Update on the Review of Community and Police Engagement Groups

Report: 4
Date: 13 December 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report provides an update on the further work that has been conducted in relation to the Community and Police Engagement Group Review – Ensuring Influence; Delivering Value for Money since the last meeting of this committee.

A. Recommendations

That

1. members note the report and the direction of travel in respect of CPEG reform;
2. members endorse the development of a compact agreement between the Authority and CPEGs

B. Supporting information

1. In the light of the community and police engagement group (CPEG) benchmarking exercise conducted earlier this year as part of the 2010/11 funding round, the new financial climate and the Authority’s commitment to securing continuous improvement, members agreed that a further review should be conducted to consider the future management and development of CPEGs. The results of the first stage of that review were presented to this committee in October and this report updates the position with respect to the further work that has since been conducted.

2. This review has been conducted in two parts, which have taken place simultaneously. Part one of the review was a traditional value for money review looking at efficiency, effectiveness, economy and equalities across all CPEGs. Based on monetary terms alone, that review indicated that the Authority could achieve a saving of approximately £477 000.00 by simply reducing the highest spenders down to the average levels of expenditure. However, members agreed that this approach would be over-simplistic in relation to dealing with community engagement activity. Recognising the limitations of a value for money review in adequately assessing community engagement activity, part two of the review was based on a set of qualitative surveys, seeking views from CPEGs, borough command units (BCUs), community safety managers (CSMs) and MPA members/officers. The consultation period extended over 6 weeks and the views were generally positive. However, members expressed some concern at the variable return rates and asked that officers conduct further surveys with a sample of those who did not respond to ascertain both their general views of CPEGs and the reasons for non-return of the survey.

3. Since the last meeting of this committee officers have conducted further analysis in a number of areas. Firstly, so as to more fully understand the staff and non-pay budgeted allocations officers have produced a breakdown of the individual costs within the ‘other’ expenditure category. Further information is provided in Appendix 1, but in summary this demonstrates that (of the total expenditure of £ 237 000) approximately 70% of the expenditure (£165 000) is targeted at delivering specific engagement projects, such as youth conferences and town show events. The other significant areas of expenditure related to training at £17 000 and professional services at £24 000. Although not significant sums of money, these are both areas in which there is potential to make efficiencies. For example, it would appear that some CPEGs are securing their own training provision, which is in addition to the training that the Authority funds through LCP2. We know that some groups are not regularly accessing LCP2’s services, so there is potentially some wastage here, which should be addressed. This could be achieved by ensuring the training provided meets the specific needs of disengaged groups, including the timing and location of events. Alternatively, it is possible that the Authority could deliver the training services currently provided by LCP2 directly, leaving LCP2 to focus on its specific functions as the umbrella groups. In relation to the costs of professional services, such as auditing and insurance, there are a variety of voluntary sector schemes offered at preferential rates that can be accessed through membership of local councils for voluntary services and there are also organisations, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which seek to provide volunteers to support voluntary sector groups with their financial management requirements. Again, this would indicate that it would be possible to reduce costs in this area.

4. Secondly, in order to benchmark CPEG staffing and administration costs against other non-profit organisations, officers have reviewed a range of research, including that commissioned by the Charities Aid Foundation, which indicates that fundraising and administration costs should constitute between 10 and 30% of total expenditure. This is notable in that CPEG staffing costs alone constitute 66% of the overall expenditure. However, it should be noted that the Non-profit Overhead Cost Project, a five-year study found that on average smaller organisations had higher overhead cost ratios than larger organisations.

5. Thirdly, further survey work has been conducted with a sample of boroughs and this has indicated that the most commonly cited reason for non-response to the survey was due to competing priorities and lack of time. Again, BCU respondents tended to have more positive views of CPEGs than CSMs, but there was a view that they could be more challenging and should seek to be more of a critical friend to the borough police and partners. As was the case with the earlier round of feedback, CSMs were less positive about CPEGs than BCUs and this tended to be due to the fact that they are already required to engage with a range of other borough mechanisms, such as community councils and safer neighbourhood panels, and that in their view the CPEGs were not always operating at a strategic level and were therefore duplicating the role of those other borough groups.

6. In addition, to the further survey work and expenditure analysis, officers asked all CPEGs to provide practical examples of the community engagement work in which they are engaged and the relevant outcomes of that work. Some groups have still to respond, but this information is being compiled and a sample of the practical examples cited by CPEGs is attached at Appendix 2.

7. As advised at the previous meeting of this committee, officers held an engagement event for all CPEGs on 9 November 2010 to further consider the future of CPEGs. Attendants participated in round table discussions focussing on two key questions (I) what constitutes an effective CPEG and (ii) achieving greater value for money through CPEGs. A range of views were expressed on both points (these are summarised at Appendix 3), but specifically there was general consensus that an effective CPEG should (i) serve as a hub bringing together a range of borough groups to collectively influence community safety matters, (ii) employ a range of [two-way] mechanisms to engage with a wide variety of communities, including outreach, conferences and electronic media and (iii) be well promoted and act as a key critical friend to all partners. It was interesting to note that many also recognised the need to have an effective executive group driving the work of the CPEG. In relation to the value for money question, again a range of ideas were put forward, including (i) sharing office space, staff and printing facilities, (ii) more effective networking with other organisations to increase the Groups’ reach and influence, (iii) that CPEGs could take on the administration for safer neighbourhoods panels to save the MPS time and money, which could be redirected to CPEGs and (iv) that the wider CPEG membership should take a more active role in the CPEG, e.g. by volunteering to help deliver specific events or functions. More broadly it is notable that despite obvious concerns, many attendants appeared to be taking a more proactive approach to the issue of achieving greater efficiencies and had begun to see some opportunities in the sharing of services and resources with other groups. In addition, there was a view expressed in a number of group discussions that the CPEG guidance should be more prescriptive and that more Groups should proactively raise funds from other sources.

Future funding arrangements

8. The budget for 2011 onwards is as yet unconfirmed, so it would be difficult to expect CPEGs to submit funding bids without the detail of the available funding. Members should be advised, though, that a discussion paper will be presented to the Business Management Group to consider some broader engagement and partnership funding issues, which may bring some clarity. However, in the current circumstances the CPEG application process has been deferred until January 2011 at which time it is anticipated the budget situation will have been clarified. However, it is clear that the funding process needs some amendment both in the light of previous experience, internal audit advice and the potential benefits of adopting more of a commissioning relationship with CPEGs and this work is being progressed. This includes further work on developing a Compact agreement, which would be of benefit to the Authority and to CPEGs since it would enable the Authority to place greater responsibility on the CPEGs for managing their own affairs and would facilitate better forward planning and development. This approach, would however, require the Authority to take a less risk averse approach to managing the allocated funds, although other organisations, such as London Councils have successfully implemented such schemes without any significant issues.

9. A further issue for consideration in relation to future funding arrangements, which will become more relevant if the overall budget allocation is reduced, is the question of differential funding to borough groups. At present, all groups can bid for funding up to a limit of £50 000 and while this was previously considered to be an appropriate sum for the delivery of borough community engagement, it may no longer be sustainable if the budget is considerably reduced. In addition, learning from the experience of the last five years, officers are of the view that it is inappropriate and unnecessary for all borough community and police engagement groups to be funded to the same level. There should clearly be a minimum level for all boroughs, but beyond that any additional funding should be allocated on the basis of local need. Officers will be working with Treasury to develop a formula for the future allocation of funding, which will be based on a minimum level allocated to all boroughs and then supplemented by additional funds dependant on a range of variables, including borough crime levels, population data and levels of diversity.

10. From the discussions that took place at the last meeting members sought further clarification on what might be lost if the CPEG administration model were restructured so that administrative resources were shared across more than one group. Officers recognise the potential for the loss of local knowledge, but there are two mitigating factors, which reduce the risk of this having a lasting impact; (i) 18 CPEGs are administered by local authorities and in many cases they are providing mostly administrative services, rather than active outreach, which could easily be transferred to another provider – this is also true of some of the other administrative arrangements, but there is more scope within those arrangements to change the way in which those resources are deployed (ii) a number of CPEGs are beginning to discuss the possibilities of sharing resources with neighbouring boroughs and these often share some common characteristics, which would make any transition less problematic and (iii) even if some administrators did not continue in their roles under new arrangements, the existing CPEG executive groups and wider membership should provide a good degree of continuity and local knowledge to support the new arrangements.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality Impact

1. Previous equality impact assessments (EIA) have already identified relevant issues in terms of the degree 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 funding is available to meet specific engagement needs.

2. 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.

3. The EIA process is cumulative and will be updated as the review progresses. The next key phase of the EIA will be in relation to any reduction in the budget and the impact of any structural changes flowing from that. An initial EIA indicates that should there be a significant budget reduction CPEG staffing resources will feel the greatest impact 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. These specific issues will need to be considered and addressed as the future size and shape of the CPEG budget becomes clearer.

Met Forward

4. 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.

Financial Implications

5. The ongoing work associated with the review and future development of CPEGs will continue to be delivered within existing resources. The allocated CPEG budget for 2010/11 (including the London Communities Policing Partnership) is 1.575m. As discussed at the previous meeting of this committee, an indicative estimate of the value of the volunteer contribution achieved through CPEGs would suggest that the Authority is benefiting from approximately 10.5 hours per week per volunteer and that the monetary value of this contribution across all 156 CPEG executive members (using the mean hourly rate of £15.58 published in the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings for all employees in London, Office of National Statistics, 2009) would be approximately £1.2 million. It should be noted that this is an average figure, which neither takes 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 and is intended only to provide an indication of the amount and value of volunteer time being contributed to the work of CPEGs in addition to the paid officer time. Given the sums of money and the amount of paid and unpaid person hours allocated to this area of work, it is 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.

6. The comprehensive spending review announced a 20% reduction on the general police grant in real terms over the next 4 years, but announcements on other policing grants are still awaited. The Authority has made a commitment to securing frontline policing and has a duty to ensure value for money. As such, the impact of the budget reductions will not be felt equally across all areas of the business and although it is clear that there will be an impact on this budget the detail in terms of the size and timing of any reduction has not yet been determined. Having said that, given the findings of the value for money review, which indicated potential savings in the region of £500 000, it is possible that the Authority will look to achieve savings of at least that magnitude. In addition, members may wish to note that changing the delivery model for CPEG administration (i.e. by reducing from 32 to 8 administrators at an average cost of £30 000 per borough) would save an estimated £700 000. Regardless of the administrative delivery model, should it be necessary to implement significant budget efficiencies, there will clearly be an impact on CPEG staffing resources. At present 18 groups receive their administrative services through a service level agreement with a local authority (total cost of £559 000), six through similar arrangements with voluntary sector organisations (total cost of £262 000) and eight are directly contracted to work for the Group (total cost of £146 000).

Legal Implications

7. 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.

8. 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

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

Risk Implications

10. 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.

11. It is possible that any proposed changes arising from this review may be unwelcome amongst CPEGs and officers are seeking to actively engage 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 positively engaging in the review process.

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

• Community Police Engagement Group Review – Ensuring Influence, Delivering Value for Money, CECF sub-committee 4 October 2010
• Sargeant A and Kaehler J (1998) Benchmarking Charity Costs, Charities Aid Foundation
• Non-profit Overhead Cost Project (2004), Indiana University Center on Philanthropy and the Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy

E. Contact details

Report author(s): Natasha Plummer, Engagement and Partnerships Manager, MPA

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1

CPEG Review – Breakdown of unspecified non-pay expenditure

Appendix 2

Practical examples of CPEG engagement activities

Bexley

Brief Description of the activity: Bexley Community Safety Partnership undertook a mapping exercise of BME Communities within Bexley. Bexley CPEG used this information to target engagement with hard to reach communities in particular Bexley’s Sikh community.

Target group (if any in particular): Bexley’s Sikh community

Method of engagement: Meetings with community leaders culminating in a community meeting in Sikh Temple attended by representatives of all statutory agencies

Specific outcome / measure of success: Targeted the Sikh community, who were not engaged with the CPEG or statutory agencies, through specifically targeted community meetings. The CPEG identified barriers to engagement and built effective relationships. Over 100 members of the Sikh community attended. This has also resulted in local representatives of the Sikh community now being engaged with Bexley CPEG and statutory agencies. A leader of the Sikh community now sits on the CPEG executive.

Other activities: Bexley CPEG has undertaken a range of engagement activities. Recent examples include engagement with Bexley Youth Council to produce a DVD on the dangers of binge drinking to be shown in secondary schools and youth clubs. Bexley CPEG has also undertaken a range of youth engagement activities in Thamesmead including a graffiti arts project and football sessions in partnership with Charlton Athletic Community Trust.

Bromley

Brief Description of the activity: Annual Youth Conference for year 8 pupils. Students had the opportunity to participate in 3 workshops on mutual respect, cyber bullying and road safety. Additionally young people participated in a mock coroner’s court, with proceedings presided over by a magistrate and a police officer giving evidence. Whilst students were in workshops, teachers were able to put questions to various Partners including Bromley Council, MPS, Fire Brigade, MPA and GLA.

Target group (if any in particular): Year 8 pupils in London Borough of Bromley Schools.

Method of engagement: Meetings with schools and partners, conference including workshops, feedback questionnaires.

Specific outcome / measure of success: 142 students and 13 teachers attended the conference, representing 13 schools. This enabled BCEF and statutory agencies to engage with students and teachers on community safety issues and further develop partnership working. One student commented “Fantastic day. I have had a problem with bullying on the internet and this helped me.”

Other activities: Bromley CPEG has undertaken a range of engagement activities. Other recent examples include Community Outreach Days, ‘Message in a bottle’ and Lonely Neighbour campaigns, supporting the Safer Bromley Faith Forum (which was established by BCEF and the Safer Bromley Partnership) and engagement activities with Safer Neighbourhood Panels.

Croydon

Brief Description of the activity: Targeted engagement with Safer Neighbourhood Panels with the aim of increasing awareness of the CPEG and panel representation at the CPEG public meetings.

Target group (if any in particular): Safer Neighbourhood Panels

Method of engagement: Attendance and delivery of presentations at Safer Neighbourhood Panel meetings and meeting of Safer Neighbourhood Chairs.

Specific outcome / measure of success: Targeted Safer Neighbourhood Panels that were not engaged with the CPEG by ensuring the attendance of a CPEG representative at Panel meetings. This has built effective relationships with Panels, increasing the flow of information between the CPEG and Panels and Panel representation at CPEG meetings.

Other activities: Other recent activities undertaken by Croydon CPEG include an outreach day at Croydon’s Whitgift centre with the Safer Croydon Partnership and hosting ‘face the people’ partnership meetings.

Kingston

Brief Description of the activity: Targeted youth engagement in partnership with Kingston University. The work focused on the views of young people in Kingston, asking them about their priorities for tackle crime and disorder and opinion of their interactions with the police etc.

Target group (if any in particular): Young people in Kingston.

Method of engagement: Survey

Specific outcome / measure of success: Ascertained the views of 750 residents and non-residents and 490 resident young people (two secondary schools, Kingston College, Kingston University, after school classes at Kingston Mosque, four youth clubs and the Kingston’s Young People’s Forum all took part). The findings of the survey have been used to support the work of the CPEG and Safer Kingston Partnership, ensuring that the views of young people influence future planning.

Other activities: Other recent activities undertaken by Kingston CPEG include working alongside the Safer Kingston Partnership on a responsible cycling campaign and annual SuperSNaP event.

Merton

Brief Description of the activity: Following on from a youth survey undertaken by Merton CPEG, the group developed a targeted youth engagement programme to improve relations between young people, who are unable/unwilling to attend public meetings, and the police.

Target group (if any in particular): Young people in Merton

Method of engagement: Survey, workshops, plays, electronic communications and youth conference.

Specific outcome / measure of success: Merton CPEG has delivered three anti-bullying plays and workshops in partnership with Lantern Arts, attended by over 200 young people. The Group is training three organisations to use the StreetWise Gun, Gang and Knife Crime resource to educate children and young people about the dangers of gun, gang, and knife crime. The group also plans to deliver workshops on stop and search to youth clubs and will hold a youth conference February 2011. Through these targeted engagement activities, the Group has ensured that the views of young people in Merton are fed into the CPEG and Safer Merton Partnership.

Other activities: Merton CPEG has undertaken a range of engagement activities. Other recent examples include targeted activities to increase involvement of Safer Neighbourhood Panels through attendance and delivery of presentations at Panel meetings. Representatives of the CPEG also attend Merton’s five Community Forum meetings which meet quarterly to update the Forums the group’s work.

Sutton

Brief Description of the activity: Youth engagement and consultation in partnership with the Riverside Community Centre targeting young people in the north of the borough not engaged with the CPEG or statutory agencies.

Target group (if any in particular): young people in the north of the borough.

Method of engagement: youth club sessions, attendance at public events, outreach work with Sutton’s URBIE bus, surveys, and social media

Specific outcome / measure of success: Targeted engagement with young people in the north of the borough through youth club sessions, outreach, public events, and social media, to establish young people’s views on community safety issues and feed these into the work of the CPEG. Young people have been consulted on stop and search and fear of crime, enabling young people to raise matters important to them with the CPEG and statutory agencies. As a result work has begun with young people and Safer Neighbourhood Teams/Panels to address perceptions of anti-social behaviour by young people.

Other activities: Other recent activities undertaken by Sutton CPEG include an outreach days at events across Sutton including the St Helier Festival, Belmont Festival and Carshalton Fair. Sutton CPEG has also been working with Safer Neighbourhood Panels not yet engaged with the Group to increase panel representation at public meetings.

Enfield and Haringey

Brief description of the activity: The Jus North Project was launched on 9th October 2009 to get young people from neighbouring post code areas to interact, helping to prevent the post code related violence and hostility that has become prevalent recently amongst young people, commuting, studying, and living in the Lower Tottenham and Upper Edmonton wards.

Target group (if any in particular): The Project engages young people age 11-19 in after school and weekend activities to reduce the number of violent flashpoints and numerous violent incidents involving young people within these areas.

The Project is an enormous success and has enabled dialogue to take place between young members of the community and the issues that are affecting them. The anti-post code gang message is reinforced at each event.

The project aims to engage and work with a wide spectrum of cross border young people to be proactive in crime deterrent activities, raising awareness of security, promoting a safer community and creating a supportive positive social network for the young people. It will build on its success in diverting young people from gang related and anti social behaviour through a range of youth engagement activities.

Method of engagement: The project will engage young people in after schools and weekend activities located within their neighbourhood that will deter them from cross-border disorder and anti-social behaviour.

The project will

• encourage young people to educate their peers to dismantle the cross- border gang culture and provide holistic service provision for those young people who are at the ‘harder end’ of youth crime.
• raise the expectations of youth in the target area, to encourage them to take up positive life opportunities, such as engaging in training or education for their chosen profession.
• in an environment of mutual interest build interactive relationships between young people within the cross border regions of Enfield, Haringey, Waltham Forest and Islington.
• raise awareness of positive and effective initiatives, through a DVD, information leaflets, Jus North Facebook, text messages, websites, and liaison with youth groups/agencies.
• raise the recognition of the project beyond the boundaries of Enfield, Haringey, Waltham Forest and Islington.
• recruit a team of volunteering staff to act as positive role models and mentors to provide support and run discussion groups.
• to help young people who have a fear while travelling on the buses through the corridor of Enfield, Haringey, Waltham Forest and Islington.
• to establish positive links between young people in the target areas and their local police.

Specific Outcome/measure of success

The establishment of

• a referrals pathway to Safer Neighbourhood Teams and appropriate organisations and a system that tracks the progress of the project and referrals
• a cross border youth Engagement Forum comprising young people from Enfield, Haringey Waltham Forest and Islington
• an informed and cohesive group of young people to champion the project
• Safer Neighbourhood Team and young people text messaging service that enables rapid communication to the boroughs’ Safer Neighbourhood Teams

To

• Identify best practice in accordance with the Mayor’s draft youth strategy 'Time for Action’
• complete a Memorandum of Understanding between the four boroughs to adopt a common process for tackling cross-border youth anti-social behaviour
• establish a framework for cross border engagement and consultation
• Increase involvement in youth engagement activities
• Register 10 young people per borough (40 in people total) on the periphery of crime to attend summer camps across London

To provide

• a documentary that profiles the work of the project
• accreditations and recognition for participants of the project
• solutions to prevent cross-border disorder and anti-social behaviour
• 6 advice and awareness workshops for young people around the subjects of stop and search, drugs, careers, sexual health, gun culture and the dangers of knives and guns

The project will

• help reduce burglary, street robberies and petty thefts, by engaging young people who are beginning to get involved with Crime by preventing them from turning to criminal activity through boredom.
• reduce post code related gang violence.
• to prevent young people from becoming involved with crime at a young age and encourage them to access non-criminal past times and provide outlets for their energy and creativity.
• reduce anti-social behaviour. To promote anti-drug/substance misuse advice through information distribution at each event and with involvement with Lifeline.
• The long term aim of the project is to deter young people from becoming involved in crime at a young age and growing into professional criminals.

Tower Hamlets

Tower Hamlets Face the public session. The event was held in August and explored issues that affect young people for example stop and search. The young people aged 14-19 years were asked key questions from the Policing plan consultation. The outcome was that it increased young people’s knowledge on stop and search and the different types, also help them to understand the process and increase their awareness with regards to safety. The community was consulted and engaged in relevant issues and then they were taken forward by the chair to the lead of ie stop and search or the CDRP locally to deal with the problem.

Camden

As part of the Camden’s Crime and Disorder Reductions Partnership, (known in Camden as the Community Safety Partnership - CSP) Strategic Assessment, the CCPCG was commissioned to undertake eight focus groups. The information gained from the focus groups has been combined with data from the various partners to identify the priorities for 2011/12.

The CPS outlined the various sections of the community they wanted the CCPCG to engage with and the questions that needed to be asked. Over the first two weeks of October the CCPCG held the following focus groups:

• Youth – 12 young people aged from 12½ to 16 years from the Camden Town area, they were a mixture of white, Bengali and black young people took part.
• Muslim group, preferably women – large group of Somali women and a few Somali men about 18 to 20 people in total from the Kilburn area took part
• Business – disappointing response from businesses, but did do the focus meeting with Simon Pitkealthy the Head of Camden Town Unlimited who represents over 3,000 businesses.
• Area Forums (these are ward based resident forums administered by the local authority) – a large group of people from across the borough 16+ people took part.
• Tenant and Residents – Disappointing response a small group had booked but only two turned up. We ran a second session with the person who runs Camden Federation of TRAs to make sure we covered all areas.
• LGBT – We tied the focus group in with a scheduled meeting of Camden’s LGBT Forum. Over 20 people from across the borough took part.
• Elderly Group – very large group of about thirty people mainly living in the Kings Cross area took part
• Disability – We held the focus group at the Camden People First offices, all the people had learning disabilities and a number of them also had physical disabilities. About 15 people took part that lived in different parts of the borough.

All group fully engaged in the focus groups, everything they said was recorded. Analysts from the Partnership Information Unit listen to every recording and produced a report identifying the issues raised by the community.

This is the third year the CCPCG has been commissioned to run these focus groups. In previous years the analysts have expressed how useful they find listening to what people say because they often talk about low level antisocial behaviour issues that go unreported.

Islington

Islington Community Safety Board in collaboration with Islington police, commissioned City YMCA, to help devise a means of improving relationships between the police and young people in the borough. The focus was on increasing the awareness of Stop and Search legislation and getting the young people active in their various communities with the opportunity to advise and shape policing in the local area.

This project also encouraged young people to become active citizens, by encouraging them to suggest ways of making their local communities a safer place to live, get involve with ICSB, Stop and Search Monitoring group and IAG.

The target group are young people aged 14-21.

The method of engagement was through survey, interactive session/ meeting at Youth Clubs and Schools. The participation youth workers were young people within the target age group. They developed sessions that were enjoyable; engaging, informative and interactive. Many of these sessions include questionnaires, games and role plays.

This project had a huge impact on the young people that were engaged during the project and ICSB was able to obtain feedback from young people regarding crime, stop and search and policing in Islington which have been fed to the borough commander.

Some of the project successes were:

• Young people awareness of ICSB and its work increases.
• Encouraged young people to become active members of their communities. Such as attending ICSB meeting, Stop and Search Monitoring and SNT Panel meetings.
• Suggesting ways young people can make their local communities a safer place to live.
• Provide specific legislative process to young people regarding the legislation around Stop and Search. Which in terms
• Gather feedback from young people about how Stop and Search can be improved.
• Give young people the opportunity to advice and shape policing in their local area.

All of the above have helped brought positive changes in attitude and behaviours of some of the young people. Leading to reduction in anti social behaviours and petty crime in the borough.

Hackney

Brief description of the activity: Community Safety Day at Stoke Newington Town Hall – see leaflet attached. Stalls included the Dog Trust, Fire Safety advice, Domestic Violence, Community Safety Team and victim support.

Mr Levy was also present at the second Community Safety Open Day of 2010, held at Stoke Newington Town Hall on 25 September. He said: “This event has been about getting together to do what we can to make the community a safer place. We need to give young people the space to get away from it all and achieve. I hope that after today we don’t forget about it, but carry on with that feeling of peace for the rest of the year.” Around 150 people attended the event, organised by Team Hackney on behalf of Hackney Community Engagement Board (HCEB). Children were entertained by the police Safer Neighbourhoods Mascot ‘PCSO Steve’ who was on hand to give out balloons, stickers and other goodies, while residents had an opportunity to find out how the police, Council, Fire Brigade, and community groups work together to keep Hackney safe and clean.

See the full article and photos on: www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/HT241.pdf

Target group (if any in particular): Residents of Hackney particularly families with children and young people.

Method of Engagement used: Market Place with information stalls and community safety advice and giveaways, Music and entertainment, PCSO Steve and balloons face painting for Children.

Specific outcome/measure of success: Attendance 150 people and stall holders engagement with members of the public.

Southwark

Brief Description of the activity: Helping to keep our young people safe in Southwark - A Parents and Youth Conference

Target group (if any in particular): Youths and their parents

Method of engagement used: Open consultation involving the Borough Commander and key officers. Also, presentations by youth groups represented and of significance was the presentation by young people themselves. More of questions revolving around Youth crime and Stop and Search failings.

Specific outcome/measure of success:

1. Created awareness for many parents, who appeared not to have known anything about the SPCCG's engagement with the youths
2. Opened up specific opportunities to work with new youth groups and we are planning to engage more with them so as to be able to reach the youth.
3. Parents and their groups now attend the SPCCG Forum meetings.

Appendix 3

CPEG Engagement Event - Ensuring Influence; Delivering Value for Money

What are the key characteristics of an effective and influential CPEG?

• Ability to influence both at a strategic and operational level
• Good degree of representation both in terms of attendance at meetings and on the executive/management committee
• Groups should serve as a ‘hub’ – bringing all the groups together to collectively influence community safety issues at a borough level
• Groups should provide an effective borough mechanism that can distil the message from the street to the ward and up to the borough level
• Need innovative communications mechanisms – offers better value for money than existing mechanisms
• Professionalisation of members of the groups including the chairs and executive gives people the confidence to negotiate/influence people at a strategic and operational level
• Often effectiveness and ability to influence comes down to the commitment of the people involved
• Mix of formal and informal mechanisms to engage – feedback between the two mechanisms is crucial

How can CPEGs become more effective?

• Facilitate non-political meaningful consultation and engagement between the community and the Police without a political agenda - councillors should be involved so that they can influence, make things happen, and feed issues back to the local authority
• The Borough Commander needs to be able to trust the Chair and be able to consult them on difficult decisions that need to be made knowing that the Chair can act appropriately with sensitive issues
• CPEGs need to be promoted to all partner groups and organisations and to attend Safer Neighbourhood Panels (SNPs) and other groups’ events and meetings
• There is a role for LCP2 around guidance, assistance and coordination – they could pick up some of the functions of the MPA so that the MPA can concentrate on more strategic bodies and can focus on funding and pan London good practice
• There need to provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure groups are informed about relevant policies, practice and legislation, such as the Policing Pledge and stop and search provision
• Focus on issues, key themes at each meeting and setting achievable targets
• Public attendance at meetings is an issue but more than 80 people will mean that not everyone has an opportunity to speak
• Outreach activities such as going to other meetings, outreach days, local fairs, youth conference, Facebook, Twitter etc
• Links with statutory partners – demonstrate that you can deliver as a CPEG
• Borough Commanders reports - meetings work better when these are circulated in advance of the meeting, rather than the Borough Commander running through the stats without the “public” having the time to formulate questions
• Statistics are not always in the format that suits the public, they are more for “professionals” who understand how to read them
• There should be effective Terms of Reference and should include the roles for all participants including the Chair and Co Chair. The MPA should review the constitution and the tenure for all concerned. There was a suggestion that the length of tenure for the Chair/Co Chair should be reduced to 2 years and a longer period of time before the same people are able to be re-elected/stand again. It was suggested that this should be the same for the executive also, possibly a maximum of 4 years
• Discussions took place about the importance of effective communication so that community members are well aware in advance of meetings, venues, agendas to enable better preparation
• Suggestions that the MPA should look at alternative strategies to engage with the wider community since it would encourage wider participation on topics that impact on particular communities
• Local CPEGs should engage with other community groups and the guidance from the MPA should be more prescriptive

How can CPEG funding be more efficient?

• Look at the times meetings are held as this makes a difference in terms of room hire costs and work with boroughs to find cheap venues
• Work with existing groups, the Voluntary Sector, youth clubs, etc to increase networking and influence via other channels than meetings
• There needs to be a common denominator across London around how CPEGs are set up so that it is standardised in terms of cost across London
• Money should be used primarily to consult – if an area has a problem they need to have the ability in that areas to hold a meeting and find out what the local issues and concerns are and to offer reassurance. All the project work that some CPEGs support and fund are fringe benefits that are not within the direct remit of CPEGs
• If administrators had more involvement in SNPs this would result in the MPS saving money, which could then be directed back to CPEGs
• Members should have more of a role deciding how money is spent
• Sharing costs, buying in bulk, printing, staff – with other groups in the borough or other CPEGs
• Administrator to have a role in obtaining funding from other sources

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback