A new approach for the MPA support of police-community consultative arrangements in Greenwich

Report: 7
Date: 27 February 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

This report makes recommendations for supporting police community consultative arrangements in Greenwich as well as a preliminary overview of the general overhaul, that may be needed to bring up to date the MPA’s continued support of police-community consultative arrangements.

A. Recommendations

That members

1. note the contents of the report and the proposals for further detailed discussion by means of a workshop with members of the MPA and partners to consider the long term plan of action, including a timetable and resource implications, for ongoing MPA support of community consultative arrangements;
2. approve the proposal to initiate urgent discussions with those community partners already active in the Greenwich Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, such as the Greenwich Community Safety Trust and the Greenwich Voluntary Action Council and to develop the community capacity to become a robust partner in local crime and disorder reduction work and assert a strong local public scrutiny role.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA inherited from the MPS the statutory and fiscal responsibilities for the support of Police-Community Consultative Groups (PCCGs). This mechanism of police-community consultation had its origins in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

2. The relationships that have been forged with PCCGs represent a unique partnership between a statutory agency and the public. It is a partnership that can point to some impressive results.

3. However, things do still need to change. While the mandate of PCCGs has not changed, the legislative and mandatory requirements by which consultation and partnerships must be undertaken with the public about policing in London has multiplied considerably.

4. These in turn have generated a huge growth of local crime and disorder consultative arrangements and partnerships.

5. In reviewing the effectiveness of the consultative arrangements now being used not only in Greenwich but in London generally, the MPA has pursued, over the last year, a number of different methodologies. This has included a Best Value Review of Consultation, legal advice regarding statutory relationships and constitutional responsibilities of funded groups, the employment of three Community Consultation Co-ordinators to undertake an in-depth mapping and gap analysis of police-community consultative processes in three boroughs, as well as an assessment of recent research pertaining to police-community consultation.

6. With the support and endorsement of the local statutory partners, the MPA suspended operations of the Greenwich PCCG in March 2002. Tim Rees, a Community Consultation Coordinator contracted by the MPA to assess police community consultative arrangements in Greenwich and the MPA’s future role, conducted a three month long analysis and has produced a report ‘A Review of Police-Community Consultative Arrangements in Greenwich - Towards a renewed MPA role (copies available on request from the MPA committee section).

Findings

7. The conclusions of this Review found that the original justification and broad mandate of the Greenwich PCCG has been superseded by significant statutory changes and a broad array of local police consultative arrangements at the borough level.

8. Interviews with those representing key partners in Greenwich clearly supported the MPA’s initiative in reassessing its role in the funding of local police community consultative arrangements. They also indicated no enthusiasm for the MPA to re-establish the PCCG as it was presently structured, regarding it as dysfunctional and redundant.

9. While this Review recommends that the Greenwich PCCG not be re-established, there nevertheless exists a democratic deficit with respect to meaningful community engagement in the Local Strategic Partnerships and local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Strengthening the community capacity in these local structures would appear to be an appropriate MPA role. This complementary and value added support is further legitimated because it more directly links the local scrutiny role with the MPA’s wider pan-London public governance responsibilities.

10. The report author recommends that the Authority should immediately address this in Greenwich by initiating discussions, and invite the Greenwich Community Trust to submit a developmental funding proposal to develop the community capacity to become a robust partner in local crime and disorder reduction work and assert a strong, local public scrutiny role. At the same time, the results of this review should be disseminated for the information of statutory and voluntary agencies and community groups by being posted on the MPA website.

11. The Review makes a number of more general recommendations about the way forward for consultation, which members will wish to consider. It identifies an urgent need for the MPA to implement clear fiscal and organisational responsibilities for funded groups, with a managed funding programme with clear objectives, priorities, eligibility criteria, etc. One possibility would be for the Authority to establish a Police-Community Innovation Fund by renaming the existing budget allocation to PCCGs. This could be phased in over a 3-year period to ensure an enabling and capacity building process for existing funded groups.

12. In disentangling the statutory responsibilities to undertake public consultation by Local Strategic Partnerships, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and by the MPS, there is a requirement to define the MPA’s particular public consultation role and expectations that is tied more clearly to its own police governance duties and public oversight responsibilities. The MPA ought not to abdicate or lose sight of its own distinct responsibilities by merely topping up, supplementing or filling in the gaps and deficiencies that should more appropriately be assumed by other local statutory bodies.

13. The conclusions of this Review process argue strongly that future funding of community consultation by the MPA should be structured around measurable outcomes, These outcomes must reflect the strategic aims of the MPA. That is to strengthen public accountability processes and the effectiveness of the public oversight and scrutiny responsibility for policing. Funding objectives should be narrowly focused and directed at strengthening Londoners’ understanding, participation and influence over the way they are policed.

14. The Review reinforced the reality that police-community consultative arrangements vary according to need, circumstance, the type of group, and the geographical area covered. The MPA should be flexible in supporting different kinds of both local and pan-London initiatives.

15. The Review found an urgent need to connect and strengthen the results and outcomes of police-community consultative arrangements with the MPA’s overall police governance mandate and its responsibilities to obtain the views of Londoners about policing. The author advises that the products and outcomes of consultation need to feed into the deliberations of the MPA in an organised, visible and robust fashion.

16. In obtaining the views of Londoners, the author concludes that the MPA has been over-reliant on just one mechanism - that of PCCGs – which have a number of inherent weaknesses. A more balanced and multi-pronged approach, utilising an array of different techniques and other well-tested and credible methodologies needs to be instituted.

17. In addressing the challenge to ensure a representative and inclusive process, the MPA might consider establishing pan-London Community Advisory Groups - to complement its other strategies - for nine identified 'hard to reach' groups that are traditionally excluded from such processes. Initially it may be appropriate to consider the development of six such Community Advisory Groups to reflect the high-level equality categories adopted by the GLA (gender, race, disability, faith, sexuality, and age).

18. In addressing all of the above findings and proposed directions, the report includes a number of recommendations and detailed strategies. These require further consideration and refinement. They also require consultation and the development of partnership arrangements with, for example the GLA, GOL and the MPS. Members of the MPA may consider holding a workshop, together with their statutory partners, to discuss in more detail the wider implications raised in this Review.

C. Equality and diversity implications

All of the issues addressed by this report are intended to strengthen the inclusiveness and representativeness of police-community consultation arrangements. By broadening the consultative mechanisms and more effectively using the results and outcomes of consultation, the MPA and MPS will strengthen its responsiveness and commitment to diversity issues.

D. Financial implications

If the proposal in paragraph 11 to establish a Police-Community Innovation Fund were accepted this could be achieved will be undertaken within existing resources by renaming the existing budget allocation to PCCGs. The existing budget for 2002/3 totals £952,000 and is inclusive of direct allocation to groups as well as a central contingency. It is proposed that this arrangement be phased in over a 3 year period. Details of how this will ensure an enabling and capacity building process for existing funded groups will be developed further at the proposed workshop for members.

In paragraph 17 it is proposed that the MPA should consider the development of six Community Advisory groups. The costs involved in setting up and supporting these groups will be contained within existing estimates.

E. Background papers

A Review of Police-Community Consultative Arrangements in Greenwich: Towards a Renewed MPA Role.

F. Contact details

Report author: Tim Rees, MPA.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback