Borough community engagement funding 2009/10

Report: 6
Date: 12 February 2009
By: Head of Engagement & Partnerships on behalf of the Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines the progress being made to transform community police engagement arrangements at the borough level, and sets out proposals for the assessment and approval of the community engagement funding allocations to the borough based community engagement groups for 2009/10.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members note the progress being made in developing community engagement arrangements for the borough based community engagement groups
2. members endorse the proposed arrangements for the assessment and approval of 2009/10 funding allocations to the community police engagement groups.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA has a stated commitment to robust and effective community engagement arrangements being in place for each London borough. The reform programme started over 3 years ago, has seen that work progressed by the Engagement and Partnerships Team to transform and develop the nature of community engagement on policing and community safety at the borough level.

2. The Reform programme had the following objectives:

• consultation and engagement becoming an integral part of local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) activity
• the groups to hold all partners not just the police to account
• the groups to engage with the emerging Safer Neighbourhood Panels
• the groups to play a full part in the MPA’s strategic consultation at a pan-London level and
• to encourage groups to ensure they are more representative of their local communities.

3. The Authority has continued to drive the reform programme forward through its Engagement and Partnerships Team. However, since the reform programme began there have been adjustments to the focus and emphasis on some parts of the programme and this is discussed in more detail below.

4. Clustering the boroughs into groups of four and allocating each cluster to a specific Engagement and Partnership Officer, has had a considerable impact upon the Authority’s ability to monitor, evaluate and support the development of the CPEGs. The EPU has published a practical handbook for CPEGs, which provides advice and guidance for how groups should be organised and managed. In addition, officers are regularly attending group executive meetings and have implemented a service level agreement (SLA) framework, which provides a process for monitoring and evaluating delivery of the CPEGs annual work plans on a quarterly basis. This not only provides a vehicle for driving effective delivery within the year, it also provides the basis for negotiating the following year’s plans, which supports the process of continuing development. The Authority has also jointly funded the Community Engagement Programme, which is providing a number of workshops and e-learning opportunities for CPEG and Safer Neighbourhoods Panel (SNP) representatives. Participant feedback indicates that the programme has been very beneficial both in terms of increasing skills and knowledge and improving links between CPEGS and SNPs.

5. Over the last year many CPEGs have continued to develop improved links with local partnerships, with many now having places at partnership meetings with either the Chair or other executive members attending.

6. The MPA has continued to encourage the CPEGs to involve the SNPs in their work. Many of the groups now have good representation from the panels at their meetings and in some cases SNP representatives have also become involved in Group executive committees. Similarly, officers have continued to advise and support groups in making serious and sustained efforts to ensure that their memberships are representative of their local communities and to also make efforts to reach out to, and involve, those communities who prefer not to engage through open public meetings.

7. One of the areas in which the reform programme has been re-focused is in the aim of having CPEGs holding all partners to account. CPEGs do not have a statutory role in relation to the work of the partnerships and as such, this is not something we could realistically expect them to achieve in every London borough; having said that, many CPEGs have achieved an improved level of engagement with other statutory partners who have willingly opened themselves up to greater scrutiny. In this way, many CPEGs have been able to broaden their focus to look at how all of the various partners work together to develop and deliver initiatives and determine priorities. In addition, a number of CPEGs have hosted CDRP ‘Face the People’ events, which are a statutory requirement on CDRPs to hold public question and answer sessions and to feedback on actions taken to address local issues.

9. In relation to the objective of contributing to the MPA’s consultative process at a pan-London level, this year the CPEGs were directly asked to support and promote the London policing plan consultation process. It is difficult to measure the level of impact, but there is scope to make better use of the CPEGs as a pan-London consultative resource either individually or under the umbrella of LCP2 (London Communities Policing Partnership) and work is currently underway within the community engagement mapping project to identify how the Authority could develop this opportunity.

10. Many of the groups have had to undergo a process of change in order to meet some of the challenges that the MPA has placed upon them. This focus has led many groups to look at how they communicate and engage generally with their local communities, and to examine more innovative approaches. This has also encouraged a greater level of sharing of good practice and knowledge between CPEGs, which has often been facilitated through the LCP2 forum and the Engagement and Partnerships Team.

11. The number of CPEGs that have reached or are drawing close to the £50,000 cap remains a concern since it can have a negative impact on their ability to function. Some of these groups are meeting all of our objectives and the funding cap is actually penalising them for their success. The Engagement and Partnerships Team continues to work with LCP2 to support these CPEGs in identifying other potential sources of funding, as well as working with groups to ensure they achieve value for money in the services they employ. Over the next year officers will be working with LCP2 to explore the development of a process by which the CPEGs could have more freedom and opportunity to secure project based funding from other sources.

Pan-London Community Engagement

12. The pan-London group LCP2 continues to provide support to CPEGs through the dissemination of information on best practice, the provision of workshops/seminars on a range of topics such as effective chairing skills and problem solving, and through direct support to a number of CPEGs experiencing particular local difficulties. The provision of this kind of capacity building from LCP2 and the Engagement and Partnerships Officers has enabled those groups that are underachieving to become more focused on delivering effective feedback from local communities rather than tying up scarce resources in expensive administrative and bureaucratic processes. This process will also empower the volunteers who make up the CPEGs to develop a more proactive and strategic approach to borough wide engagement on policing and community safety on behalf of local communities.

13. Officers have developed a good working relationship with LCP2 and the delivery of its objectives is monitored through the same SLA process as that of the CPEGs. LCP2 is making good progress in developing an effective relationship with the CPEGs, which will support its development as an effective mechanism for engaging with Londoners on policing and community safety issues across the region.

Funding application process

14. Funding application packs were distributed to all CPEGs and to LCP2 in December 2008, with a deadline for the return of completed applications of 6 February 2009, to ensure groups would have sufficient time to consult their members and other local partners.

15. As in previous years the funding applications will be assessed by the Engagement & Partnerships Officers who will examine the viability of each group and its capacity to deliver the activities for which funds have been requested against specified criteria (see Appendix 1). The Engagement & Partnerships Officers will not assess bids from their link boroughs to mitigate any potential bias in the process and every assessment is then also reviewed by another officer to ensure consistency in the assessment process.

16. Clearly it has not been possible to complete the application and assessment process in time to provide a report to this committee, but it will be necessary to have the grant allocations approved so that arrangements for payment can be made in good time to avoid any financial hardship for the groups. It is therefore proposed that officers conduct the assessments and then meet with the Chair of this committee and/or 2 other members to seek approval for the recommended grant allocations.

Community engagement conference

17. The MPA’s 4th Annual Community Engagement Conference is taking place later than in previous years and is the subject of another report on this meeting’s agenda. The conference aim is to bring together Londoners who are engaging with the police and other agencies involved in community safety to highlight areas of the MPA’s work and to recognise their valuable contribution.

Community engagement innovations fund

18. The sum of £100,000 was set aside within the 20008/09 budget in order to fund innovative community engagement initiatives up to the maximum level of £5,000 per bid. The projects that were awarded funds are required to provide monitoring information and outcome reports and these will be reported to this committee later in the year.

Cross-borough engagement fund

19. The sum of £100 000 was allocated in the 2008/09 budget to support the development of proactive and innovative community engagement activities addressing community safety issues that cut across borough boundaries. The allocation of this fund is the subject of another report on this agenda.

C. Race and equality impact

It is a funding requirement for all groups to have adopted an equality statement and to make demonstrable efforts to ensure that their membership criteria and activities are in line with good practice. In addition, the practical handbook for CPEGs provides advice on ensuring CPEG activities are accessible. The EPU will continue to liaise with equalities and diversity colleagues and with LCP2 to ensure that information regarding good practice and changes to legislation are being distributed to the groups.

D. Financial implications

1.The total budget for CPEGs is £1.6 million (£50 000 per borough) and this is contained within existing budgets. The financial management of the successful projects will be reviewed as part of the overall monitoring regime to ensure that the allocated funds are used appropriately.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Maurice Blades & Natasha Plummer, MPA

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1

The effectiveness of CPEGs is assessed based on evidence of the following criteria:

Administration and governance

• Must be a fully constituted not-for-profit voluntary sector organisation;
• Must demonstrate financial accountability. For example, having a bank account, the treasurer reporting quarterly finance updates to the group;
• Must have an officer group elected by the general membership;
• Elected officers must serve in a voluntary capacity;
• Elected officers must be representative of and be resident or work in the Borough;
• Must have a Treasurer elected from the membership of the group to oversee the monies of the group;
• Must demonstrate the participation of the Borough police in the activities for which funding is sought;
• Must have a service level agreement between the group and any other organisation providing administrative support to the group.

Budget plan

• Must demonstrate sound financial management;
• Must demonstrate the budget is reasonable and justified, in terms of community engagement and consultation;
• Must demonstrate value for money in terms of administrative support, for example; is the money paid appropriate to skills and competencies outlined in the service level agreement;
• Must demonstrate value for money in terms of stationery/office supplies, photocopying, advertising/publicity and other expenses, for example; is the money paid good value for the goods and services received;
• Should demonstrate an ability to gain in-kind support from other sources, for example; a donation of a photocopier, getting office space for free, or other similar support;
• Should demonstrate an ability to gain income from other sources.

Community engagement activity

• Must consult on the local policing priorities and feed results of local community engagement into the annual policing priority setting process;
• Engages in local crime and disorder partnership initiatives, and is involved in;
• safer neighbourhood projects, and
• borough strategic assessments and crime reduction/community safety plans;
• Promotes and facilitates the engagement of local communities in the delivery of policing services;
• Enables community monitoring and influence on the decision-making of policing;
• Demonstrates the ability of the organisation and its staff to carry out the activities;
• Demonstrates that the activities are realistic and attainable;
• Must demonstrate equality and diversity in all aspects of community engagement activity.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback