Community and Police Engagement Group Funding 2012-13

Report: 4
Date: 5 December 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report provides members with an update on the implementation of the 2011/12 community and police engagement group (CPEG) funding and seeks member approval for the 2012/13 CPEG budget and performance objectives.

A. Recommendation

That Members

1. approve the continuation of the current community and police engagement group objectives into 2012/13;
2. approve the community and police engagement group funding limits for 2012/13;
3. note the current underspend and approve the use of this fund to provide additional support to Groups as necessary in managing budget savings; and
4. note the intention to consider reallocating these sums to further engagement work in the New Year.

B. Supporting information

1. Members will recall that the 2011/12 CPEG budget was signed off in April 2011 along with the new objectives and performance management framework (PMF). Members received an update on performance against the new objectives in October 2011 and were also advised that there were outstanding queries in relation to unfunded activities within the work plans of three CPEGs. Members should be advised that these issues have now been resolved with sufficient funding having been secured to deliver these activities.

2. As agreed in April 2011, all Groups received an interim payment of £10 000.00 while funding bids were being assessed and further monies (up to the ceiling of 75% of the annual allocation for each Group) were advanced once the bids had been signed off. As is usual practice CPEG delivery has been reviewed against the agreed service level agreements (SLAs) and those that have delivered their work plan commitments will be paid the final 25% of their annual allocation in December 2011.

3. The implementation of the new CPEG objectives has largely been well received, although it has presented a challenge for some. Officers continue to work with all Groups to ensure they fully understand what is required of them and continue to deliver against those objectives. The associated PMF should, over time, provide an effective evidence base to support development and funding decisions. As such, both the objectives and the PMF will remain in place with an annual review of the objectives to allow for them to be brought in line with any new requirements as may be necessary.

4. The current objectives/outcomes for 2011/12 are 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. Having reviewed the current position and considered future requirements members are advised that the current objectives will be carried forward into 2012/13. For ease of reference the current CPEG objectives are provided at appendix 1.

CPEG funding limits 2012/13

5. As agreed in March 2011, savings will continue to be implemented across the Authority's budgets and this will necessitate further reductions to the community engagement budget until it reaches the final level of £800 000.00 in 2013/14. In addition, members will recall previous discussions about implementing a formula-based CPEG funding allocations process, but as reported earlier in the year it seems prudent to await the new population data from the 2011 census before implementing such a significant change. With this in mind, it is recommended that for 2012/13 a saving of 20% be applied equally across the board to all Groups Appendix 2 indicates the impact of this on each Group’s funding limit for 2012/13.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. Throughout the CPEG review process officers have been highlighting the potential impact of the savings on CPEG staffing and the related impact on specific groups with protected characteristics. As previously advised, there is potential for disproportionate impact on women, older persons and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The budget savings may also have an impact on the delivery of specific CPEG projects targeting specific groups, such as young people, BME groups and the elderly. Ongoing discussions with Groups have identified a number of potential staffing impacts, but in many cases these are not yet fully worked through. For example, officers are aware of at least two Groups that have stated that they will have to terminate or renegotiate their service level agreements with the local authority. Some Groups have very prudently taken the opportunity created by the voluntary departure of staff to review their requirements and to seek to meet their support needs through a shared service model, e.g. Brent has now appointed Waltham Forest’s administrator to support their work. Once the maximum funding levels have been agreed at this meeting, Groups will be advised and officers will be meeting with them to work through these issues and to inform the further development of the equality impact assessment.

2. In developing MPA budget proposals for 2011/12 the Deputy Treasurer 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. Savings proposals were scrutinised and approved by the MPA’s senior management team and all members of the Authority as part of the budget approval process. A similar process of budget scrutiny will take place as part of the development of the 2012/13 budget. Phasing the specific savings against the CPEG budget over the next two years will further mitigate the impact of the budget reduction.

3. Officers will continue to work with CPEGs, as they have in the current financial year, 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 two 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 implementation of the 2012/13 objectives will therefore support this aim.

Financial Implications

5. Members will note that at the present time there is an underspend of approximately £100 000 due to a range of factors including a realignment of Group budgets since June 2011 and the mid-year departure of administrative staff. It is noted that members had asked that any underspend be reallocated to further community engagement activities and there are a number of activities being developed in preparation for the Mayor’s office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) against which some of these funds may be expended. E.g. a series of community focus groups are being developed to inform the MOPC engagement model.

6. In addition, given the potential equality and diversity impacts arising from the continued implementation of budget savings, it is prudent to maintain the current underspend as a means to off-set any relevant associated costs until the new year when it is anticipated that the implications for each Group will be better understood.

7. The proposed budget for community engagement in 2012/13 is approximately £1.1 million, a reduction of 20% on the (£1.4 million) 2011/12 budget. Of that sum, £1.046m will be made available for allocation to CPEGs, with the remainder providing funding for an annual recognition event, CPEG training and development and any additional engagement activity, such as focus groups on specific issues, that may be required throughout the financial year.

6. As is the established practice, allocations to CPEGs will be made in two tranches. The first will be made in April 2012 (75% of the total agreed allocation) and the second (25% of the total agreed allocation) in December 2012, 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

7. 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.

8. 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

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

Risk Implications

10. 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, such as local authorities who will have specific duties and responsibilities with respect to their employed staff.

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