Funding for Community and Police Consultative Groups and Independent Custody Visiting Panels 2003/04

Report: 5
Date: 24 April 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

Each year the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) allocates a budget to Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) and Independent Custody Visiting Panels (ICVPs) to enable them to undertake specified aspects of work on its behalf. The process used for assessing each bid proposal was far more detailed than in previous years. A nominal budget allocation for each CPCG and ICVP has been proposed and is being presented to this Committee for approval.

A. Recommendations

That

1. the Committee agrees and signs off the recommended budget allocation to each CPCG and ICVP for 2003/04;
2. notes the process that was put in place for reaching the decision on budget allocation to each group and panel;
3. notes the processes in place for managing the unallocated budgets to support MPA developments for Independent Custody Visiting Panels and CPCGs, and
4. agrees that the funding issue of the Racial Incident Panels, traditionally supported through the funding of CPCGs, be referred to the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board, which has the overview for this matter.

B. Supporting information

1. In December 2002, Community and Police Consultative Groups and Independent Custody Visiting Panels were invited to complete applications for funding to be submitted by February 2003. The large majority achieved this deadline and the quality of the bid application has been notably improved.

2. In addition to the requirements for a bid application, each CPCG was required to submit a work plan outlining their proposed activities for the financial year. The same requirement was not placed on ICV Panels this year; however, this is an approach that will be considered for future years.

3. There were huge variations in the type and quality of the bid applications received. It was also evident that the performance of CPCGs varied considerably; for example some groups only managed to attract 10–15 members of the public to their monthly public committee meetings, others managed an average of 30–50. Few attracted over 200 of the local public to any meetings.

4. There was also varying quality in the work plans submitted. Some groups evidenced activities that could be clearly seen as active and proactive attempts to engage with and seek the views of the local community, whereas the majority of groups maintained their more formulaic process of holding public meetings with more or less the same attendees. These tend to be largely unrepresentative of the diverse views of the local community.

5. For the first time also, an appointed dedicated finance officer has provided an overview of the work of CPCGs over the past few months. A greater level of attention was given to the financial submission of each group and panel; where appropriate, the finance officer highlighted anomalies to be considered during the allocation meeting.

6. The Community Consultation Officer carried out an initial assessment of the work plans of each group. Where groups did not provide a work programme, MPA officers assessed the bid against the performance outlined in the group’s annual reports (where these were available). This information was used to form the basis for the allocation of the annual budget.

7. The information required was not immediately available for all groups, making the process a little more difficult, although a great improvement on the previous year.

8. The approach in assessing the bids by ICV Panels was less formal in the criteria used. The criteria were similar to last year, on the basis that a similar number of visits (52 per year) were conducted by all. Those panels with more charging stations, and where the throughputs of detainees were high, etc were given a higher level of funding. Where panels were already operating at a cost above the proposed ceiling, it was agreed that, based on their overall annualised detainee numbers, a smaller increase would be made to these panels.

9. Nicholas Long, the MPA lead member with responsibility for ICVP and CPCG matters met with officers over two days in order to agree the allocation of funding to each group and panel. The general principles that were used are attached at Appendix 2. The recommended allocation for the next financial year is attached at Appendix 1.

10. This paper was due to be discussed by the Authority on 27 March but was withdrawn due to inaccuracies in the figures given and the outstanding issues that still needed to be addressed. It was agreed that 25% of the proposed allocation was to made available to each group and panel subject to the formal approval of the overall allocation. Groups have now been informed of this.

11. Members will note the huge disparity in the funding levels of groups and some panels. This is a historical situation that the Authority inherited from the practice of the MPS (who previously awarded funding to the groups and panels), and it has proved extremely difficult to vary this practice, especially due to the fact that some of the groups with the highest levels of funding are ‘independently’ administered groups that have appointed staff to progress the work of the group and panel. Some of these independently administered groups also carry out the administration for the local ICV Panel, but are separately funded to do so.

12. In a majority of cases it is difficult to measure the outputs or the outcomes for the local community or the Authority against the level of funding awarded.

13. The Lead Member would have liked to achieve greater equality in the level of funding of the groups and panels; current arrangements are underway to require groups to be even more accountable for the use of the funding that is provided for consultation. Eventually these improvements will be evident, but it is likely to take some time for this to be achieved.

14. Members will note that there remains a small number of groups where a final allocation is yet to be agreed; in these cases, there are matters that still need to be resolved, some are relatively straightforward, others, as in the case of one group that is administered by a local agency, may take a little longer to be properly resolved. Officers are in discussions with these groups and it is recommended that advice from the Lead Member be taken on the final allocation of funding, to be agreed for these groups or panels.

15 The total budgeted amount for CPCGs and ICVPs for 2003/04 is £1.26m. This represents a slight increase of £25,000 on the budget last year to offset the increase in staffing costs for administrators of the groups and panels. £977,000 is allocated for Consultation/CPCGs and £288,000 for ICV Panels.

16 The final allocated figure will be adjusted to reflect the allocation to those groups where a decision is still outstanding. Advice is also being sought on the application from the London Chairs’ Forum for an increase in the allocation that the MPA has provided in the past 12 months.

Budget retention

17. Last year, consultative groups that did not submit a work programme had 10% of their budget retained until this was received. This year, it is proposed that 15% of the budget will be retained as an incentive to ensure that groups meet this requirement. Those groups that are yet to submit their 2003/04 work programme are indicated in Appendix 1.

Development Budgets

18. Independent Custody Visiting became a statutory responsibility of the Authority in July 2002. The Home Office has produced new guidelines that will need to be followed and there is a range of developments that will need to be carried out in the current year, simply to ensure that the MPA is able meet some of the more pressing requirements of the Home Office newly published Codes of Practice for Independent Custody Visiting. The implications of this are addressed in a separate report, including the financial proposals for progressing aspects of the work required.

19. A number of groups have identified activities that could be funded through one-off costs. Advice will be given on how this funding can be accessed, and the requirements of the Authority in supporting these initiatives.

Funding to support the activities of Racial Incidents Panels and similar groups

20. This Committee has considered previous reports that have highlighted the use of the consultation budget by a number of CPCGs to support and co-ordinate the work of the local racial incident panel. The list of those known is attached at Appendix 3. Where this was known, officers wrote to these groups in good time to inform them that, in accordance with the advice received following the Internal Audit Review into the financial management of consultative groups, this funding will cease in the current financial year.

21. Where it was known, the groups have been informed that funding should be sought via the local Crime and Disorder Partnership who are funded by the Government Office for London to undertake this work.

22. In the process of the current bid allocation process, further groups were identified as providing funds for racial incident panels.

23. Racial Incident Panels are not core consultation or community engagement organisations. The responsibility for establishing panels to provide support to those affected by racist crimes and racial harassment is a core responsibility of local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report recommended that

• the Home Office, police service, local government and other agencies create a comprehensive system for reporting and recording all racial incidents and crimes.
• all relevant local agencies and communities should be encouraged to report racial incidents and crimes. Victims should be enabled to report incidents 24 hours a day at locations other than police stations.
• all agencies, particularly housing and education department should ensure that information about racial incidents is available to all agencies.

24. In response to these recommendations, in June 2000, the Home Office provided guidance for local agencies on how to undertake the recording and monitoring of racial harassment and violence. Best Value performance indicators for police authorities, local authorities and other agencies subject to best value.

25. Although some Community and Police Consultative Groups have traditionally used part of the funding allocated by the MPA for local consultation on this area of work, it is clearly evident from Government guidance that this responsibility belongs to the statutory and voluntary partnership, which receives funding through the CDRP for this area of work.

26. The MPA should not be providing funding for an area of work that is already well supported by central government. It is acknowledged, however, that this decision will be met with a high level of hostility and anger by the members, local MPs and others.

27. As this is a matter that comes under the remit of the MPA’s Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board, and the MPA Race Hate Crimes Working Group, it is proposed that this matter be referred for their consideration.

C. Equality and diversity implications

Much of the improvement that is being encouraged in the work of CPCGs and ICVPs will contribute to the activities demonstrating greater integration of equal opportunities and diversity in their performance and practices. The activities of the groups and panels are listed in the MPA Race Equality Scheme; there is therefore a specific responsibility to ensure that they undertake their consultation and community engagement activities in ways that meet the general and specific duties of the Act.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications are the subject of the report.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith, MPA.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 2

General principles for accessing of CPCG bids

1. The work programme of the Group clearly demonstrated activities that would engage with and seek the views of the local community on crime and community safety matters.

2. The work programme was achievable given the staffing of the Group.

3. The work programme demonstrated clear evidence of incorporating the principles outlined in the MPA Draft Consultation Strategy.

4. The delivery of outputs that would evidence that consultation/ engagement had taken place in support of the Authority’s consultation agenda.

5. Staffing levels were related to achievement of consultation outcomes of the Group.

6. Where no work plan has been submitted, assessment was based on the information contained in previous annual reports.

7. Where no work plan has been submitted there will be a 15% reduction in the funding allocation until the MPA receives and approves the work plan.

8. An upper limit of £64,000 allocation for all groups.

9. Where insufficient information is provided or there are questions about a bid application, a ‘silent’ bid will be allocated subject to officers seeking more details as the basis for confirming the bid.

10. Non core consultation activities, such as the support of Racial Harassment Panels will not be supported, in line with the recommendations from the MPA Internal Audit Review.

Appendix 3

Consultative Groups who use MPA Funding to support their Racial Incident Panels

• Croydon
• Enfield
• Islington
• Lambeth
• Merton
• Wandsworth

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback