Review of Community and Police Engagement Groups – Ensuring Influence, delivering Value for Money

Report: 4
Date: 4 October 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report presents the findings from the Community and Police Engagement Group Review – Ensuring Influence; Delivering Value for Money - and invites members to discuss the findings.

A. Recommendations

That

1. the survey is reopened to secure the views of those boroughs who have yet to respond;
2. an engagement event be held on 9 November 2010 to provide an opportunity for Community and Police Engagement Groups to consider the relevant issues in more detail; and
3. a further report be considered at the next meeting of this committee on 13 December 2011.

B. Supporting information

1. As part of the 2010/11 Community and Police Engagement Group (CPEG) funding process, officers conducted a benchmarking exercise, which identified some areas in which officers believed it would be possible to achieve greater value for money. CPEGs were challenged on these lines of expenditure and in some cases, savings were achieved. However, in the light of that exercise members agreed that further analysis should be conducted and this value for money review is the outcome of that process.

2. In addition, to the decision of this committee to conduct further analysis, there were a number of other factors which informed the development of this review. Firstly, the Authority’s commitment to securing continuous improvement in the delivery of borough level engagement, particularly in relation to increasing the level of influence of CPEGs and ensuring value for money. Secondly, the forthcoming comprehensive spending review and the need to identify savings of between 25 and 40% across the Authority’s budget, which has further increased the need to ensure the Authority is achieving value for money from all its financial commitments. Thirdly, the forthcoming Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which will necessitate further consideration of the way in which community engagement in relation to policing and community safety is delivered. Finally, members will be aware that there have also been some initial discussions with London Communities’ Policing Partnership (LCP2) with regard to the future of CPEGs in the context of increasing financial constraints. As a result of those early discussions, the potential re-configuration of the CPEG delivery model into an area structure to ensure effective delivery and to achieve better economies of scale has come to the fore. It should be noted, however, that these discussions did not consider the complete withdrawal of MPA support for the CPEG model, as has been reported in some local press.

3. This review has been conducted in two parts, which have taken place simultaneously. Part one of the review is a traditional value for money review looking at efficiency, effectiveness, economy and equalities (see appendix 1). Recognising the limitations of a value for money review in adequately assessing community engagement activity, part two of the review has been conducted as a set of qualitative surveys, seeking views from CPEGs, borough command units (BCUs), community safety managers (CSMs) and MPA members/officers (see appendix 2). The consultation period extended over 6 weeks from the week beginning 9 August to 17 September 2010. Appendices one and two provide the full analyses of the value for money and qualitative survey data, but some particular aspects are highlighted here for ease of reference.

4. The value for money review has been based on a range of data, including the budgeted expenditure for 2010/11 and data on a range of other factors, such as the number of public and executive meetings held. Overall, the results are relatively unsurprising, identifying that the largest proportion of expenditure is allocated to staffing (60% of total budget), items classified as other expenditure (15% of total budget) and office costs (6.7% of total budget).

5. It is too early to reach any conclusions from this information, although given the size of the overall budget, and of some specific lines within that budget, it is likely that greater efficiencies could be achieved. Further work is needed in a number of areas before any full conclusions could be reached. For example, a further breakdown of the ‘other’ expenditure category could expose opportunities for greater efficiencies. Also in pure value for money terms, the Authority could achieve a saving of approximately £477 000.00 by simply reducing the highest spenders down to the average for all CPEGs. However, officers are of the view that this approach would be over-simplistic in relation to dealing with community engagement expenditure.

6. To assist in better understanding the dynamics of CPEG input, outputs and outcomes, officers are compiling further data for analysis in a number of areas. For example, further analysis is needed to better fully understand the staff and non-pay budgeted allocations. This will include providing a breakdown of the individual costs within the ‘other’ expenditure category. It will also include further benchmarking against voluntary and community sector organisations to ascertain whether or not the ratio of non-pay to staff pay costs, which for CPEGs is 66% but would normally be expected to be between 10 and 20% in the policing sector, is appropriate for this kind of work.

7. In relation to the survey data, the majority of all respondents tended to be positive about the role and value of CPEGs. More specifically, CPEGs were the most positive about the role and value of their groups, which is perhaps to be expected. However, it was more interesting to note that of those who have responded, BCUs were more likely to have positive views about borough CPEGs than community safety managers. This could be due to the different remits of BCUs, which are required and have a need to maintain an ongoing discussion with their local communities, whereas community safety partnerships are only required to consult on borough strategic priorities. These findings highlight the need for further work to secure a broader view of CPEGs, particularly from BCUs and CSMs. With this in mind, it is proposed that the survey be reopened to allow further time to secure survey responses from each BCU, CSM and MPA member to provide a broader perspective.

8. The surveys have provided some evidence of the outcomes, such as:

• improved engagement and relationships between young people and the police;
• the establishment of third party reporting sites and of a crime prevention desk in a local supermarket, making the police more accessible to the community; and
• providing opportunities for the community to nominate projects for the Community Payback Scheme (unpaid work carried out by offenders), ensuring offenders repay their debt to the community and help to improve the local environment.

9. However, these examples do not represent the outcomes from all CPEGs nor do they cover the full range of activity. So further work is needed to identify specific outcomes from the work of all CPEGs, some of which are not always so readily identifiable. The survey data has also provided some insight into the diversity of each group, which demonstrates that there is representation across all the diversity strands, but this masks the differential levels of representation in different boroughs, which may or may not be in proportion to that borough’s demographic profile. Further work is already under way in respect of identifying the gaps in representation with a view to addressing those specific needs through more targeted activity.

10. In addition to the survey data, Groups were asked to provide approximate information on the number of volunteer hours they contributed to CPEG work. Not all groups provided such information (18 in total responded), but of those that did there was considerable variation in the estimates, ranging from 50 to 1000 hours per year per executive member, with the average being approximately 500 hours per annum (which averages at just under 10.5 hours per week). This variation could be influenced by a number of different factors, such as executive members’ availability to commit time specifically to CPEG work, the amount of additional support that is provided by the Group administrator (dependant on their hours of work) and the level of engagement between the CPEG and other borough partners, which might necessitate a greater time commitment.

11. If one were to estimate the monetary value of this voluntary contribution to policing and to the work of the Authority using the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings for all employees in London (Office of National Statistics, 2009), the mean hourly rate would be £15.58. With a total of 156 executive members across those CPEGs that have responded, the monetary value of their voluntary commitment to community engagement would be approximately £1.2 million. It should be noted that this figure does not take account of the different levels of input from differently skilled and experienced executive members, nor of the outcomes that might be attributable to those contributions. In addition, this figure does not indicate whether the amount of time given is sufficient, too much or too little. It does, however, provide an indication of the amount of volunteer time being contributed to the work of CPEGs in addition to the paid officer time.

12. As well as conducting further desk research and data analysis, officers will be facilitating an engagement event for all CPEGs on 9 November 2010 to further consider these findings and to discuss the next steps. A further report will then be submitted to this committee in December 2010 with appropriate recommendations for the development of the CPEG model. In addition, some of the matters arising from this work will be reflected in a review of the current funding application process to ensure it is suitably robust and provides a better break down of financial expenditure.

C. Other organisational and community implications

1. Equalities Impact

Previous equality impact assessments (EIA) have already identified relevant issues in terms of levels and breadth of representation amongst CPEGs. For example, the Authority is already aware of the need to increase representation amongst younger people. In addition, members are aware of the need to ensure CPEG structures and meetings are fully accessible and CPEGs are offered appropriate advice in this regard and some funding is available to meet specific engagement needs.

With regard to this specific review, the EIA highlighted the need to ensure the surveys were accessible to anyone who wished to participate in the process. As such, the survey was made available online and respondents were advised that should they prefer it, surveys could be provided in hard copy or conducted over the telephone. The value for money review has also considered a range of equality data to provide an indication of the diversity of CPEGs and to inform future work in relation to ensuring appropriate community representation in the work of CPEGs.

2. Met Forward

The community engagement commitment supports the Met Connect strand of Met Forward. The key theme of Met Connect is ensuring our communities are properly informed and engaged with regard to policing matters to deliver increased confidence in policing.

3. Financial Implications

This review and any work that will now flow from it will continue to be delivered within existing resources. The allocated CPEG budget (including the London Communities Policing Partnership) is 1.575m. It is therefore essential to continually ensure that the Authority is achieving full value from this investment. In addition, it is also incumbent upon the Authority to provide appropriate support and guidance to CPEGs in ensuring they do their part to deliver increased value for money. The outcome of the pending comprehensive spending review is likely to have an impact on this budget, so it is timely to consider current commitments and how things might be delivered more efficiently to achieve appropriate efficiencies.

4. Legal Implications

The majority of CPEGs are unincorporated bodies, but a number have attained either charitable status or are companies limited by guarantee. 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.

5. Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications arising from this report.

6. Risk Implications

There are some risks arising from this report, most notably having identified some key areas in which it is likely to be possible to make savings, it is now incumbent upon the Authority to give these due consideration particularly in the current financial climate and with the prospect of increased pressures on the MPA budget.

It is possible that any proposed changes arising from this review may be unwelcome amongst CPEGs and officers are seeking to actively with engagement with all Groups throughout this process to minimise any risks to the MPA-CPEG relationship and to the Authority’s reputation.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author(s): Natasha Plummer, Engagement & 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