Community Police Engagement Group (CPEG) Funding Allocation

Report: 5
Date: 13 June 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines the assessment process for community engagement funding allocations to the borough based community engagement groups and provides members with an overview of CPEG financial matters in relation to the provision of MPA grants in 2011/12.

A. Recommendation

That Members

1. note the conduct and outcomes of the 2011/12 funding assessment process;
2. agree to the allocation of £20 000.000 and £15 000.00 to training and development and to an annual conference and ward event respectively;
3. agree that the retention by the Community and Police Engagement Groups of any identified surpluses be supported by a written business case as in previous years; and
4. agree to impose specific conditions, including the renegotiation of the provision of services as necessary, from the three CPEGs with significant deficits.

B. Supporting information

1. At the last meeting of this committee, members agreed the parameters within which the borough community engagement budget would be implemented for 2011/12, which equated to a 12.5% reduction for each Community and Police Engagement Group (CPEGs) using the 2010/11 allocations as the baseline. The effect of this in 2011/12 has been to limit the maximum available sum for a borough CPEG to £43 750.00 and the minimum to £24 811.50. Appendix 1 indicates the maximum allocation available to each CPEG as agreed by this committee in April 2011. The CPEG assessments are being conducted and as part of our drive for continued improvement in both our practices and those of CPEGs, the application form and associated guidance has been updated in line with good financial practice and to ensure all CPEGs have a full understanding of how their work should contribute to the Authority’s aims and objectives. Specifically, alterations have been made to the financial section of the proforma to ensure that the data provided is sufficiently detailed to facilitate better consideration of the overall costs of delivery and value for money. These have been broken down into staff salaries and training costs, Group management costs, i.e. office accommodation, IT and telephony, and meeting costs, i.e. venues, publicity and documentation reproduction. The other alteration has been made to the diversity section of the proforma and is intended to enable officers to gather high level data on the representation of the diversity strands amongst CPEG management committees and membership groups.

2. Members will recall that last year officers introduced a new financial assessment process, which identifies the average spends against each budget headline and provides an upper and lower limit within which one might normally expect expenditure against each heading to fall. Individual bid applications were distributed amongst the engagement and partnerships officers so that no officer assessed the boroughs for which they are the link and each bid was assessed through a three-stage process.

3. At the first stage of the process the financial aspects of each bid were analysed against the upper and lower limits and any expenditure items that fell outside of those parameters were highlighted as a query. Assessors also made some qualitative judgements through this process, e.g. in terms of considering whether the identified expenditure supported the work plan and also noted any queries in relation to this area of the bids. There were some particular areas of expenditure, which gave rise to queries as highlighted on the table below.

4. The level of staffing costs remains an area of concern not in relation to whether or not the staff do a good job – a review of the job descriptions and an understanding of the kind of work they deliver (i.e. significant Group development, rather than just administration) indicates that they are in many cases adding value to the work. However, although overall staffing costs have been reduced on last year’s baseline they still constitute approximately 60% of the overall CPEG budget and there must be a consideration of how this will be sustained over the next three years in the context of ongoing budget savings. Additionally, even where the overall salary has not exceeded the trigger level there are in some cases concerns about the hourly rates of pay for some Group administrators. Eight Groups have exceeded the trigger level of £31.00 per hour by between £1 and £11, but in one case, the Group has secured local authority administration support at the equivalent rate of £71.00 per hour. Local authority-based administrative services are generally more expensive than other arrangements (particularly so in this case), although they do not necessarily deliver any greater benefit, but in any case, all of these arrangements will need further consideration for future funding rounds.

5. There are seven boroughs exceeding the trigger level on charges for professional fees and services, which should includes costs such as accountancy and insurance fees. This indicates that there may be some potential to deliver further savings in this area perhaps through the negotiation of reduced costs in some categories, such as insurance and accountancy fees. This is a matter that officers have already discussed with LCP2 as perhaps something they could pursue as part of the package of membership benefits to those CEPGs that continue to subscribe to the organisation.

6. As one might expect office accommodation costs can be significant in the London area and the level of expenditure in this category was a concern in last year’s analysis. While it is still a concern that nine Groups have exceeded the trigger level of £4086.00, a number of Groups have reduced their costs in this area and some very significantly - one has achieved savings of approximately £7000.00. This is encouraging in terms of recognising that CPEGs are making a good effort in reducing costs in some areas.

7. The costs of meeting/event venues appears high in some cases, but further analysis of the data indicates that Groups are delivering different numbers and types of events per year. Some are delivering in excess of ten public meetings/events per year, which range from formal meetings to conference-style events and these are attracting large numbers of participants in some cases. In this context, the costs are reasonable in most cases, although some Groups are clearly extracting very good value from their arrangements and perhaps others could learn from their example.

8. The variations in advertising costs are largely attributable to the different advertising media used by each Group, with the highest spending borough regularly using newspaper and radio advertising, which can be quite expensive. Clearly it would be possible to reduce such costs, by either advertising less frequently and/or through cheaper media. However, this has to be weighed up against the benefit accrued through such advertising and this is an area that will be further explored by MPA link officers.

9. Costs associated with fares and expenses vary across CPEGs, but more than half have allocated less than £300 per year and several have perhaps admirably not allocated anything to this at all. Whether or not to pay or to claim expenses is a matter for individual CPEGs, but in order to ensure better value for money and to keep costs down the test should always be to consider whether or not the travel is necessary and then to ensure that the cheapest mode of transport is used.

10. One final aspect of the financial assessment, which has identified some matters of concern relates to the ratio of staffing costs to the maximum MPA grant available. The ratio for eight boroughs is 80% or more of the total grant available and based on the maximum possible available grant an 80% ratio leaves just £8 750.00 of operating monies after staffing costs. Of these eight Groups, four CPEGs’ staffing costs range from 98% to 112% of the MPA grant, although one has an additional income stream, which offsets this. This is clearly an area of concern, particularly in the context of ongoing budgetary savings, which will mean that this situation will continue to deteriorate over time and some CPEGs will have to give this issue very serious consideration over the coming months to ensure that they do not become completely unviable.

10. In the final stage the assessment sheets are passed to the link officer for their assessment of the group's achievements over the previous year. This includes both qualitative and quantitative considerations that would have been highlighted through the quarterly monitoring processes throughout 2010/11, as well as details of any risks and issues that might impact on the Group’s ability to deliver in the forthcoming year. Link officers are also asked to review and address the queries list and any issues they cannot resolve are referred to the group for clarification. In addition, link officers are also ensuring that the Groups have provided a sound business case for the proposed retention of any surplus monies from 2010/11. The purpose of doing this is to ensure that unless the group can justify retention of those surpluses the can be retained by the Authority.

11. Since this committee has already agreed the maximum total grant for each borough, officers will complete the assessments and resolve any queries and provided matters are satisfactorily resolved, further funds up to a maximum of 75% of the total available grant will be released to each Group by the end of June or early July 2011.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. The equality impact assessment (EIA) of this funding process has identified two specific issues (i) the continued need to ensure CPEGs are more representative of the increasingly diverse population of London and (ii) the need to ensure equality of access to CPEG structures and these issues have been addressed in a number of ways.

2. Firstly, it is a funding requirement for all groups to have adopted an equality statement and to make demonstrable efforts to ensure that their membership criteria and activities are in line with good practice. As in previous years, all CPEGs were asked to identify whether and how many of their constituent member groups represented the different diversity groups (updated in line with the Equality Act 2011) – age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation.

3. Similar data was also gathered in respect of the Group management committees, but this did cause some concern in relation to the level of detail sought. To allay any concerns and to encourage completion CPEGs were advised that (i) provision of the data would not be compulsory nor would it be used to inform funding decisions, (ii) that the information could be provided under separate cover and (iii) that the data would be processed for monitoring purposes only before being destroyed. The data has yet to be fully analysed, but all Groups have provided at least some of the data requested.

4. This information is helpful in identifying specific gaps in representation, which CPEGs are asked to then specify how they have been and/or intend to address them in their work plans. Further support in this area will be by provided by the Engagement and Partnerships Team through the provision of relevant demographic data profiles for their local communities and advice and guidance on engaging with any identified groups.

5. With regards to equality of access and the conduct and management of public meetings, the practical handbook for CPEGs provides advice on ensuring those activities are accessible and the engagement and partnerships team will continue to provide guidance and advice to ensure that information regarding good practice and changes to legislation are effectively distributed to the groups. In addition, as for last year additional funds have been made available to meet any specific access needs that cannot be met from within local CPEG budgets.

Consideration of Met Forward

6. 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

7. The total budget for borough level community engagement is £1.4 million, of which a maximum of £1.32 million is available for allocation to CPEGs, and this is contained within existing budgets. A further sum has been provided from within the borough community engagement budget to meet access needs. This has been set at £2 000.00, but further funds may be drawn down if necessary.

8. In assessing this year’s applications, officers have taken account of any monies remaining from the previous year’s allocation and have also queried some identified expenditure, as well as considering each group’s ability to fully deliver against the Authority’s required outcomes. All Groups except one have identified planned expenditure either equal to or greater than the full amount of funds available for each borough. Fifteen CPEGs have indicated that the cost of the work they intend to deliver in 2011/12 will exceed the amount available as MPA grant. However, the majority of these groups have either an identified surplus or income stream to offset the additional expenditure. The total amount of identified surplus funds is £73 913.00 as compared to the identified total income of £46 830.00. As in previous years, any surpluses against MPA grants will only be retained by the Group if they can provide a sound business case to use the funds to deliver specific community engagement activity.

9. There are three Groups that have identified unfunded activities, which amount to £60 656.00 (individual amounts are £19 000.00, £10 000.00 and £31 656.00). In all three cases, a large constituent of the expenditure relates to staffing cost (72%, 102% and 98% respectively against the individual deficits) and this clearly indicates that further savings need to be made in these areas. One of the identified Groups is supported by a local authority administrator and it is possible, although not yet agreed (as far as officers are aware), that the local authority may assist in meeting some the cost. In the case of the other two boroughs, their administrative/development staff are directly employed or contracted to the Group, so there is no way of sharing the costs with another organisation in the same way. Members are asked to consider implementing specific conditions on these Groups to ensure MPA activities are delivered over the next financial year.

10. The identified surpluses and queried amounts total £73 913.00 and £197 530.00 respectively (£271 443.00 in total). It is likely that the queried amounts will be satisfactorily clarified in the coming weeks, so these sums should largely be considered as allocated to the boroughs. However, if the surpluses are retained by the Authority, then the total budgetary impact to the Authority for 2011/12 would be £1.25 million rather than £1.32 million. This indicates a surplus against the overall borough community engagement budget of approximately £80 000.00. Some of these funds have been allocated to meeting any arising access requirements and the remaining funds will be allocated to the training and development of CPEGs and to the delivery of an annual conference and community engagement award event later in the financial year. The full cost of these activities has yet to be scoped, but an indicative budget of £20 000.00 has been set aside for training and development and £15 000.00 for the annual conference and awards event, which would leave a surplus of £45 000.00 to be recycled into other activities or retained as a further saving to the Authority.

11. As agreed at the last meeting of this committee, the 2011/12 allocations to CPEGs will be made in three tranches, the first in April 2011, the second in late June/early July 2011 and the last 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.

Legal Implications

12. There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

13. There are no specific environmental implications arising from this report.

Risk Implications

14. There are no specific risks arising from this report.

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