Community Police Engagement Group performance management framework

Report: 5
Date: 3 October 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This is the first performance monitoring report for the community and police engagement groups (CPEG) as measured against the new 2011 objectives. The performance management framework is still bedding in, but early indications are that things are broadly progressing in the right direction.

 A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. Members have on many occasions sought reassurance on the delivery and performance of CPEGs and in response to this and to address some of the issues highlighted in the Directorate of Audit Risk and Assurance (DARA) review report, a regular set of performance metrics have been developed and will be reported to the Authority through this sub-committee. Previously the reporting mechanism has been focused on the existing quarterly service level agreement review data and information gathered through the annual funding process, which is collated by the Engagement and Partnerships Team. This new process is intended to supplement and enhance these existing mechanisms.

2. As discussed and agreed by this committee, officers have sought to redefine the remit of CPEGs and have set specific objectives as part of the funding application process for 2011/12. As such, Groups are required to outline how they plan to meet these objectives in their work plan and against their quarterly milestones in order to receive funding. Achievement against these objectives is then measured over the course of the year through the service level Agreement (SLA) process. Appendices 1 and 2 provide details of current CPEG performance against the objectives.

3. In redefining the roles and functions of CPEGs (i.e. what kind of activities CPEGs are expected to undertake) officers have sought to prescribe more clearly [than in the past] what should be considered to be appropriate ‘community engagement’ activity. For example, some CPEGs have either undertaken directly or funded activities which are more in line with crime reduction and diversion than community engagement and the Authority has asserted the view that it should not be within the CPEGs’ remit to carry out such functions. However, the Authority would like to see CPEGs taking a more proactive approach to harnessing the energies and knowledge of communities and partnerships, not only, retrospectively, (holding the police to account), but also, prospectively, helping to identify problems, negotiating and influencing priorities for action, and shaping solutions. The recent disturbances in London highlighted the importance of this and some CPEGs very effectively and proactively engaged with diverse and wide ranging communities, including young people, outside of the structure of the main group meetings. However, there are others that could still do better in this area.

4. There is a need to support and encourage CPEGs in adopting more innovative and diverse ways of engaging with wider sections of the community. For example by developing social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, or working more closely with other voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations. In addition, officers are supporting CPEGs in working more effectively with neighbouring CPEGs to achieve economies of scale and to share good practice. Other Groups are being supported in actively seeking funding and support from sources other than the Authority as well as in commissioning outreach projects that are relevant to the CPEG objectives. A number of Groups are doing some or all of these things successfully and officers have been able to cite these as examples of good practice for other Groups.

5. The budget savings will necessarily have an impact on the work that CPEGs are able to conduct and this necessitates that their activities and the manner in which they conduct their business become more focused, effective and efficient. As discussed previously by this committee, it is clear that the majority of CPEG funding is being spent on administrative functions. In the coming months officers will be working with CPEGs to review their administrative arrangements considering matters such as whether they are getting full value for money and whether they are sufficiently focused on delivering the CPEG objectives. Link officers will provide advice and guidance to CPEGs in relation to minimum requirements and good practice as this work develops.

6. Having completed the SLA monitoring process for the first two quarters Members can be reassured that all of the CPEGs with agreed and signed off objectives are meeting their targets. Three boroughs currently do not have an agreed and signed off work plan due to various factors, including a hiatus in administrative support and ongoing queries relating to proposed work plan activities. These Groups have not formally been awarded any funds, but arrangements are in place to ensure they have access to sufficient monies to maintain service delivery. As such, all these Groups have continued to meet the requirement to provide public meetings/engagement events and to engage with local partners and the relevant link officers are working with them to resolve the outstanding issues.

7. The recent disturbances in London highlighted the value of maintaining a network of CPEGs upon whom the Authority can call in the event of a major incident. Link officers were able to engage with all CPEGs boroughs in the wake of the disturbances and to quickly establish a two-way flow of information. This included gathering information on community perceptions and reactions and how the Police were engaging with communities and this information was fed back to the Chair of the Police Authority and to the Metropolitan Police Service through central Community Gold Group. The CPEGs were also instrumental in supporting the Authority’s efforts to deliver key messages about the civil disturbance to communities. Some held extraordinary meetings and several were active engaged with local borough community reassurance and gold groups meetings. Those groups with Facebook and Twitter accounts delivered key messages and information via these means and used existing community information websites to report on developments and to post messages of reassurance. Haringey CPCG has also held an extraordinary public meeting specifically focused on the recent disturbances, attended by more than 220 people, who were able to ask questions of senior police officers, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the local authority leader.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. The equality impact assessment (EIA) of the funding process 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.

2. To support the CPEGs in ensuring they engage a diverse range of communities in policing and community safety, a specific objective has been included in the performance management framework. Data was collected in relating to the individual members of each CPEG executive committee and for the CPEG membership groups. Members should note that this information is not complete with some preferring not to provide any data at all or only in limited categories. Appendix 2 provides the data on the diversity of all CPEG executive committees and it demonstrates a broadening in the diversity of executive committee members, including an increase in the number of members in the up to 35 years age categories. This is encouraging in terms of ensuring the views of younger people are properly represented and also in relation to the development of new executive committee members and succession planning. However, the data does not provide any evidence of representation for those of Irish or Chinese background. The data collected with respect to CPEG member groups has been less easy to collate and categorise and has not therefore been included in the table. However, the data available seems to indicate that most CPEGs have member groups that represent all the protected diversity groups except in relation to representation for those of specific sexual orientation (i.e. lesbian, gay and bisexual) or those who have undergone gender reassignment where there are fewer representative groups counted amongst the CPEGs’ membership. Having identified these gaps in representation, the link officers will be working with individual CPEGs to provide advice and guidance on engaging with any identified groups.

3. In terms of ensuring equality of access to CPEG structures, all Groups are expected to adhere to good practice in equality and diversity and advice is available when required. In addition, the terms of grant advise all CPEGs that they must ensure that their activities are fully accessible and that a central budget is available to support them in meeting any specific needs.

Met Forward

4. 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 will therefore support this aim.

Financial Implications

5. 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.

Legal Implications

6. The CPEGs will continue into 2012 and borough community engagement is funded until (with a reducing budget) to 2013/14. The MPA has written funding agreements with all CPEGs, which describe the terms and conditions of the grant and compliance with these is monitored through the quarterly review process. It is anticipated that the MPA will have been abolished by the end of January 2012 and responsibility for managing this budget and delivery against the CPEG objectives will transfer to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime as part of the wider organisational transfer scheme.

Environmental Implications

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

Risk Implications

8. The new performance management framework has been implemented to support the effective management of CPEGs and should assist in identifying and managing the risks to the Authority of ineffective and unrepresentative community engagement. However, this framework will not resolve these issues overnight.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Tamsin Kelland, Engagement and Partnership Officer, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback