Funding for Community and Police Consultative Groups and Independent Custody Visiting Panels 2003/04

This report was withdrawn from this meeting

Report: 13
Date: 27 March 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

Annually, the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) allocates a budget to Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) and Independent Custody Visiting Panels (ICVPs) to enable them to undertake specified aspects of work on its behalf. A nominal budget allocation for each CPCG and ICVP has been proposed and is being presented to the Authority for approval.

A. Recommendations

That the Authority

1. approves the recommended budget allocation to each CPCG and ICVP for 2003/04; and
2. notes the processes in place for managing the unallocated budgets to support MPA developments for Independent Custody Visiting and consultation.

B. Supporting information

1. In December 2002, Community and Police Consultative Groups and Independent Custody Visiting Panels were invited to complete applications for funding to be submitted by February 2003. The large majority achieved this deadline and the quality of the bid applications has notably improved over the previous year.

2. In addition to the bid application, each CPCG was required to submit a work plan outlining their proposed activities for the ensuing year. The work plans submitted were of varying quality, and officers have already identified a need to provide further guidance and assistance to a number of groups in this area.

Allocation process

3. Officers carried out an initial assessment of the bid application, the work plans and the previous year’s annual reports (where these were available). This information was used to form the basis for the allocation of the annual budget. The information required was not immediately available for all groups, making the process a little more difficult, although a great improvement on the previous year.

4. Nicholas Long, the MPA lead member with responsibility for ICVP and CPCG matters, met with officers over two days in order to agree the allocation of funding to each Group and Panel. This recommended allocation is attached at Appendix 1. The Authority is asked to agree the recommendations. Where a figure is not shown clarification needs to be sought from the Group or Panel. A detailed finalised budget will be presented to the Consultation Committee at its meeting on 24 April.

5. The total budgeted amount for CPCGs and ICVPs for 2003/04 is £1.26m. This represents a slight increase of £25,000 on the budget last year to offset the increase in staffing costs for administrators of the Groups and Panels. £977,000 is allocated for Consultation/CPCGs and £288,000 for ICV Panels.

6. In addition to proposing the allocated budget, Nicholas Long has already asked officers to make modifications in a number of areas which will, hopefully, make the process even more efficient in 2004/05; for example, the CDO Unit currently collects little meaningful data and information on the performance of ICV Panels that could inform the budget setting process. This will be addressed over the next 12 months.

Allocation criteria

7. A basic set of assessment criteria was used to assess the funding applications of Consultative Groups. These are attached at Appendix 2.

8. A different, less formal, set of criteria was used to assess the bids by ICV Panels. These were largely similar to last year on the basis that a similar number of visits (52 per year) were conducted by all. Those Panels with more charging stations and where the throughput of detainees was high, etc were given a higher level of funding. Where Panels were already operating at a cost above the proposed ceiling, it was agreed that, on the basis of their overall annualised detainee numbers, a smaller increase would be made to these Panels.

Budget retention

9. Last year, those Consultative Groups that did not submit a work programme had 10% of their budget retained until this was received. This year it is proposed that 15% of the budget will be retained as an incentive to ensure that groups meet this requirement. Those groups that are yet to submit their 2003/04 work programme are indicated in Appendix 1.

Development budgets

10. Independent Custody Visiting became a statutory responsibility of the Authority in July 2002. The Home Office has produced new guidelines that will need to be followed and there are a range of developments that will need to be carried out in the ensuing year. This will have implications for the current resource available to undertake the work required, and it is proposed that part of the unallocated budget is used to contribute to the level of staffing required to progress this work.

11. The current Administrator is leaving. This has given the CDO Unit the opportunity to vary to the job description of the ICV Administrator to take account of the increased responsibility and the skills required. The Human Resource unit will be carrying out a job evaluation to identify the salary level of the post. It is proposed that part of the unallocated budget could be used to meet the shortfall in the cost of the post, should this be evaluated at a higher level than the current post.

12. The unallocated funds will be used for other development costs including the printing of new identification cards for Visitors, the redesign and reprint of a new Custody Visiting report form, printing of the MPA ICV Handbook, the annual training programme for ICVs, among others. Details of this will be presented to the April meeting of the Consultation Committee.

13. Lead members have proposed that unallocated consultation budget should be used to support developments by Consultative Groups. Details of this will be presented to the April meeting of the Consultation Committee.

C. Equality and diversity implications

Much of the improvements that are being encouraged in the work of CPCGs and ICVPs will contribute to the activities demonstrating greater integration of equal opportunities and diversity in their performance and practices. The activities of the groups and panels are listed in the MPA Race Equality Scheme, there is therefore a specific responsibility to ensure that they undertake their consultation and community engagement activities in ways that meet the general and specific duties of the Act.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications are the subject of the report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith, CDO, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 2: General principles for accessing of CPCG bids

1. The submission of a copy of their work plan and where this is not available, the information contained in previous annual reports.

2. Where no work plan has been submitted there will be a 15% reduction in the funding allocation until the MPA receives and approves the work plan.

3. An upper limit of £64,000 allocation for all Groups.

4. Where insufficient information is provided or there are questions about a bid application, a ‘silent’ bid will be allocated subject to officers seeking more details as the basis for confirming the bid.

5. Non core consultation activities, such as the support of racial Harassment Panels will not be supported, in line with the recommendations from the MPA Internal Audit

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback