Safer Neighbourhoods Panels and Community Engagement

Report: 7
Date: 3 November 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines the key findings of a mini project looking at a handful of Safer Neighbourhoods Panels and how they supported the community engagement work of Safer Neighbourhoods teams.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members agree the recommendations outlined in section three of Appendix 1.

B. Supporting information

1. The attached appendix outlines the findings from a mini MPA/MPS project which looked at the community engagement role of a few Safer Neighbourhoods panels. As explained in the introduction, due to the small number of consultees, the findings can only provide an indication of the community engagement work of Safer Neighbourhoods teams and panels. However, there was a consistency in the views of the consultees and their views corresponded to the findings of the July 2010 MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scoping study report and the February 2011 MPA Safer Neighbourhoods scrutiny report. Therefore the findings from the mini MPA/MPS project should be taken into consideration in any review of the Safer Neighbourhoods panel guidance by the central Safer Neighbourhoods Unit.

2. The full findings of the mini project are outlined in the attached appendix.

Only key points have been listed below. The findings highlighted:

• that the importance of the community police engagement remit is recognised by both community volunteers and the Safer Neighbourhoods teams;
• Safer Neighbourhoods panels and Safer Neighbourhoods Sergeants have tried a variety of approaches to ensure the engagement of Londoners in the Safer Neighbourhoods panel process;
• that the Safer Neighbourhoods panel process works particularly well when there is a comprehensive membership which includes a range of community members and representatives from relevant agencies;
• that there is a disconnect between some CPEGs and some Safer Neighbourhoods panels;
• that some Safer Neighbourhoods teams are increasingly being asked to focus on borough and centrally prescribed priorities. This can cause a tension at a local level, where panels expect teams to be focusing on locally agreed priorities; and finally,
• that there is variance in the governance and administration of panels.

3. A full list of recommendations are listed in section three of the attached appendix. A few key points have been included below.

• The central Safer Neighbourhoods unit should revisit the Safer Neighbourhoods panel guidance and determine whether this is still fit for purpose. In particular the guidance needs to provide clarity on the role of councillors; membership of panels; administration of panels and whether panels should have open or closed meetings.
• The homogeny of many Safer Neighbourhood panels has been highlighted in previous MPA reports. MPA guidance has often focused on ensuring that Panels are representative in regards to diversity, however, in recruiting for panels, Safer Neighbourhoods teams must also consider whether there are particular groups or organisations which should be included because they make up a significant aspect of the ward. In other words, if a ward includes a large industrial estate, it would be advisable to engage with this industrial estate and ensure representation on the panel.
• The MPS guidance for panels should also seek to provide clarity on the relationship of Safer Neighbourhoods panels with other locally based community police engagement groups. This issue also needs to be reconsidered by the MPA. It is clear that there has been a mixed response to the MPA requirement for Community Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs) to include and work with their Safer Neighbourhoods panels. Whilst it would certainly be ideal for there to be alignment between the various local volunteers, in particular, Neighbourhood Watch, Safer Neighbourhoods panels and CPEGs, the MPA also needs to acknowledge that volunteers have varying motivations. A volunteer who takes part in local community police engagement mechanism may not be interested in working at a borough level. Their interest and inclusion in one community police engagement mechanism does not necessarily mean that they will be interested in being part of another. The MPA in partnership with the MPS needs to consider alternative methods for how information from Safer Neighbourhoods panels can inform CPEGs and central policy and service provision.
• The central MPS Safer Neighbourhoods unit should move away from proscribing how Safer Neighbourhoods teams should be engaging with Londoners. As stated in the scoping study, scrutiny report and the mini project findings, a ‘one size fits all approach’ to community engagement is not helpful. Each Safer Neighbourhoods team will know which community engagement methods work best in their ward. It would be more useful for teams to be provided with a ‘shopping list’ of options which suggest what can work and in what circumstance. Finally, the focus needs to be on community engagement outcomes and not community engagement outputs.
• The production of centrally produced Safer Neighbourhoods newsletter should be reconsidered by the central Safer Neighbourhoods unit. Research undertaken by the MPS Strategy, Research and Analysis Unit (SRAU) has highlighted that the most effective information provision needs to be timely and needs to focus on local information. It would be more useful if Safer Neighbourhoods teams were given the resources to produce their own local newsletters. The central Safer Neighbourhoods unit should simply provide guidance on what the newsletters should include.
• Finally, the MPS must make better use of social media. Social media cannot and should not replace face to face community police engagement, but it has a significant role to play in engaging those Londoners who are ‘time poor.’ It could also help in including young people who are unlikely to take part in formal community police engagement events/meetings.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. There are no direct equalities implications in regards to this report. However, the MPA/MOPC and MPS must continue to ensure that all community engagement activities are developed with the six key community engagement commitment principles in mind: information; inclusion; preparation; integration; involve and feedback.

Consideration of Met Forward

2. Community engagement remains a key priority within Met Forward. It sits within the ‘Increasing confidence in policing’ strategic driver. Met Forward Two pledges include two that particularly pertain to community engagement: ‘to improve the quality of our community engagement with the public’ and to have ‘a better conversation with those we protect.’

Financial Implications

3. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

Legal Implications

4. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

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

Risk Implications

6. There are no risk implications arising from this report.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Hamera Asfa Davey, Community Engagement and Neighbourhood Policing 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