Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 14 February 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Clive Lawton (Chair)
• Victoria Borwick
• Valerie Brasse
• Richard Hunt (co-opted member)

MPA officers

• Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Hamera Asfa Davey (Oversight and Review Officer)
• Bennett Obong (Hate Crime and Stop and Search Policy Officer)
• Michael Taylor (Committee Officer)

MPS officers

• Tony Eastaugh (Territorial Policing)
• Victor Olisa (Stop and Search Team)

Others: John May (LCP2)

47. Apologies for absence

(Agenda Item 1)

47.1 Apologies for absence were received from Joanne McCartney (MPA member), Fay Scott (MPA officer) and Denise Milani (MPS)

48. Declarations of interest

(Agenda Item 2)

48.1 No declarations were received.

49. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2010

(Agenda Item 3)

49.1 The minutes of the last meeting were agreed. Confirmation shall be sought on whether CPEGs were consulted on the development of the met promises

50. Community and Police Engagement Group (CPEG) delivery and funding 2011/12

(Agenda Item 4)

50.1 Natasha Plummer introduced the report, and outlined that whilst the CPEG budgets for 2011-14 will be reduced, the exact budget it is yet to be confirmed. So that CPEGs can continue to operate in the short term, it was recommended that an interim payment of 20% be made. Members agreed, and requested that CPEGs be kept informed of the timetable for future payments.

50.2 With the upcoming implementation of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and
Crime, it will be necessary to maintain links for future community engagement; and the new budget allocations for CPEGs provides an opportunity to shape the form which community engagement will take. Members discussed the proposal for the funding formula; debating whether the deprivation index can be used as a proxy for levels of crime, and as a basis for deciding allocation of funding. Members also discussed whether funding should be shared equally between CPEGs, or assigned on a basis of requirement. It was also debated whether there should minimum and maximum levels of funding provided; and whether this could limit the effectiveness of the CPEGs.

50.3 It was agreed that that alternate proposals for the funding formula be received at the next meeting for consideration; including scenarios with and without minimum/maximum funding, and for a balanced or index based system for determining the distribution of funding.

Action: MPA to develop alternate proposals for the funding formula, to be presented for consideration at the next meeting.

50.4 The Chair reported that the MPA shall cease all funding to the London Communities Police Partnership (LCP2) from 2011-12; although it was noted
that this does not mean that LCP2 cannot continue to finance itself thorough alternate funding streams, or by collecting subscription fees from CPEGs. It is recognized that there shall be a necessary wind-down period, whilst LCP2 contractual obligations are met; although this is anticipated to be as short as feasible. It was confirmed that Richard Hunt will continue to be a co-opted member of the sub-committee until the end of the MPA committee cycle in June 2011.

50.5 Standing orders were suspended to allow John May to respond on behalf of LCP2; he noted that the sub-committee and the MPA had supported LCP2 as an umbrella body to provide training and networking opportunities for CEPGs. Although LCP2 understood that cuts were to be expected, it felt that a complete severance of funding was too extreme. The Chair reaffirmed that the value of LCP2 is acknowledged, and that it can still contribute to discussions on CPEG developments.

Resolved: that

1. Members approve the release of an interim payment to all community and Police engagement groups equivalent to 20% of the 2010/11 allocation;
2. Members note the development of the funding allocation formula for the community police engagement groups and receive options for alternate formulas;
3. Members receive a further report to the next sub-committee meeting on 14 April 2011, detailing the final borough community engagement allocations and timetables for payments to CPEGs.

51. MPA update on the Community Engagement Commitment Action Plan

(Agenda Item 5)

51.1 Hamera Asfa Davey introduced the report, and noted that the upcoming implementation of the Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime provides an opportunity to reinvigorate community engagement; utilising the high profile figure of the elected Police and Crime Commissioner to engage with the public. Members noted that the nature of the future form of community engagement needs to be decided, and outline what is expected of the MPS.

51.2 Because levels of public satisfaction have remained static over recent years, Community Engagement could be used to improve the quality of contact between the public and police. Out of 12,000 public responses to a recent online survey on the MPS review of Safer Neighbourhoods, most commented on issues of police presence and quality of contact, rather than community engagement. Because of the expansive nature of the wider community; information on key issues (such as stop and search) is often specifically targeted to certain communities.

51.3 Members noted that engagement needs to occur with both the wider communities, and also with the public on an individual basis; offering the opportunities for two-way dialogue between the public and police. Members also noted that information needs to be fully accessible to the public; providing information of public interest in a variety of formats. Members noted that all boroughs hold a variety of overlapping public meetings, which the MPS would be able to link with. Some partnership working does already take place in the form of CPEGs and Safer Neighbourhood meetings.

51.4 The MPS community engagement action plan is under development, and shall be presented to the Communities, Equalities and People Committee meeting in May. Members requested that feedback from this meeting be received at the Sub-Committee meeting in June.

Action: MPA to provide feedback on the MPS Community Engagement action plan at the June CECF meeting.

51.5 As part of the draft corporate community engagement action plan; CPEGs shall have the opportunity to become further represented and contribute to MPA/MPS policies. The Chair of the Sub-Committee was also asked to serve as the MPA community engagement champion.

52. Stop and Search Monitoring

(Agenda Item 6)

52.1 Tony Eastaugh introduced the report, and advised that as Ted Henderson has taken a career break; the MPS stop and search team has been realigned to be an operation support unit. The MPS uses weekly Community Tension Indicator (CTI) reports to circulate information on upcoming community events; which is used to assess events which are likely to require stop and search activities. Members enquired whether community monitoring groups, such as CPEGs, receive CTI reports, and also requested feedback on the monitoring and impact of CTI reports.

Action: MPS to provide a briefing note on the circulation list of Community Tension Indicator reports, and provide feedback on the monitoring and impact of the reports.

52.2 Operation Blunt 2 is an umbrella term for a variety of tactics and operations aimed at reducing serious youth violence; one of which is the use of stop and search. Because stop and search is conducted by multiple police operations, not just section 60; it is challenging to monitor data on the number of searches conducted as a result of operation Blunt 2. Members enquired how the effectiveness of Blunt 2 is monitored and assessed; one of the indicators used is the measurement of community confidence. The MPS holds community engagement in order to inform the public of Blunt 2 operations conducted by their local police.

52.3 In response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) ‘Stop and Think’ report which addressed levels of disproportionality in stop and search; the MPS and MPA delivered a comprehensive response, and is engaging with EHRC to examine ways of monitoring disproportionality. The MPS is also piloting the ‘next steps’ programme in Lewisham, with a full evaluation being conducted. Whilst effort is made to analyse and reduce disproportionality; it is also recognized that stop and search activates will be targeted towards specific communities. Members noted that levels of stop and account were more proportional that stop and search; this is due to stop and search being authorised in response to strong evidence that it is required for public safety.

52.4 With the change in legislation that no longer requires police forces to record stop and account data; the MPS is conducting an extensive consultation process (running until June 2011), on whether it should continue to do so. A questionnaire and updates shall be circulated to the MPA, CPEGs, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, and other community contacts. The MPS shall continue to record all data on stop and search, in order to maintain accountability. Members requested that future statistics on stop and search/ stop and account be presented in percentages, so that disproportionality can be more easily identified.

52.5 Members noted that the Home Office Select Affairs Committee had conducted a survey of the criminal justice system, and concluded that there was disproportionality in the system. Members enquired whether there was progressive disproportionality in terms of arrests leading to charges. Although the outcome of the criminal justice system arises in disproportionality; there is more balanced proportionality at the point of conviction.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback