Measuring community involvement

Report: 7
Date: 04 July 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

This report informs members about a set of indicators developed by the Audit Commission and Improvement and Development Agency to measure community involvement. The indicators have been circulated for consultation and can be adopted by services on a voluntary basis.

A. Recommendations

That

1. To indicate which, if any, indicators, the Committee would be interested in adopting.
2. To agree a response to the Audit Commission and IDeA's proposed indicators for community involvement.

B. Supporting information

1. The Best Value Review of Consultation identified the lack of any effective evaluation of consultation. It recommended that the MPA should develop a 'performance monitoring regime for community consultation carried out by Police and Community Consultative Groups and the Community Consultation Co-ordinators', and that the MPS should 'establish a performance monitoring regime for corporate and local consultation'. Work is in progress on this matter

2. To help inform this work, MPA officers have considered indicators proposed by the Audit Commission and IDeA. These organisations have been jointly developing a library of 'quality of life' indicators. The indicators are intended for use by local authorities and other public sector agencies. Officers have considered the latest set of indicators seeking to measure community involvement. The consultation period for these ends on 5 July 2002.

3. Appendix 1 shows the 29 proposed indicators. Not all of these are of direct relevance to the MPA/MPS. Many are based around the responsibilities of a local authority. Also many are more appropriate for adoption and measurement at a borough or neighbourhood level, and so may not be practical on a London-wide basis.

4. However, attention is drawn to the following indicators. These have been adapted and made relevant to policing. These could be made potential measures included in the MPA/MPS' own public attitude survey work:

Active citizens

COM8

Percentage of local people surveyed who have taken positive action to resolve a local policing issue.

COM10

Percentage of people who feel that they can influence decisions on policing in their area.

Building community capacity

COM13

Percentage of community and voluntary organisations receiving support from the MPA/MPS who feel that the support provided has improved their confidence and ability to manage their community organisation.

COM14

1. Range of support provided for community and voluntary organisations
2. Level of funding provided in the year per 1,000 population for 
   1. Revenue funding
   2. Training; and
   3. Capital funding for local community and voluntary organisations e.g. consultative groups, custody visiting panels, neighbourhood watch forums etc.

A well informed community

COM20

Percentage of citizens who feel well informed about policing in London.

Accessible listening authority

COM22

1. Number of direct consultation exercises carried out during the year
2. Average response rate to postal surveys.

COM23

Proportion of direct consultation carried out during the year that is in accordance with principles of good practice.

COM24

Percentage of residents who feel that the police takes notice of its residents' views.

COM25

Percentage of people surveyed who feel that the police is good or excellent at involving the public in the decision making process.

COM26

Percentage of best value reviews and race equality impact assessments which have been carried out with community involvement.

COM27

The percentage of respondents satisfied with the number of working days taken to provide a response to: 

1. written enquiries
2. telephone enquiries
3. e-mail or website enquiries.

Satisfaction with local area (existing indicators in QoL set)

QoL 18

The percentage of respondents satisfied with their neighbourhood as a safe place to live

QoL 19

The percentage of respondents who consider that crime in their neighbourhood is getting worse

QoL 21

Percentage of respondents finding it easy to access local police services

5. Members are asked to consider whether further consideration be given to adopting any of these indicators.

6. The advantage of a using a common set of indicators is that it allows for comparison from area to area and service to service. Members are also therefore asked to indicate whether the MPA should respond to the consultation exercise, in particular:

1. Whether the balance is right;
2. Whether there are any gaps;
3. Any further suggestions.

7. There will of course need to be fuller consultation with all parties concerned, including the MPS, before any decision is reached on the voluntary adoption of any of the above indicators. The practicalities of adopting these will also need to be explored. At this stage, because of the imminent deadline on consultation set by the Audit Commission and IDeA, the indicators are being brought to the attention of members just for initial consideration.

C. Financial implications

There are no financial implications specific to this report. However, if the indicators were to be adopted, there would be financial implications relating to developing surveys and monitoring systems and this would need to be reported to the Committee at the appropriate time. If any further consideration is to be given to these indictors, this will therefore include the need to identify survey priorities in agreement with the MPS.

D. Background papers

Audit Commission/IDeA: 'Measuring Community Involvement' June 2002 (see External links)

E. Contact details

Report author: Jude Sequeira, CDO, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Proposed indicators for community involvement

From Audit Commission and IDeA consultation document

The following set of twenty-nine indicators is proposed for inclusion in the Library of Local PIs.

To provide context for the set, the indicators have been grouped thematically to focus on different elements within the scope of community involvement. Please note that whilst some of the indicators provide measures of the extent of community involvement, others just as importantly provide measures of progress in facilitating greater community involvement.

We have purposely not identified a single category that addresses diversity in community participation, as this will be addressed throughout the indicators developed. For example, for many of the indicators it will be necessary to collect and analyse information in a way that separately identifies the participation of particular groups of people defined by age, disability, ethnicity or gender. How this is done may vary on a local basis according to local circumstances and according to the range of communities identified.

Involvement of local people in decision making

COM1

1. Proportion of the local population represented by a local neighbourhood forum
2. Level of support provided to neighbourhood forums.

COM2

Effective Local Strategic Partnership - score against a checklist of good practice.

COM3

1. Number of voluntary or community organisations functioning in the local community, per 1,000 residents
2. Percentage of organisations in (a) above that are primarily run by local residents in a voluntary capacity.

COM4

Number of local authority owned facilities and services that are managed under community management arrangements.

COM5

Satisfaction of tenants of council housing for opportunities for participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord.

COM6

Percentage of pupils who attend schools with a Parent Teacher Association or equivalent

1. Primary
2. Secondary.

COM7

1. Type of organisation assessed Auditing community participation: score against an audit checklist.

Active citizens

COM8

Percentage of local people surveyed who have taken positive action to resolve a local issue.

COM9

The extent of individuals' (a) participation and (b) active involvement in local voluntary activities.

COM10

Percentage of people who feel that they can influence decisions that affect their area.

COM11

Percentage of people surveyed who have worked in a voluntary capacity during the past 12 months for

1. No time
2. Less than 5 hours
3. Between 5 and 10 hours
4. Between 10 and 50 hours
5. On average 1-5 hours per week
6. On average more than 5 hours per week.

Building community capacity

COM12

Percentage of local schools that make their halls available for community use out of school hours.

COM13

Percentage of community and voluntary organisations receiving support who feel that the support provided has improved their confidence and ability to manage their community organisation.

COM14

1. Range of support provided for community and voluntary organisations
2. Level of funding provided in the year per 1,000 population for
   1. Revenue funding
   2. Training; and
   3. Capital funding for local community and voluntary organisations.

Local democracy

COM15

The percentage of electoral registration form 'A's returned.

COM16

The percentage turnout for local elections.

COM17

The proportion of young people (aged 18-25) who voted at the last election.

COM18

1. Standard achieved for the active involvement of young people in democracy (levels: advanced, established, emerging, none)
2. Percentage achievement of the Advanced standard.

COM19

Percentage of seats where 2 or fewer candidates stood for election at the last local elections.

A well informed community

COM20

Percentage of citizens who feel well informed about local affairs.

COM21

Level of achievement of the Information Standard Quality Mark for Information Services.

Accessible listening authority

COM22

1. Number of direct consultation exercises carried out during the year
2. Average response rate to postal surveys.

COM23

Proportion of direct consultation carried out during the year that is in accordance with principles of good practice.

COM24

Percentage of residents who feel that the council takes notice of its residents' views.

COM25

Percentage of people surveyed who feel that the council is good or excellent at involving the public in the decision making process.

COM26

Percentage of current statutory plans which have been written with community involvement.

COM27

Average number of working days taken to provide a response to:

1. written enquiries
2. telephone enquiries
3. e-mail or website enquiries.

Community spirit

COM28

1. Percentage of people who know their neighbours
2. Percentage of people who trust their neighbours.

COM29

% of people surveyed who said they had done a favour for a neighbour, or their neighbours had done a favour for them, in the past 6 months.

Satisfaction with local area (existing indicators in QoL set)

QoL 18

The percentage of respondents satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live

QoL 19

The percentage of respondents who consider that their neighbourhood is getting worse

QoL 21

Percentage of respondents finding it easy to access key local services

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback