Community and Police Engagement Group funding 2011/12

Report: 4
Date: 14 February 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report discusses community and police engagement group delivery over the 2010/11 financial year, proposes and seeks member approval for a set of new objectives and the funding allocations for 2011/12.

A. Recommendation

That Members

1. note the community and police engagement group delivery against the previous year’s objectives;
2. approve the community and police engagement group objectives for 2011/12;
3. approve the community and police engagement group funding allocations for 2011/12; and
4. approve a transitional payment of £8000.00 to the London Communities’ Policing Partnership.

B. Supporting information

1. The current community and police engagement group (CPEG) performance framework was initiated in 2005/6 following a review of all CPEGs, which indicated that there was a need to establish a set of basic principles against which all Groups could be judged and developed to deliver. Despite having been in existence for many years there had been very little investment in CPEG development and as such, the framework was necessarily pitched at the fundamental level of achieving appropriate governance and diversity amongst CPEGs. This has served to develop a good foundation for all Groups and has also sown the seeds for Groups to develop their skills in managing and delivering against specified objectives within a financial framework.

2. In 2007 officers developed and implemented a formal service level agreement (SLA) process, which provides the framework within which delivery against the required outputs and outcomes are measured. Appendix 1 provides details of delivery against the 2010/11 objectives. Each SLA is based upon the core outputs and outcomes, but in recognition of both borough and CPEG variances, delivery against these is tailored to each borough. Despite these variances in delivery the CPEGs have largely delivered against the outputs and outcomes identified for 2010/11.

3. Over the last five years there has been considerable development amongst all Groups and implementation of the basic structures, which has largely been the focus in that time, is now complete and it is therefore now timely to consider the objectives and outcomes for 2011/12. In determining the 2011/12 objectives, CEPG delivery has been reviewed in the context of political, economic and equality and diversity considerations.

4. In relation to the political landscape, the proposal contained within the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (2010) to replace the police authority with a police and crime commissioner (PCC) and the establishment of a support organisation to be known as the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) has previously been reported to this committee. The Bill makes provision for the new arrangements to be put in place earlier in London than elsewhere in the country and the planning assumption is that this will happen by October 2011. It is therefore appropriate that the 2011/12 objectives are at least complementary to, if not entirely aligned at this point, to those of the new organisation. This is not too great a challenge since many of the PCC's proposed functions in respect of consultation and engagement mirror those of a police authority. At a minimum the objectives should ensure CPEGs meet the statutory requirements for consultation on the Police and Crime Plan; MOPC strategies and the MOPC budget. In addition, there will be a continuing need to ensure that there are engagement opportunities for as diverse a range of communities and individuals as possible, including the business community and victims of crime, as well as ensuring the continued provision of borough-based opportunities for local people to engage publicly with the borough commander and other local partners.

5. In relation to the economic considerations, it is clear that CPEGs will be operating in the context of a reducing budget and will therefore have to give consideration as to how they are going to meet the delivery requirements within those constraints. Potential ways in which to manage the work in this context has previously been discussed in this committee and a number of CPEGs are actively considering joint working arrangements and different delivery models to ensure they can continue to meet the requirements in the future. As such, the 2011/12 objectives will need to be deliverable in this context and should also reflect the need for greater financial planning and prudence.

6. The social considerations can be specifically related to equality and diversity matters. Specifically it is important to note that while CPEGs are providing public engagement opportunities within their communities, there is a continuing concern about the need to identify and target both new and disengaged communities to seek their views and engagement with the policing and community safety agenda. As such, one of the key objectives for 2011/12 should relate to increasing and diversifying community engagement through the CPEGs.

7. The proposed objectives/outcomes for 2011/12 are then as follows (i) to engage a more diverse range and number of individuals and communities in policing and community safety, specifically young people, those with disabilities, minority ethnic communities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, victims and the business community; (ii) to support the development of more effective and integrated working between CPEGs and local community safety partnership (CSPs); (iii) to increase awareness and transparency in relation to the work of the stop and search community monitoring groups and the Independent Custody Visiting scheme; and (iv) to effectively manage the CPEG grant, promote the work of the Group and the MPA, and to develop appropriate plans for future delivery in the context of increasing financial constraints. Appendix 2 provides details of the related performance measures, but it should be noted that these are not intended to guide or limit CPEG activity to this set of indicators, and it is anticipated that Groups will do all these things and more in delivering against the objectives.

CPEG funding allocations 2011/12

8. At the last meeting of this committee there was considerable discussion about the CPEG funding allocations for 2011/12, including the potential for moving to a new formula based system for allocating funds. At that time officers agreed to present this committee with a range of options, which would exemplify the allocations based on the full formula, on the formula with a minimum allocation to all boroughs and on the basis of an equal reduction in budget of 12.5% to all groups. In modelling the formula-based approach, officers were able to confirm that it would be necessary to ensure a minimum allocation to all Groups. Otherwise the application of the formula produced reductions across the board ranging from 10.7% to 61.6%. Applying a minimum allocation of £15 000.00 reduced these variations to a 1.7% to 35.1% reduction at one end of the scale to gains of 1.7% to 40% at the other. This is a more preferable outcome, but members might still wish to consider whether or not it would be tenable to implement changes at that scale and this clearly requires further consideration over the coming months. In addition, it would be prudent to await the outcome of the 2011 census, which would ensure that the population data is up to date. As a result, and considering that the 2011/12 financial year has now started officers would recommend applying an equal reduction of 12.5% to all Groups in 2011/12 (see appendix 3).

London Communities’ Policing Partnership

9. As discussed at the last meeting, the Authority has decided not to continue to fund the London Communities’ Policing Partnership (LCP2) with effect from 1 April 2011. However, as discussed in an earlier report to this committee, it is good practice to provide a suitable period of notice before terminating such arrangements and it is a legal requirement for the Authority to also put in place appropriate actions to mitigate any detrimental impact on the protected equality groups. In this case, it is proposed that the Authority provide a transitional payment of £8 000.00, which approximately equates to one month’s payment of the grant funding allocated in 2010/11.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. A cumulative Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is being compiled in respect of CPEG delivery and the implementation of the budget reduction. It is clear that CPEG staffing resources will feel the greatest impact of the budget reduction 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. In addition, a reduction in the CPEG budget will have an impact on the delivery of specific CPEG projects, targeting specific groups, such as young people, BME groups and the elderly. Having identified the potential for adverse impact arising from this budget decision, it is incumbent upon the Authority to consider what could be put in place to mitigate that impact.

2. In putting together MPA budget proposals for 2011/12 the Deputy Treasurer has worked with Heads of Units within the MPA to ensure that despite the need to deliver significant savings resources remain effectively aligned to deliver the MPA business plan. Draft proposals have been scrutinised and approved by SMT and scrutinised by all members of the Authority as part of the budget approval process. Savings totalling £800 000 have been identified, and the MPA will also be making a contribution from reserves of £200 000 in 2011/12. Savings being delivered include a reduction in the Authority’s staffing establishment of 5 full time posts, a reduction in consultancy costs and on the training budget along with various other efficiency savings. In total, and excluding the contribution from reserves, the Authority is delivering a 6.5% reduction on the MPA budget. To further mitigate the impact of the budget reduction, officers have ensured that the process is staged over three years to facilitate the development of future plans.

3. Officers will continue to work with CPEGs to ensure they are able to deliver against the required objectives and to offer advice, guidance and practical support in managing the transition over the next three years.

Consideration of MET Forward

4. The budgetary considerations for the delivery of the Authority’s community engagement functions are fundamental to the Met Connect strand of Met Forward, the key theme of which is ensuring our communities are properly informed and engaged with regard to policing matters to deliver increased confidence in policing. Ensuring continued delivery of CPEG functions and the development of appropriate objectives for 2011/12 will therefore support this aim.

Financial Implications

5. The proposed budget for community engagement in 2011/12 is £1.4 million, a reduction of 12.5% on the (£1.6 million) 2010/11 budget allocated to CPEGs. As part of the agreed MPA budget plans it is anticipated that the community engagement budget will be further reduced over a two year period to 2013/14 by approximately 19% each year. However, given that the MPA is likely to be abolished later this year, it is not yet clear what impact this will have on future budget plans and activities.

6. Due to the protracted budget process this year, the CPEG funding process has been significantly delayed. In recognition of the potential impact of this delay on the operational capacity of the CPEGs, it was agreed at the last meeting of this committee the Authority would provide each Group with an interim payment to be effected of 20% of the total of the 2010/11 allocation (approximately £280 000) to be deducted from the final 2011/12 allocation and this was implemented on 4 April 2011.

7. As is the established practice, allocations to CPEGs would normally be made in two tranches, the first in April 2011 and the second in December 2011, provided the group is compliant with the requirements of their service level agreement (monitored quarterly), which ensures the Authority can effectively manage any risks associated with investing monies in borough level engagement. However, given the need to make interim payments this year, CPEGs will receive their funding in three tranches - an interim payment in April 2011 (see paragraph 6), a further payment in June 2011 so that all SLA-compliant Groups will have received 75% of their total 2011/12 allocation, and then a final payment (where appropriate) in December 2011. However, the transitional payment to LCP2 will be paid in a single transaction as soon as is practicable following formal agreement by this committee. Both the CPEG allocations for 2011/12 of £1.28m and the proposed LCP2 payment of £8 000 will be contained within existing budgets.

Legal Implications

8. 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. In addition, given the changing financial climate, the Authority also needs to ensure that CPEGs remain viable and able deliver the required objectives.

9. 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

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

Risk Implications

11. The proposed budget savings are unwelcome amongst CPEGs, but officers have been actively engaging 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 with the Groups remain constructive. 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 CPEGs 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

None

E. Contact details

Report author: 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