Cross Border Innovations Fund 2010/11

Report: 7
Date: 13 December 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report seeks member approval for the allocations of the Cross border innovations Fund, which has been devised to support the development of innovative cross-borough community engagement initiatives.

A. Recommendations

That members approve

1. the top highest ranking projects to receive funding from the 2010 Cross Border Innovations Fund; and
2. the disbursement of an additional £10 000.00 to support a business engagement project.

B. Supporting information

1. This sub-committee received a report on the 2008-10 Community Engagement Innovations Fund and approved the development of a new fund of £50 000.0 to further support the development of innovative community engagement projects. As discussed at that meeting, the 2008-10 Fund successfully encouraged the development of innovative practice particularly in relation to communities of identity rather than place, although there were some notable gaps in representation including the disability and sexual orientation equality groups and the business community. In addition, learning from other MPA engagement activities it has been identified that there is a great deal to be gained from delivering joint projects with other community and police engagement groups (CPEGs) or partner agencies across two or more boroughs, which provides an opportunity for CPEGs and others to learn new techniques and approaches that are transferrable to their core activities. As such, the cross-border innovations fund has been devised to enable the Authority to target the key engagement gaps as identified through recent and ongoing mapping exercises and to facilitate further cross-borough engagement work.

2. The aim of the Cross Border Innovations Fund is to support the MPA and MPS Community Engagement Commitment by encouraging pioneering community engagement and outreach projects that span across borough boundaries. Applicants were advised that projects should be innovative and target groups that are harder to engage with through current mechanisms. The guidance specifically identified the key outcome of engaging with a number of under-represented groups and encouraged engagement with Deaf and Disabled people, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, those suffering with mental health issues and with the Business community as communities that were not targeted through the last Innovations Funding round. However, projects that engaged with groups other than those stated were also considered.

3. Funding application packs were distributed to borough community police engagement groups (CPEGs), community safety managers and borough police contacts and to umbrella voluntary and community sector organisations across London and this information was also published on the MPA website. The application process was designed to minimise unnecessary bureaucracy and applicants were therefore asked to submit an application form providing key information (see Appendix 1) including a description of the project, information identifying the innovative aspects of the proposed project, the relevant timescales and costs, the geographical area of coverage and intended outcomes. The maximum funding available was £10,000 per project. The MPA received 62 bids in total and these were sifted through three assessment phases as detailed below.

Stage One

4. 30 projects were rejected during the initial sift for various reasons including not meeting the criteria, exceeding the £10,000 maximum per project and failure to have written endorsement from the borough Police. A number of MPS bids to support initiatives such as Kickz and other sports engagement projects, were rejected on the basis that although interesting and well-regarded, they could not be considered particularly new or innovative. In addition, officers took the view that if these projects are deemed effective and valuable by the MPS, then they should seek to fund them from core budgets and not special one-off grants.

Stage Two

5. 32 projects went through to the second assessment phase and these were assessed against a weighted scoring matrix and ranked accordingly. Each bid was given a score of 1 to 5 for each of the following (i) the number of boroughs engaged (ii) innovation, (iii) outcomes and (iv) the engagement gap to be addressed. The scores for innovation were weighted by two and the scores for outcomes and engagement gap by three. The projects were then ranked by the total scores (Appendix 2) and the top ten highest scoring projects were released for the final assessment phase.

Stage three

6. The top ten highest scoring projects were then considered in more detail based on the financial breakdown that had been provided, whether they had obtained match funding or in kind support from other sources and the general value for money of the project. A score of one to five was given for the budget breakdown, this was based on the level of detail given, a comparison against the other bids received (for example if the majority had indicated they would need £1,000 for publicity then this would be used as an average indicator), and how realistic and achievable the funding appeared to be based on what had been outlined in the bid in terms of outcomes and outputs. An additional point was awarded to those projects that had secured match funding or in kind support from other sources. Bids were awarded a score of one to five for value for money based on the number of boroughs covered by the project, the anticipated number of people who would be engaged in the project, whether or not the project appeared to be sustainable and on the overall outcomes. Officers also considered the geographical areas covered by those bids and the coverage across the different strands of diversity. As can be seen in Appendix 3, the top ten scoring projects sought to engage with a diverse range of communities, including the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) community, businesses and young women. The top ten bids also provided good geographical coverage with projects focused across all London boroughs with the exception of Croydon, Kingston and Richmond.

7. The stage 3 scores were then added to the stage two scores and the bids were re-ranked (Appendix 3). Based on the scoring system, officers would recommend the top five ranking bids for approval. However, it was notable that neither of the two business engagement projects were amongst the top five highest scoring bids and this leaves the Authority with an engagement gap in a key area. This being the case, officers have identified further funding, which had previously been awarded to a CPEG and has since been returned to the Authority as unspent funds, which could be used to fund a business engagement project. On this basis, officers would recommend that the sixth highest scoring project is also approved for funding at this time.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality Impact

1. The range of projects supported through last year’s funding targeted the faith, age, ethnicity and gender equality strands. As such, there were some notable gaps in terms of engaging with diverse communities and this year’s fund specifically encouraged applications from organisations seeking to engage with Deaf and Disabled people, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, those suffering with mental health issues and with the Business community. However, projects that engaged with groups other than those stated were also considered.

2. The details of this year’s Innovations Fund were circulated directly through community and voluntary Sector (CVS) organisations as well as through CPEGs in order to increase awareness across the whole of the CVS and encourage applications from a broader range of organisations.

3. In addition, applicants were specifically asked to demonstrate that they had given consideration to equality and diversity matters and were advised to assess whether there would be any adverse impact on any group and to indicate how that would be managed and monitored. Also in the final assessment phase consideration was given to diversity with the aim of ensuring that successful projects engaged as many of the previously under-engaged communities as possible

Met Forward

4. The Innovations Fund is directly linked to the Met Connect strand of Met Forward and will support the Authority is ensuring we are engaging with and consulting a diverse range of communities to ensure policing services and priorities meet the needs of all Londoners. This will further support the delivery of greater community confidence, since research has shown that people who feel properly informed about local policing have more confidence in their local police and are more likely to feel that levels of crime and antisocial behaviour have reduced and also have a better opinion of police effectiveness.

Financial Implications

5. The total budget for the 2010/11 Innovations fund is £50,000 and is contained within existing budgets. However, the Authority has recently received some returned funds and has reallocated £10 000.00 of that sum to the Cross Border Innovations Fund to ensure the Authority can secure a business engagement project. The monitoring regime will require project leads to provide the MPA with quarterly reports in order to ensure agreed objectives are being met. The financial management of the successful projects will form part of the overall monitoring regime to ensure that the allocated funds are used appropriately. A further assessment will be made on completion of the project considering whether the objectives were met and to what extent the project has delivered good value for money in community engagement.

Legal Implications

6. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

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

Risk Implications

8. The main risk to the Authority is that the allocated funds may not used in line with the approved bids. This will be managed through quarterly monitoring of each of the successful projects and where necessary, the Authority will have in place a process to reclaim unspent money from organisations that have failed to deliver the required outputs/outcomes. Further specific risks have been identified within each of the project bids as part of the application process and these will be managed and monitored through the quarterly review process.

D. Background papers

None

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback