establish a performance monitoring regime for corporate and local consultation undertaken by the MPS. It should liaise closely with the MPA Consultation Unit.

14. Rationale: This would more closely align consultation and planning.

R11. Borough Commanders should be responsible within the MPS for: the consultation required for Borough planning; ensuring that the local consultation required as part of the corporate planning takes place, consultation for crime and disorder strategies; and, coordinating all the consultation processes.

R12. Implementation of the strategy should be carried out over a minimum period of eighteen months.

15. Rationale: The proposals are complex and resources will not be immediately available for a 'big bang' approach. A phased implementation will ensure that the approach can be refined in the light of experience and full account can be taken of local issues.

R13. A budget covering the direct annual costs of £1,879,000 be approved. This represents an additional annual cost of £500,000 against current expenditure. These costs are based on 24 CCOs and administrative officers being employed. These figures have been extracted form the Costings Model attached as Appendix 7. It should be noted that a one-off cost of £320,000 for pump priming will also be incurred (see recommendation 8).

Liaison with PCCGs

16. On 21 November 2000 PCCG Chairs were invited to Romney House for a briefing regarding the key findings and recommendations. The aim was, as a courtesy and in the spirit of openness, to give chairs advance notice before proposals were placed in the public domain at the CDO Committee on 28 November 2000.

17. Some of the Chairs saw the proposals as centralisation for its own sake and showing a lack of appreciation of their good work and voluntary status. The chairs were also concerned about a lack of flexibility to deal with local issues and a dilution of their independence.

18. As a result of the concerns expressed, the London PCCG Chairs Executive held an emergency meeting on 4 December, to which officers and members were invited to listen and explain more fully the rationale behind the draft proposals.

19. The meeting was constructive; the future process was explained and detailed feedback regarding the proposed draft PCCG model was accepted with some areas being reflected in the latest version (see Appendix 6). It was emphasised that detailed feedback on the model would be dealt with within the implementation phase, and there would be room for local flexibility.

20. The MPA has set up a meeting on 18/12/2000 to ensure that staff currently employed by the groups are also given a full explanation of the draft proposals and to address personnel issues.

Local authority issues

21. All Chief Executives were sent the executive summary from the draft Best Value Review Report. The feedback has been mixed with some in favour and others raising concerns regarding how PCCGs would receive the proposals.

22. If and when the key recommendations in this report have been approved by the MPA, early discussions will need to be held with important partners such as local authorities and the ALG to establish how best to deliver the strategy.

23. The review has identified that consultation exercises in support of the MPS corporate policing plan and local crime and disorder strategies need to be brought together. This is particularly relevant given the recent decision by the MPS to base the local policing plan on the local crime and disorder plans. Discussions with the relevant partners to facilitate joined up consultation will need to be held as a fundamental part of implementing the strategy.

Borough commanders

24. All Borough Commanders have been sent the executive summary from the draft Best Value Review Report and a briefing. Several have been interviewed. The feedback has been very positive.

CDO committee

25. The CDO received at its meeting on 28/11/2000 papers covering the recommendations from the Best Value Review. It agreed to approve in principle the main recommendations covered in this report and the Consultation Strategy Document (see Appendix 4). The Committee asked that these recommendations be put to the full Authority for formal approval.

Interim arrangements for PCCGs

26. Before the MPA was set up, the MPS held financial and other responsibility for PCCGs. The review recommends that the MPA take over responsibility for funding, staffing and managing PCCGs. If agreed, this will formally take place from 1/4/2000. However, it would be sensible if some duties relating to PCCGs were picked up by the MPA now. The proposed interim arrangements are:

1. the MPA, with support and advice from the MPS staff currently involved with PCCGs, will manage the bidding process dealing with the allocation of budget to PCCG units in 2001/02. The overall budget will remain in line with that for the present year, except as amended by the proposals in this paper should they be approved. The appropriate resources will need to be transferred to the MPA from 1/4/2000;
2. the MPA takes over other duties related to liaison with and the steering and co-ordination of PCCGs;
3. work relating to PCCGs comes under the direction of the CDO Committee.

Staffing issues

27. At present the MPA have two full time staff (seconded until March) who are working on the Best Value Review that is nearing completion. It is proposed that these two officers deal with the interim arrangements and assist the implementation phase of the project. It should be noted that providing support to PCCGs and dealing with the correspondence and supporting members who are attending groups creates a significant amount of work, which will steadily increase. The interim arrangements must be kept to a minimum period, and permanent staff for the future Consultation and Implementation unit (if approved) must be sought at the earliest opportunity.

28. A case for recruiting an implementation manager will be put to the December CDO. In the meantime discussions between the MPA and MPS have begun to establish how best to resource management in the interim and development of implementation plans.

B. Recommendations

1. Members are asked to note the report.
2. Members are asked to approve the key recommendations listed in the main paper (starting at paragraph 7).
3. Members are asked to authorise the next stages of implementation. The 13 recommendations constitute a framework for the new arrangements. All the detail is still to be worked through in consultation with stakeholders.

C. Financial implications

The financial implications are covered by the Costings model (Appendix 7).

D. Review arrangements

The implementation of the consultation strategy will be undertaken on a phased bases. All key proposals will be agreed by the CDO Committee. The nature of the implementation will ensure that there is ongoing review.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

The author of this report are Ian Gaskell and Sultan Taylor, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Recommendations from draft Best Value Review Report Version 4 - 10 November 2000

The main recommendations are:

1. A planning timetable should be produced and widely circulated. This should include references to all the centrally and locally instigated consultation;

2. There must be a consultation strategy. This should be owned by the MPA. The implementation of the strategy should be the joint responsibility of the MPA and MPS;

3. There needs to be a communication strategy to disseminate the consultation strategy and timetable.

MPA

4. The MPA should assume responsibility for PCCGs, their constitution, their funding and their administration.

5. PCCGs should be re-branded* and re-formed. A new standardised constitution should be written and implemented. The membership should be revised to reflect the new constitution. Success criteria for PCCGs should be published and performance measures put in place. The new system and structures will be based on the concept of 'minimum standards' and the principals of performance management. It is recognised that different Boroughs have different needs so the proposed PCCG model will allow for appropriate local flexibility. All PCCGs should engage in e-consultation via a link to the MPA web site. Arrangements for effectively co-ordinating Pan London consultation through PCCGs should be established as soon as possible.

*Note: Following feedback from PCCG Chairs it was agreed that this issue will be re-visited during the implementation phase. This is an additional comment since the Best Value Report Version 4.

6. A professional Community Consultation Officer (CCO) should be appointed by the MPA to work with each Borough. The CCO should work closely with the Borough Liaison Officer and with the Community Safety Officer. An administrative officer should assist the CCO.

7. The CCOs and their staff should provide professional and administrative support to PCCGs.

8. The CCO should seek to work with local community and voluntary sector bodies to ensure appropriate consultation is carried out. To assist with this, it is recommended that a MPA challenge fund is set up by the MPA for which the CCOs can bid for progressing initiatives with these local groups. The CCOs should also be encouraged to bid for external challenge funds. This approach should enable capacity building, facilitate the consultation of hard to reach groups and enhance partnerships.

9. A small consultation unit should be formed in the MPA to be responsible for consultation on behalf of the MPA, liaise with the MPS consultation co-ordinator, recruit and manage the CCOs and disseminate best practice.

MPS

10. Corporate Development Group (CDG) should be the focal point for consultation on behalf of the MPS. This should include being responsible for the strategy, being the focal point for external and internal enquiries about consultation, and being the first point of contact for the MPA on consultation. It is recommended that a new post is created to carry out these functions on behalf of Director CDG.

11. CDG should be responsible for the consultation required for the annual Policing Plan. This should include consulting the public corporately (the Public Attitude Survey or its replacement, focus groups, e-consultation utilising MPA and MPS web sites), the public locally (through BLOs, PCCGs, CCOs and local Crime and Disorder partnerships), business and other interested parties (through letters, questionnaires and one to one interviews) and MPS employees (through meetings, focus groups, seminars, EM feedback and the intranet). In addition MPA members will need to be consulted at all stages of the process

12. Borough Commanders should be responsible for the consultation required for the Borough planning, for ensuring that the local consultation required as part of the corporate planning takes place, that consultation for crime & disorder strategies is undertaken and that all the consultation processes are co-ordinated. This recommendation refers to responsibility. The actions are likely to be done by the BLO and the CCO working together.

13. The MPS should continue to have a centrally based survey unit (PIB3) to undertake corporate survey work and advice on local surveys, particularly for HQ units.

14. Consideration should be given to combining those aspects of the current Public Attitude Survey required as part of the annual planning cycle with surveys being planned elsewhere. In particular, the GLA has expressed considerable interest in the joint approach. This may reduce the cost but is unlikely to reduce the time and effort required by the staff involved. The main benefit from this approach would be the furtherance by partnership, but it may bring some disadvantages.

Implementation

15. Implementation should be carried out over an eighteen-month period to enable each Borough to be dealt with on an individual basis to allow for the current different PCCG constitutions and administrative arrangements and different local circumstances.

Appendix 2: Aims and objectives

The following ten key aims and objectives for the proposed consultation strategy, which are not placed in order of priority, have been taken from the findings of the review. For each, a list of bullet points covering the more detailed requirements within each aim/objective is provided.

A. Provide information to public to ensure they are better informed of business strategies/objectives [shared with relevant communications strategies].

• give feedback to public about consultation that they have been a party to;
• educate public;
• ensure views obtained from public are informed;
• inform public about what consultation goes on and how;
• manage expectations of the public to ensure they understand constraints on service.

B. Obtain information from the public to inform (and influence) the Police business strategy and implementation plan (mission, vision, values, annual Policing Plan and local policing plans).

• to ensure local priorities/objectives are understood and can be considered alongside central priorities;
• to link together as effectively as possible police planning with C&D strategies;
• to ensure all relevant consultation results are fed into MPS strategic co-ordination to inform strategic planning process;
• to ensure both a bottom up and top down flow of information for corporate development;
• to ensure the co-ordination of corporate and local consultation.

C. Exchange views with the public.

• debate issues with public.

D. To carry out consultation in a cost effective manner and achieve continuous improvement.

• ensure consultation processes can by monitored for Best Value;
• raise standard of consultation to a minimum level;
• enable effective prioritisation of objectives;
• enable planned consultation programme to be implemented;
• ensure those involved in consultation know what they are doing;
• establish clear record of what consultation is taking place with associated costs;
• provide suitable training for those involved in consultation;
• to agree and promote best practice for consultation;
• to ensure corporate and local consultation initiatives complement one another, avoiding duplication and consultee fatigue.

E. To address local tactical issues:

• helping to solve local crimes;
• resolving conflicts between police and section(s) of community;
• secure public's cooperation in the prevention of crime.

F. To support commitment to policing by consent and connect policing to diverse communities

MPA responsibilities under GLA Act 1999 to consult community of London to obtain an independent public view of policing and promote equal opportunities (L).

• involve community in policy development;
• help breakdown barriers;
• to consult in an informed, friendly, direct and engaging way;
• ensure consultation approach is credible;
• help police get closer to community;
• give public greater say in way service operates and delivers (local people should be the judge of the service that they receive);
• on the Sherry Arnstein Ladder of Participation, to achieve either 'delegated power' or 'partnership.

G. To improve public perception of MPS through being seen to engage more effectively with the public.

• MPS to be open, honest and transparent;
• breakdown barriers of mistrust between police and public;
• to ensure that consultation is real and not seen as a PR exercise;
• to persuade disillusioned groups to have more confidence in the Police.

H. To reach a broad and representative sample of the population to reach all groups listed below:

• residents who might be expected to respond to standard consultation;
• 'hard to reach' groups;
  • young people
  • minority ethnic communities
  • people with disabilities
  • older people
  • those without a permanent home
  • gay men and lesbians
• transient population (e.g. commuters, tourists);
• business community;
• MPS staff and staff associations.

I. To help ensure joined up consultation across Agencies involved in delivery of police service and community safety.

J. To ensure ownership/responsibility for delivering consultation is clearly defined.

Appendix 3: Costs of Current and Proposed Consultation

The aim of this paper is to lay out the current and proposed costs of external consultation in the MPS. This means consultation at both a corporate and local level.

Both the current and proposed costs have been split into two categories:

• direct costs – actual money which has been spent on external consultation;
• redirectable opportunity costs – Police Officers who are working on consultation but whose time could be directed elsewhere.

It has proved virtually impossible to cost all effort in consultation. The following costs only address what has been identified.

The Borough figures are estimates of the amount spent on consultation as this is solely based on opportunity costs from the main meetings Police Officers attend on a regular basis. The Borough Liaison Officer (Chief Inspector) works full time on consultation, and their deputy (usually an Inspector) part time. In addition, other officers are also involved in consultation namely the Borough Commander and the Sector Inspectors.

The proposed costs have been split into two columns. Ideally, we would want one CCO and one administrative officer per borough. The costs for this are shown in the first column, showing 32 CcO/AOs. However, the requirement in outer London boroughs may be significantly less than that in inner London boroughs and an alternative set of costs, which assume 1 CCO/AO per two outer London boroughs, is shown in the 2nd column of proposed costs.

NB: It is proposed to provide £10,000 per Borough is made available for pump priming in the first year of each revised Police Consultative Group. This is to facilitate local partnership and community consultation. In the longer term, it will be the responsibility of the CCO to obtain relevant funds from challenge funds or other local sources including business.

The actual provision of this initial money will be against business cases from the CCO.

Appendix 4

See supporting material.

Appendix 5: PCCG Model

Role of the Metropolitan Police Authority

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) will be responsible for the resourcing and running of Police & Community Consultative Groups (PCCGs) in support of the Consultation Strategy.

In this context the MPA will:

• ensure PCCGs adopts the MPA and Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) consultation strategy;
• provide local Community Consultation Officers to Boroughs to jointly work with PCCGs;
• ensure that all Consultative Groups have a new re-branded name across London;
• ensure Police & Community Consultative Groups conform to the Authorities best practice guidelines;
• promote PCCGs on their website;
• provide training, support and assist the developments of PCCGs;
• establish minimum standards and monitor performance;
• restructure, manage, resource and support the Pan London Chairs Group. They will identify training needs for all staff and have clear terms of reference. The MPA and Senior Officers should attended and administer the Meetings;
• identify Geographical Link Members for each London Borough;
• manage a Challenge Fund for creative initiatives to improve police community relations, to which Police & Community Consultative Groups as well as other Groups can make an application.

Role & purpose of PCCGS

The primary role of Police & Community Consultative Groups is to facilitate in a proactive manner local consultation on the Borough, in particular to consult on local, corporate and policing issues.

PCCGs will:

• obtain the views of the public to ensure that police decisions are modified to their needs;
• engage in a 'partnership approach to consultation, building on existing partnerships and creating new ones, where appropriate;
• inform people, give members of the public a clear idea of what they can realistically expect from the police and the ways in which they can help the police;
• identify problems, and suggests ways in which the public can help the police;
• resolve conflicts, Improve relations between the police and the public;
• establish a mechanism to engage with young people
• monitor and record all activities of the Group and illustrate the outcomes; with the aim for continuous improvement;
• demonstrate the effectiveness above minimum level
• engage in e-consultation via a link to the MPA web site;
• establish a mutually beneficial working relationship with Sector Working Groups and the Business Community.

In order for this to happen PCCGs will:

• establish an appropriate approach to engage with young people and so called 'hard to reach' groups;
• carry out consultation jointly with other agencies and work with partners such as the Metropolitan Police Authority, Local Authorities and Greater London Authority;
• foster a healthy proactive working relationship with local Borough Commander and the Council Chief Executive through the Crime & Disorder Partnerships.
• hold open public meetings;
• feedback, outcomes of consultation to the Metropolitan Police Authority and Borough communities;
• develop a communication strategy;
• consult widely on both the local and national policing plan;
• consult and establish a dialogue with so called 'hard to reach' groups;
• stagger times and locations of meetings to accommodate the varied habits of all sectors of the community;
• set local objectives and measure performances to ensure requirements are met/achieved;
• engage in joint initiatives with Sector Working Groups, information exchange and attend meetings.

Membership

The Membership of Police & Community Consultative Groups (PCCGs) should be maintained, open and inclusive, with no restrictions placed on the number of representative from each category. PCCGs should strive to ensure that its membership is representative of the communities in its Borough. The number of Groups/Organisations represented on the PCCG can be unlimited but the service of individuals from the Groups/Organisations should be limited to 3 years and a new representative should be sought after this time.

Decision on Membership of Groups/Organisations to PCCGs will remain the responsibility of the Group.

The Membership to the PCCG will be considered for any Groups or Organisations with a Constitution and a Membership of not less than 10. All such Groups must provide an Annual Report.

The Membership of PCCGs shall consist of:

• Non-party political Groups/Organisations
• Community Groups/Faith Groups
• Voluntary Organisations
• The Business Community
• Individual membership of the public must not exceed 12
• Young People
• Lay Visitors, Neighbourhood Watch, Tenants & Residents Associations
• Religious Organisations

In addition, non-voting members standing membership will comprise:

• The Metropolitan Police Authority
• The Metropolitan Police Service Borough Commander, Community Liaison
• Officer and Sector Working Police Officers
• Local Councillors
• Members of Parliament and of the European Parliament
• Statutory Bodies/Agencies
• Statutory Authorities: - Crime & Disorder Partnership; Probation Service; Crown Prosecution Service; Magistrates and Prison Service, where appropriate
• Individual statutory members, such as Councillors may choose to go for full membership if they want to be considered for the position of Chair.

The working parties/sub committees of the Group shall be appointed, at the Annual General Meeting. Any member of the PCCG will be eligible to serve as a working member.

Appointment of officers

The Honorary Officers of Police & Community Consultative Groups shall comprise a Chair and two Vice Chairs who will be elected at the Groups Annual General Meeting; Officers must be full members for 2 years. The persons so elected shall thereafter be responsible for management of the Group and shall hold office for a period not exceeding 3 consecutive years.

Chairs will be elected by their local PCCG; after that election it will be ratified by the MPA. The MPA will reserve the rights to remove Chairs/ Honorary Officers if they are failing to fulfil the functions of the post described by the MPA or in breach of the MPA Code of Conduct.

Meetings

Meetings of Police & Community Consultative will be widely promoted and accessible to the public. The meetings will:

• be publicised widely, locally, to ensure maximum attendance;
• be accessible to all sectors of the community through using premises occupied by relevant groups;
• be held at a minimum of six times per year of which one will be the Annual General Meeting;
• be themed to address both local and national issues;
• provide an open forum at the start of the meeting for any member of the public to raise questions and gain answers;
• be held at venues, which are accessible to people with disabilities and are easy to get to;
• provide translated materials; offer interpreters as well as written materials in large print;
• held on dates , which does not coincide with religious celebrations;
• not announce the names of attendees at meetings without their consent;
• times and locations will be staggered to accommodate the varied habits of all section of the community.

Funding

The MPA staff will provide the administration for Police & Community Consultative Groups. PCCGs will be invited to bid for direct funds for consultation purposes and challenge initiatives.

Funding will be considered if PCCGs are:

• working within the financial guidelines of the MPA;
• achieving main objectives stipulated in their Annual Plan.

In addition, funding will also be considered for:

• an initiative to improve police community relations;
• staffing;
• publicity.

Accommodation:

1. accommodation and consequent funding will be agreed by the MPA when each new PCCG is established;
2. where it is not considered appropriate for PCCGs to be accommodated in local authority premises funding for accommodation will be provided as appropriate.

The Consultation Officer will monitor the incoming & outgoing funds of the Group on behalf of the MPA.

Communication strategy

Following full consultation with PCCGs the Community Consultation Officer will produce a full consultation strategy.

Crime & disorder partnerships

The Local Authority Community Safety Officer, the Metropolitan Police Service Community Consultation Officer and the Police & Community Consultative Group, Community Coordinator will work in partnership on matters relating to the Crime of Disorder Partnerships.

Evaluation & monitoring

The Metropolitan Police Authority through its Consultation Unit shall regularly assess Police & Community Consultative Groups on their effectiveness; therefore Groups will be required to provide auditable records of their performance, highlighting the success/non success rate of those targeted audiences.

Group will be required to demonstrate:

• whether all sections of the community consulted?
• what percentage of so called 'hard to reach' group were contacted/involved in consultation and was a representative sample of people included?
• if consultation directly informed a decision, shaped policy, police operation or service delivery arrangements?
• if consultation results were used to set local performance standards and targets?
• if the consultation exercises meet its objectives? If not, why was this and what steps can be taken to prevent similar problems in future?
• whether the local police keep PCCGs informed and listen to views?

They will:

• monitor standards / ensuring requirements are met / achieved borough level;
• evaluate links local community networks, forums and activities;
• monitor the level of feedback dispatched from the Group as well as feedback from the public.

Equal opportunities

Community & Police Consultative Groups will demonstrates that they are actively seeking to engage with members of the community, promote equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race sex disability age, sexual orientation or religion and adopt good relations between persons of different race groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.

Constitution

The Constitution of Police & Community Consultative Groups will include detailed description of:

• Admission to the public
• process for nominations & elections
• The role the Honorary Officers: Chair/Vice Chair
• The procedure of annual General Meeting and Extraordinary Meetings
• The process for application for membership
• Amendment to the constitution
• The formation of sub-committees and/or working parties

Key performance criteria

1. Consult all sections of the community.
2. Consult and establish a dialogue with so called 'hard to reach' groups.
3. Provide feedback to the public.
4. Gather feedback from the public.
5. Establish new links with communities.
6. Establish a mechanism to engage with young people.
7. Engage in partnership initiatives.
8. Inform the public about realistic expectations.
9. Carry out joint consultation exercises.
10. Determine ways in which the public can help the police to resolve local crimes.
11. Provide an open forum at the start of meetings.
12. Consult widely on the both local and national Policing Plan.
13. Have themed public meetings.
14. Stagger times and dates of meetings to accommodate the varied habits of all sectors of the community.
15. Undertake initiatives/projects to resolve problems.
16. Establish an inclusive membership and ensure that it is representative of the community.
17. Develop a communication strategy.
18. Create database of community contacts.
19. Monitor and record all activities of the Group and illustrate the outcomes; with the aim for continuous improvement.
20. Demonstrate the effectiveness above minimum model.
21. Demonstrates effective contribution to consultation to the Crime & Disorder Partnerships.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback