Funding for Community and Police Consultative Groups 2004-05

Report: 6
Date: 18 March 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

Each year the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) allocates a budget to Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) to enable them to strengthen community involvement in policing in London. The process used for assessing each bid proposal for 2004/05 was more detailed and transparent than in previous years. A budget allocation for each CPCG has been proposed and is presented to this Committee for approval.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Committee agrees and signs off the recommended budget allocation to each CPCG for 2004-05;
2. each group be informed, together with a copy of this report, of its recommended funding by post. Any group who wishes to appeal their recommended allocation may do so by giving notice of appeal within 21 days of the date of notification of their funding. An appeals panel will comprise two members of the MPA and the Deputy Clerk who will meet as soon as practical in May 2004;
3. officers of the MPA consult with CPCG London Chairs’ Forum to determine the feasibility of instituting a programme of training and development to assist and strengthen the work of CPCGs with regard to such issues as governance, performance and impact assessment measures and diversity;
4. to achieve a more equitable distribution of funds across London, that officers of the MPA consult the CPCG London Chairs’ Forum about a cap on the staffing element to be funded by the MPA in 2005/06. The proposed cap is three fifths of one FTE post pegged to point 33 on the local authority pay scale, plus on-costs of 20% for a total cost of approximately £20,000 per CPCG at 2004 prices. This amount will rise in line with changes to the local authority pay scales;
5. for those CPCGs where temporary or conditional funding is recommended officers of the MPA consult with those groups to address the issues requiring attention and within the timeframe identified, and to report back with recommendations to the Consultation Committee the results of this work;
6. in partnership with the London Chairs’ Forum of CPCGs, officers of the MPA undertake to develop, produce and widely disseminate ‘best practice’ models by which Londoners can engage in policing;
7. in fairness to the groups who do meet the application deadline, to ensure the process of assessment can be met within the deadlines set, and to ensure that groups receive their funding in a timely manner, that officers of the MPA consult with the CPCG London Chairs’ Forum regarding a proposal that in future years, groups that miss the funding deadline will not be able to be eligible for funding; and
8. in order to strengthen the MPA’s relationship with its community partners, and as part of its strategic assessment of public views on policing, establish bi-annual presentations to the Consultation Committee by the CPCGs, through the London Chairs’ Forum, as part of its regular meetings.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Present community and police consultative arrangements have their origins in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Scarman Report (1982), in recognising the gap between the police and the people they policed, suggested that local people should be consulted about how they are policed. This recommendation was enshrined in Section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, and since consolidated under Section 96 of the Police Act 1996 (and further amended by the GLA Act 1999).

2. In making arrangements for obtaining the views about the policing of their area, the Home Office Circular (54) (1982) provided guidance on the composition and operation of Police Community Consultation groups (PCCGs).

3. These guidelines outlined a broad mandate to:

• obtain the views of the public about policing;
• be as representative as possible of the Borough population;
• have a formal structure with set public meetings, any necessary sub-committees, organisation membership, etc;
• contribute to the local police action plan and annul priorities; and to report on activities and progress.

4. The relationships that have subsequently been forged with CPCGs represent a unique partnership between a statutory organisation and the community.

Changing requirements

5. The legislative and mandatory requirements by which consultation must be undertaken with the public about policing in London have multiplied considerably in recent years. These include the Police Act 1996, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Local Government Act 1999, the GLA Act 1999 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, as well as the recommendations made by her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the GLA Equalities for All Review, as well as the Government directives regarding modernisation and Best Value Performance Indicators.

6. In this evolving context, the Home Office booklet ‘Making Consultation Work’ published ten years ago, asked the question, is the shape of CPCGs changing? It answered, somewhat circuitously, by recognising that:

“Consulting with the public about a service as complex and sensitive as policing has necessarily involved learning by everyone concerned. Though different observers will take different views about the degree to which practice has changed and the extent to which it should have done, the first ten years of formal consultation has involved experimentation with different approaches and this will and should continue. Policing itself is a changing service. There need to be different levels of public involvement according to local circumstances.

“When formal consultation was first introduced it was met with a good deal of anxiety… The question remains, however, as to whether the operation of PCCGs is as effective as might be. This is the question which those police authorities that have taken seriously their statutory duty to review their consultative arrangements from time to time have had in mind…”

7. In working to improve and strengthen the partnership framework between the MPA and CPCGs, the MPA has sought external advice and undertaken internal audits and reviews. These have assisted in clarifying the nature of the relationship between the MPA and CPCGs as well as identifying improvements in the administrative arrangements and financial management of CPCGs. This reform programme is contained in reports previously considered by the Committee in February, April and September 2003. These statutory and management requirements provide the foundation for the MPA’s new policy and procedural framework for funding community and police consultative initiatives.

Guidelines and criteria

8. Following an extensive process of consultation with the staff and members of the CPCGs themselves, and two workshops in November 2003; with borough commanders; with officers of the GLA; as well as with staff and members of the MPA, the MPA adopted new Guidelines and criteria and Application Form for 2004/05 Funding of CPCGs in November, 2003. This was immediately mailed to all CPCGs with the return application deadline of 16 January 2004.

9. The Guidelines require that all funding requests must meet the general goal of:

“Providing effective ways by which residents can understand and influence policing practices, policies, plans and priorities at the borough level as well as contribute at a pan London level.

In so doing, they should also strengthen:

• positive community and police relations;
• respect and value for the borough’s diverse character;
• informed community engagement in the policing of the borough”

10. To be eligible for funding, the group:

• should be a fully constituted not-for-profit. Groups must demonstrate financial accountability. Groups may enter into a Service Level Agreement with a local authority or get a not-for-profit organisation to provide the required administrative support.
• must have elected officers or other governing structure, elected by the general membership. Elected officers must serve in a voluntary capacity and be representative of, and accountable to the community they serve or intend to reach.
• must have the participation of the borough police in the activities for which funding is sought.

Assessment criteria

11. The assessment of the application by officers of the MPA examined the viability of each group and its capacity to deliver the activities for which funds have been requested. The effectiveness of CPCGs was assessed based on evidence of the following criteria:

• sound financial management
• elected officers managing the group’s resources, are reflective of the community they serve, and demonstrate accountability to the membership
• membership is representative of the community
• consults all sections of the community including “hard to reach” groups
• engages in local crime and disorder partnership initiatives, and consults with sector working groups, neighbourhood watch schemes, etc
• promotes and facilitates the engagement of local communities in the delivery of policing services
• consults on the local policing priorities and plans, and considers and makes recommendations on strategic matters which require the attention of the MPA and the MPS
• monitors and records all activities and can measure the impact and results of its work
• has clearly stated goals and objectives and the methods/activities that will achieve them
• demonstrates the ability of the organisation and its staff to carry out the activities
• demonstrates that the activities are realistic, logical and attainable in terms of timing and resources
• demonstrates that the budget is reasonable and justified

Process

12. On receipt of the application form, officers carried out an initial check to ensure that the application form was fully completed and all documents requested were submitted. This included the completed Application Form with Chair’s and Treasurer’s signature, a copy of the group’s Annual Report, a financial statement, a Service Level Agreement where appropriate, and an Equal Opportunities Statement.

13. An acknowledgement letter was sent to the group within 10 working days of receipt of the application and where necessary, additional documents requested.

14. Officers also sought comments from the link member, the borough commander and the community safety office of the local authority with respect to the viability of the proposed activities of the group.

15. Separate assessments were undertaken of each group’s application by at least two officers using an assessment system that considered the groups’ finance and administration; community representativeness and equality provisions; accountability; consultation activity management and service diversity.

16. Richard Barnes as the lead member for the CPCG assessment, and the Deputy Clerk, David Riddle, oversaw the funding allocation process and agreed the recommendations.

17. The total budgeted amount for CPCGs for 2004/05 was approved at £1,002,000. This represents a flat-line budget based on 2003-04 plus a 2.5% increase in staffing costs for administrators of the groups. Therefore, as a general rule, the recommended allocation for each group has been to maintain the same level of support as the previous years’ funding (see Appendix 1). Richmond and Kingston CPCGs however, have been recommended to receive in full monies applied for. These CPCGs submitted very good applications, highlighting a number of interesting activities that might be an example of best practice to other groups. For the tenth year running Richmond CPCG organised a well attended Youth Crime Conference, and are planning in 2004/05 to pursue mentoring between the Chairman and members of the group for new police recruits and the PCSOs. Kingston CPCG has itself gone out to various local groups, making presentations on distraction burglary and rogue callers. Sutton CPCG has been highlighted as a group that, subject to available funds in 6 months, will be considered for additional funding. It was considered that this group has a good work plan, and is currently under-funded to achieve the stated objectives.

General observations on the funding applications

18. The funding deadline was met by the majority of groups. In fairness to the groups who do meet the deadline, to ensure the process of assessment can be met within the deadlines set, and to ensure that groups receive their funding in a timely manner, in future years, groups that miss the deadline will risk having their funding delayed.

19. There were considerable variations in the type and quality of the bid applications received. It was also evident that the performance of the CPCGs varied considerably. For example, some groups only managed to attract 10-15 members of the public to their monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly public meetings and provided no evidence of any other activities. Other groups demonstrated an active, inclusive membership with a range of initiatives of real engagement in local policing issues.

20. There was also varying quality in the work plans submitted. Some groups are planning activities that can be clearly seen as proactive attempts to engage with and seek the views of the local community. Other groups are continuing to maintain their more formulaic process of holding public meetings with more or less the same attendees.

21. There exist large discrepancies in funding levels for secretariat/administrative support between the CPCGs. There is no relationship between the quality of bids and the amount requested. An active, vibrant and effective CPCG might well be able to justify the employment of two full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to carry out its work programme. However, the MPA does not have the budget allocation to provide this level of funding for every CPCG.

22. At the same time, it appears from our review of the 2004/05 round that the unit costs of administrative support vary enormously between groups.

23. Taking into account both the MPA’s resource constraints and what appears to be best practice amongst the CPCGs, the MPA therefore proposes, in consultation with the CPCG London Chairs’ Forum that, with effect from the 2005/06 funding round, the maximum staffing element which it will fund will be three fifths of one FTE post at or slightly above point 33 on the local authority pay scale, plus on-costs of 20% for a total cost of approximately £20,000. This amount will rise in line with changes to the local authority pay scales.

24. CPCGs will of course be at liberty to use other sources of funding to augment MPA’s staffing allocation and indeed, we encourage them to do so. Similarly, CPCGs are at liberty to make their own local arrangements for administrative support, but we encourage them to consider all alternatives in the pursuit of value for public money.

25. The above approach will go some way to correcting the huge disparity in the funding levels of groups. This is a historical situation the Authority inherited from the practice of the MPS (who previously awarded funding to the groups). Some of the groups with the highest levels of funding are ‘independently’ administrated groups where salary costs are directly paid by the MPA. Where feasible, it is the intent to correct this anomaly over the next fiscal year to reinforce the principle of independence and autonomy of the groups.

26. In the majority of cases the assessment process found it difficult to measure the results or outcomes for the local community or for the MPA of the activity undertaken or proposed by the CPCGs. By and large, the information provided emphasised process – e.g. the number of meetings being carried out. Whether the activities of CPCGs fulfils, or in any way contributes to, the statutory duty of the MPA itself to “obtain the views of the public about policing“ remains a question that is difficult to answer in the affirmative. One way of beginning to address this is for the CPCGs, through the London Chairs’ Forum, to assess and evaluate the outcomes of all their activity and present common and emerging strategic policing issues to the Consultation Committee on a regular basis.

27. The MPA has adopted the GLA definition of consultation, which is to provide effective ways for citizens to not only understand, but more importantly, to influence the decisions and policies that affect them. This definition is also consistent with the directions indicated in the Home Office Green Paper. In order to move toward being able to support such outcome-based activity and to more proactive community engagement in the policing of London, the MPA needs to identify and widely disseminate ‘best practice’ as to how this can be done. It is proposed that this be undertaken in partnership with the London Chairs’ Forum and build on the work that they have already undertaken.

28. The MPA is concerned with the present lack of interest on the part of many CPCGs in race and diversity issues (particularly in those boroughs where the demographic makeup suggests it should be a key concern. While almost all CPCGs have adopted an equal opportunities statement, which is the evidence required to reach Level One of the Equality Standard for local government, the overall quality is variable. Some appear to have been adopted from elsewhere; and few appear to have been custom designed to local circumstances or directly linked to the groups’ action plans. The membership of many groups does not reflect or represent the communities they are serving.

29. Many groups have responded to questions of diversity and representativeness with vague commitments and general statements and no quantitative evidence. Given London’s diversity, in addition to the statutory duties to which the MPA must comply, this is not adequate. In helping groups remedy this over the next 12 months, it is recommended that officers of the MPA provide a workshop to help progress work in this area.

30. A final general theme to emerge from the assessment were weaknesses in the overall management and governance of a number of CPCGs. The MPA was disappointed by how few had a Service Level Agreement in place and by the number who did not already have a full Executive or Treasurer in place. The MPA was therefore unsurprised to note that a significant minority of CPCGs experienced personnel difficulties and grievances. The MPA cannot be confident in funding organisations where the most fundamental of governance practices are not in place.

31. Members will note that there are a number of groups where conditional funding is recommended. In these cases, there are matters that need to be resolved that for some are relatively straightforward. For others it may take longer to be properly resolved. Officers will undertake discussions with these groups to address the issues identified.

32. In addition, it should be noted that separate initiatives are being developed in the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and in Greenwich. The budget allocation for these two boroughs has yet to be finalised.

Banding

33. The assessment process (described in paragraph 15 and Appendix 3 of this report) places each CPCG into one of three bands for funding purposes.

Band 1

Funding for 12 months – as agreed in the guidance and at the workshop, nine months to be paid up front and the final three months (final quarter) to be paid upon receipt of accounts and progress report.

Band 2

Funding for 12 months, six months paid up front, the final six months however is subject to satisfying conditions set by the MPA

Band 3

Initial funding for 3 months, MPA staff to work with groups to satisfy conditions to ensure further funding for the year.

34. The CPCGs in each Band are as follows:

• Band 1
  Barnet, Bromley, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston, Lewisham, Merton, Richmond, Sutton, Waltham Forest and Westminster.
• Band 2
  Bexley, Brent, Camden, Enfield, Hounslow, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth.
• Band 3
  Croydon, Ealing, Hackney, Lambeth, Newham and Southwark.

35. In the case of the Barking & Dagenham, Islington and Havering CPCGs the recommendation is that they are not given any MPA funding as they stand at present. MPA officers will give urgent attention to the implications of this recommendation for the consultative process in these boroughs. In following through on its statutory obligation and commitment to ensuring there are effective ways by which Londoners can understand and influence the policing decisions and policies that effect them at the local level and within every borough, the MPA is in the process of hiring additional Community Consultation Coordinators. These will work with the above communities to strengthen existing mechanisms for involvement and to promote and develop new ways of engaging local people in policing matters.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. Almost all the groups recommended for funding have already adopted an Equal Opportunities Statement, which is the basic requirement of Level One of the Equality Standard for local government. The few groups who have not have indicated their commitment to adopt a statement within the next few weeks.

2. Much of the further improvement that is being encouraged in the work of CPCGs, as reflected in the equality and diversity questions asked in the Application Form, will contribute to demonstrating greater integration of equal opportunities and diversity in their performance and practices. In addition, they are aware that there is also 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 Race Relations Amendment Act.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications are the subject of the report.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Tim Rees, MPA.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Summary of funding levels recommended for 2004/05

Funding Levels recommended to 2004/05

• Greenwich Total funding to be determined
• Hammersmith & Fulham Total funding to be determined
• Kingston and Richmond Given greater funding than 2003/04 plus 2.5%

Appendix 2

Funding recommendation sheets, all CPCGs

Group Name: Barking and Dagenham

Band

No band

Group Summary

Funding is required to undertake 4 CPCG public meetings and participate in 3 Crime Prevention Sub Committee meetings.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the group receive no funds from the MPA.

Comments

The application form was received very late and is incomplete in important respects. In particular, the application provides inadequate justification for funding. It is impossible to recommend funding on the information supplied.

Group failed to produce:

• Annual Report 2003/03
• Audited accounts
• Honorary Treasurer’s endorsement
• Equal Opportunities Statement
• Evidence of a governance structure
• Evidence of how it is independent of the local authority’s Community Safety Team and its crime and disorder reduction responsibilities
• Evidence of its engagement of communities in the delivery of policing, and how it will makes strategic recommendations.
• The group also provides no evidence of meaningful consultative activity, and how it proposes to monitor the results.

Financial summary

Group Name: Barnet

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is required to support four public meetings and to undertake other consultation exercises, as well as to support the CPCG’s engagement in local crime and disorder policy fora.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

The administrative costs seem to be good value for money.

The SLA supplied is two years out of date.

Closer monitoring of the achievement of objectives and of their impact would be desirable.

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Bexley

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support 6 bi-monthly group meetings, quarterly meetings in the 3 sectors and to actively monitor progress of Community Safety Action Zones.

Additional support is required to extend youth consultation, strengthen contact with secondary schools, and to use Fusion Cray Radio Project to foster links with the young, as well as to extend liaison with disability organisations.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

Work programme appears to be largely process driven (i.e. meetings as an end in themselves), but planned work programme does have some innovative proposals re: involvement of young people.

Conditions

• Submission of a CPCG Equal Opportunities Statement.
• Work programme needs further development highlighting the youth work,
• Development of realistic and measurable goals.
• Ability to influence strategy in borough policing needs to be more fully demonstrated, via the group’s role and purpose.

Financial summary

Group Name: Brent

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funding is required to support its regular public meetings with guest speakers and to cover the costs of distribution of information to members. It also intends to establish a more direct, closer working relationship with the new borough commander, establish regular dialogue with young people, and if budget permits, circulate consultation documents on behalf of the MPA.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• Proposed 04/05 activities are vague and not fully developed, apart from proposed dialogue with young people. Tendency to describe process rather than proposed outcomes that can be measured
• No evidence that any elections to office took place at the AGM

Conditions

• Development of an adequate work programme to include the proposed work with young people
• Organisational development to tackle both constitutional and representational issues

Financial summary

Group Name: Bromley

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to carry out 9 public meetings in different parts of the borough, to participate in the Sector Working Groups, and to provide input into local policing priorities and plans

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

The MPA allocation to the Bromley CPCG last year was doubled from the previous years, to enable it to increase the number of public meetings and to hold them in different parts of the borough. This has enabled an increase both in the number of meetings and the representativeness of participants. The group is encouraged to quantify this increase in involvement and in activity, and the impact and results of this heightened level of community engagement, as well as to engage more directly in the local CDRP process.

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Camden

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

The grant will be used to fund 6 executive committee meetings, 6 full group meetings and 2 Sector Working Group & Sector Inspector meetings. The bid represents a 3.24% increase on 2004-05, of which staffing costs account for 79% of the total.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• Though Camden appears to be highly organised and professional, it lacks adequate community representation (especially ‘hard to hear’ sections of the community) and although it has a plan in place to contact these groups, does not seem to have done so.
• The CPCG does not appear to be getting value for money from its current administrative arrangements and its lack of strategic recommendations and planned consultation activities make it difficult to recommend an increase.

Conditions

• The group needs to consider developing outcome based objectives and focus more on making strategic recommendations in relation to local policing, plans and priorities and engaging the community in these plans.
•  From being institutionally top heavy, the group should take positive steps towards its executive membership being community rather than council focused.
• It is recommended that the group improves it’s community representation and recruits membership from ‘hard to hear’ sections of the community
• Review its administrative and financial arrangements – it does not appear to be getting value for money from its present arrangements

Financial summary

Group Name: Croydon

Band

Band 3

Group Summary

Funding is required to support bi-monthly public meetings, 6 executive meetings and the outreach work planned by the Older Persons Sub Committee, the Minorities Forum, and a planned sub-committee to encourage youth participation. The group would like to establish a web site and develop input into the police sector working groups.

Recommendations

Recommended 3 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

The budget request was over 50% more than received last year, but no justification is provided for such an increase. An ‘administration/management charge’ of £6,248 in addition to the other administrative costs being charged by the local authority is unacceptable. The group should review its Service Level Agreement with the local authority and/or consider alternative arrangements.

Conditions

There is a need to develop clear objectives, a realistic work plan and budget. A Service Level Agreement that meets the agreement of the CPCG members, with the necessary compatible organisational and administrative arrangements needs to be put in place.

Financial summary

Group Name: Ealing

Band

Band 3

Group Summary

Funding is requested to hold 6 public meetings, to distribute the info page document throughout the borough and to consult with youth through the Youth Sub Group. The group also maintain considerable information at their office as a resource available to all.

Recommendations

Recommended 3 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• The work of the group with Youth Sub-Group is interesting and is encouraged to be developed via a work plan, with measurable aims and targets.

Conditions

• Funding is subject to a remedy of current staff situation.
• An Equal Opportunities Statement should be produced.
• The group is encouraged to provide the MPA with a work programme justifying the level of funding.

Financial summary

Group Name: Enfield

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funding is required to hold 4 main group meetings, 6 – 8 sub group meetings, 2 – 3 youth consultation events and an LGBT consultation event.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• Good cross-section of the community on the group.
• Their equal opportunities approach is, however, rather weak. The group are looking to widen their consultation activities to include more sections of the community, such as youth and LGBT.
• The group are encouraged to make strategic recommendations in relation to policing and planning
• The group needs to look at their recruitment processes in terms of ensuring that it reflects the diverse elements of the community
• They are also encouraged to develop engagement with CDRP and their local Sector Working Groups

Conditions

• The group must put in place an Equal Opportunities Policy and more rigorously monitor their membership
• The group are encouraged to review their administration arrangements, as the costs appear high

Financial summary

Group Name: Hackney

Band

Band 3

Group Summary

Funding is required to support 6 executive meetings and 6 full group meetings.

Bid represents a 53.7 % increase on last year and salary cost request represents a 19.8% increase on last year.

Recommendations

Recommended 3 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• Seemingly weak administrative support at a high cost.
• Budget does not show evidence of adequate justification given the level of funding requested, nor does it show adequate thought in its costings.
• The MPA are aware that the group under their new Chair are making significant inroads into producing a work plan and reviewing their consultative arrangements. The group are undertaking a major organisational development process as the foundation for effectively responding to the many critical policing issues in the borough.

Conditions

An indication that the group are going to make some major changes in:

• their membership (broader community representation)
• their consultation activities and,
• review of their administrative support to ensure that it is effective and value for money.

Financial summary

Group Name: Haringey

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support the group’s 6 public meetings and 29 further meetings of sub-committees relating to employment, youth, constitution, membership, honorary officers and the executive. In addition, the group plans an annual youth conference, the hiring of a third staff person, an e-consultation process with young people and the translation of consultation materials in 12 languages.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

Whilst it is acknowledged that sustaining such an infrastructure is resource intensive, the accomplishments of the group’s activities are not clear. More attention needs to be given to assessing and demonstrating the results and impact of all this considerable process. Given that the group receives more money than any other CPCG from the MPA, the group is encouraged to actively seek alternative and additional funding from other sources. To seek £51,000 for staff costs from the MPA largely for organisational support and development is unrealistic and beyond the scope of the MPA to consider.

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Harrow

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to enable the CPCG to carry out its regular group meetings, major incidents discussion, to receive reports from police sector working groups, and to participate in Crime Prevention Panel and victim support and consult on policing priorities.

Recommendations

• Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.
• This excludes support for racial harassment costs which the MPA is no longer funding (£7,653)

Comments

Consideration needs to be given to assessing the outcomes of its work.

Conditions

No money will be released before:

• there is confirmation of annual election of officers
• a Treasurer has been appointed and his/her endorsement of application has been received
• MPA has received a letter from local authority finance department and a copy of the Service Level Agreement.

Financial summary

Group Name: Havering

Band

no band

Group Summary

Funding is requested to carry out 4 main group public meetings.

Recommendations

That no funding be allocated to the group for 2004/05.

Comments

• The bid has not been justified by evidence of planned activity.
• The group does not have an Equal Opportunities Policy.
• On the information provided there is evidence of local consultation in Havering. However, no evidence is provided of the level of community participation in group meetings, of the level of representation, of the value or impact of group discussions on local police priorities and plans, or the level of involvement by the CPCG in the local CDRP process.
• It is impossible, on the information provided, to find adequate reason for funding the group.

Conditions

Not applicable

Financial summary

Group Name: Hillingdon

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to undertake annual membership consultation on policing priorities, to carry out meetings with the Hillingdon Youth Council, as well as regular meetings with local key players e.g. MPs; Cllrs. It will also provide support for 8 local Community/Police Liaison Groups, and participate on the Community Safety & Drugs Strategy Group.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

• The content of the form is extremely thin and seems more about process (lists of proposed meetings) than content (proposed outcomes)
• Need to strengthen their approach to effective and inclusive consultation.
• Their innovative work with the Hillingdon Youth Council and ‘recent initiative to promote consultation with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’ should be promoted.

Conditions

• No money will be released until the Treasurer’s signature, Service Level Agreement and satisfactory Equal Opportunities Statement have been received.

Financial summary

Group Name: Hounslow

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funding is requested to undertake partnership driven themed meetings, to contribute to Crime Audit, to undertake proactive publicity, to develop and maintain a web page and newspaper articles linked to recruitment of underrepresented groups.

Recommendations

On the information currently provided it is recommended that Hounslow receive an initial 6 months conditional funding on the same level of funding as 2003/04 plus 2.5% increase for salary. With a view to extension for the year subject to conditions below.

Comments

• It should be noted that this application was received almost 1 month after the deadline.
• Most of the required information has not been supplied
• This makes it extraordinarily difficult to justify funding the group for a full year

Conditions

• Production of a satisfactory work programme
• The supply of all outstanding documentation

Financial summary

Group Name: Islington

Band

no band

Group Summary

Funding is requested to increase attendance by 50%, to increase awareness of CPCG in Islington, to hold meeting relevant to the community, to increase the diversity of the group, and to act as the consultation medium between public and police.

Recommendations

• That no funding be allocated to this group for 2004/05
• MPA staff will be developing alternative means of consultation in concert with our local partners over the next year

NB The MPA provides payroll facilities to the Islington group

Comments

• Very poor application
• No evidence of effective activity
• Number of members unclear/doubtful
• Seem to have done little or no recruitment in the past
• EOP statement is not satisfactory
• At last AGM no community groups/organisations present
• Attendance at meetings has been very poor for a long time and the group lacks credibility with the community and local partners

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Kensington and Chelsea

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support 12 main group meetings plus 20 sub group or sector working group meetings plus the usual accommodation costs, staff support etc. The bid represents a 39.7% increase on last year, with salary costs representing 62% of the total bid and a 16.7% increase on last year’s salary costs.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

• The group appear to have good information sharing relations with the local police and are well informed on work that is taking place. Their weakness is a lack of consultation on issues, rather than information sharing.
• Salary costs appear high.
• The group must drive towards increasing the representation of their membership to include ‘hard to hear’ sections.
• The group is encouraged to engage with their CDRP and look at making strategic recommendations, along with developing methods of measuring the impact of their work.
• Discussions to be held with group to look for reduction in administrative costs.

Conditions

• Production of a satisfactory work programme
• The supply of all outstanding documentation

Financial summary

Group Name: Kingston

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to allow the group to:

• Hold 5 public meetings with senior police
• Encourage members to consult their organisations on the outcome of group meetings
• Continue working with Sector Working Groups
• Continue sending representatives to the IAG
• Co-operate with the CDRP in co-ordinating forthcoming crime audit activities
• Repeat its outreach work to diverse groups to ensure their views fed into the CDRP strategy
• Offer distraction burglary talks to vulnerable people.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

Generally a very good application with a number of interesting activities that might be an example for others.

Conditions

No money will be released before:

• appointment of Honorary Treasurer and his/her endorsement of bid;
• final draft of Equal Opportunities Statement is supplied to MPA;
• final draft of Service Level Agreement is supplied to MPA

Financial summary

Group Name: Lambeth

Band

Band 3

Group Summary

Funding is requested to provide the administrative support, including two staff persons, for supporting 12 CPCG meetings, 12 CPCG group officer meetings and 6 focus groups for the CDRP Audit. The group also plans to participate in the Stop and Search Sub Committee, the Constitution Committee and holding of a one-day conference on domestic violence.

Recommendations

Recommended 3 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• Budget is very vague and not well developed
• Executive is quite small (4) and all male
• No evidence of connecting objectives to work plan
• There are only 8 permanent member organisations from the community
• Review of year’s accomplishments shows a number of high profile activities, but no strategic direction
• The proposed programme for 04/05 appears to be just a series of meetings

Conditions

• There are a number of governance, personnel, administrative and organisational issues that need resolution before the MPA can feel confident that Lambeth CPCG can carry out its work plan in an effective manner
• An agreed work programme is to be drawn up and submitted within 3 months

Financial summary

Group Name: Lewisham

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funds are requested to support 5 main group meetings, 4 meetings with Chair and Head of Crime Reduction Service and 4 meetings with young people and the Education Directorate in schools or youth clubs. The group also plan 4 meetings with Chair and Community Safety Partnership Board, 4 meetings with Chair and senior councillors and officers, 2 divisional plan meetings with the MPS, 6 agenda planning meetings, 5 Stop and Search Sub Group meetings and finally 4 outreach meetings on the fear of crime and approximately 12 ad-hoc meetings.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

The number of meetings seems excessive (almost 1 a week), however the group appear to be well organised and well informed.

Lewisham has a strong equal opportunities policy and is making efforts to contact the ‘hard to hear’ sections of the community. It has a fair selection of different community groups represented and holds outreach meetings in various locations in the borough.

However, there is no obvious justification for the high administration costs. It needs to concentrate on substance and move away from the processes.

The group must look to make strategic recommendations in respect of community policing and engage with their local CDRP. They must also make their accounts available.

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Merton

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funds are requested to organise a meeting with young people, work closely with newly formed with Neighbourhood Watch, participate in CDRP’s annual review, and to participate in MPA consultation on policing policies.

The group also plan to pilot new consultation method for CDRP, and to participate in local Public Reassurance Pilot Project.

Recommendations

Recommend 12 month’s funding based on amount applied for.

Comments

A slight reduction from last years funding is a result of support towards the Racial Incidents Panel being reassigned.

Conditions

• Details to be supplied on piloting of new consultation method for CDRP
• Treasurer’s endorsement of application
• Audited accounts/letter from local authority finance department

Financial summary

Group Name: Newham

Band

Band 3

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support 10 group meetings. Each one will be held in one of the 10 Community Forum areas.

Recommendations

Recommend 3 months funding on basis of current year plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• No overall sense of strategy
• No justification is given for 04/05 activities
• Process (meetings) not outcomes (sense of purpose)
• AGM in July 03 had more individuals (14) present than member organisations (10 out of 26)
• While there are plans to rewrite constitution to extend membership to individuals, there are a number of governance and organisational development issues that need to be addressed.
• Staff support from local authority does not appear to represent value for money

Conditions

• To draw up, submit and implement a satisfactory work programme with clear strategic objectives
• To strengthen the partnership between the group and the police

Financial summary

Group Name: Redbridge

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support 6 main group meetings including their AGM. In addition, there are likely to be at least 4 consultation meetings with young people. The group intends to consult with the elderly and young people and increase its membership from BME sections of the community.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

The group have good ideas and appear to be heading in a good direction; however there appears to be a need to develop a work programme with methods and activities in order to achieve their goals.

Conditions

• To develop a detailed work plan outlining planned consultation with BME and LGBT sections of the community, in order to produce strategic recommendations.
• Engagement with the CDRP should also be identified.

Financial summary

Group Name: Richmond

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is required to undertake 6 group meetings, 4-6 Executive meetings and the regular meetings of Treasury Sub-Group, Fear of Crime Sub-Group and Police Liaison Groups throughout the borough. The group is undertaking proactive efforts developing links with hard to reach groups. It is also sponsoring annual youth crime conference.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

A well-organised and active group with a well thought out plan of action.

Conditions

No money will be released before the Treasurer’s endorsement of the application form and the final Service Level Agreement are received.

Financial summary

Group Name: Southwark

Band

Band 3

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support its regular meetings;

• To ensure effective consultation mechanisms are in place
• Facilitation and promotion of public confidence in police
• Raise awareness of CPCG and partnership work
• To improve relationships between the groups
• To improve involvement of youth in the group’s activities
• To gather relevant community intelligence
• Develop roles of management committee members and staff, and to develop a research capacity
• Take account of wider public safety issues to reduce crime and fear of crime.

Recommendations

Recommended 3 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• The report is extremely weak both in terms of the review of current work and vague in terms of the proposed activities for 2004/05.
• Consequently, there is little to focus on neither in strategic terms nor in terms of practical outcomes that could be monitored and evaluated.
• Programme development, organisational development, financial development and governance issues all require attention.

Conditions

• The receipt of outstanding material e.g. accounts, and a final equal opportunities statement
• Evidence of a properly conducted AGM with elections
• A satisfactory work plan needs to be developed with the assistance of MPA staff.

Financial summary

Group Name: Sutton

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support quarterly public meetings of the CPCG, to undertake outreach work to promote the activities of the group. To encourage participation particularly from hard to reach groups such as young people, in order to monitor and provide informed input into local policing priorities and plans and the Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase, with consideration of supplementary funding depending on availability of MPA funds, in 6 months time.

Comments

The group is requesting more than double what was received last year though it must be recognised that this was at a relatively low level. The CPCG is going though a process of renewal and growth and working effectively with the local BOCU. Group needs to provide stronger evidence of taking control of its own affairs such as establishing a Service Level Agreement that is acceptable to all parties.

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Tower Hamlets

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funding is requested to support 6 regular public meetings with the borough commander, to support an action planning group, to participate in the 8 police sector working groups, and to sponsor the 999 Community Fair.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

• Proposed activities for 04/05 do not substantially differ from current year – little or no evidence of development
• Equal opportunities statement is very weak
• Only 4 voting organisations out of 27 present at 2003 AGM
• Staffing costs seem very high in relation to demonstrated outputs
• Organisational development, programme development, governance and equality provisions in very diverse borough require attention.

Conditions

• The development of an adequate work programme more clearly demonstrating how the group is addressing community, e.g. Stop and Search
• Proposals to address the issue of not having well attended and inclusive meetings including AGMs
• Treasurer to endorse application form, and final Service Level Agreement and equal opportunities statements to be submitted.

Financial summary

Group Name: Waltham Forest

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Funding is requested to undertake 5 main public group meetings, 10 Executive Sub-Committee meetings and 5 Publicity Sub-Committee meetings.

It will also undertake a number of initiatives pertaining to undertaking a youth consultation questionnaire, homophobic reporting, consultation on local police priorities and involvement of BME communities.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

The CPCG seem to be a fairly small group who are making efforts to consult with a broader selection of the community. Youth consultation initiatives are a good indicator of these efforts.

In addition to broadening its membership, the group is encouraged to strengthen its work plan with clearly defined goals and objectives.

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Group Name: Wandsworth

Band

Band 2

Group Summary

Funds are sought to support 5 regular meetings for the year and 4 meetings in each of the 4 sector working groups, to strengthen relationships with the CDRP, and to broaden membership from hard to reach groups.

Recommendations

Recommended 6 months funding on basis of 2003/04 plus 2.5% salary increase, with a view to extension for the year subject to the conditions below.

Comments

Apart from generating an increase in the level of participation in the group’s meetings, a clear work plan needs to be developed with objectives and expected outcomes and results.
Conditions MPA staff to work with the CPCG in strengthening the programme development process.

Financial summary

Group Name: Westminster

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Given the size and complexity of the policing environment in Westminster, the borough has been divided into three separate CPCGs. Westminster CPCG South see themselves as a conduit ‘between the community and the police in terms of information, awareness and understanding’. Funding is requested to support the bi-monthly meetings of the CPCG and participation in 12 sector working group meetings and 6 of the CCTV panel.

Similar activities are planned for the Westminster Central and Westminster North CPCGs.

Recommendations

Recommended 12 months funding on basis of 2003/04 + 2.5% for pay increase.

Comments

Each of the three groups needs to provide stronger evidence of a work plan with anticipated results and outcomes, with a stronger proactive engagement on effecting local policing plans and priorities.

Whilst separate applications were submitted for the 3 CPCGs, the same personnel provide administrative support services centrally. The level of administrative support (i.e. hours) provided to each needs to be made transparent.

Conditions

No money will be released before a Service Level Agreement is received.

Financial summary

Group Name: London CPCG Chairs’ Forum

Band

Band 1

Group Summary

Support is requested to enable the forum to;

• Share good practice from borough to borough
• Ensure that all member bodies are aware of all documents/consultations requiring feedback and response
• In conjunction with the MPA, to ascertain the groups’ main consultation activities, concerns and issues
• To inform the MPA of policing matters the groups regard as important, both locally and London wide

Recommendations

12 months funding on basis of current year plus 2.5% salary increase

Comments

• In conjunction with MPA officers to undertake to develop, produce and disseminate best practice models by which Londoners can engage in policing policy
• To assist and facilitate in bi-annual presentations by CPCGs to the Consultation Committee of the MPA

Conditions

None

Financial summary

Appendix 3

Methodology for assessment of CPCG funding bids 2004/05

The guidance notes sent out with the application forms for the latest round of CPCG funding bids set out a number of principles on which applications would be judged.

These principles were then converted into 21 specific criteria for the purposes of assessment. Examples of the criteria are: “Satisfactory equal opportunities statement received,” “CPCG has clear goals and objectives”, “Proposed budget is justified.”

Each application form was assessed against each of the criteria, being awarded 1, ½ or 0 points for each criterion (except the equal opportunities statement which could only be given 1 or 0 points). All five current members of the Community Engagement Unit were involved in this process.

In addition to the application form, 3rd party references were sought from the relevant Borough Commander, Community Safety Manager and MPA Link Member. Their opinions were taken into account in the scoring process, alongside the application forms.

The criteria were grouped into four families: ‘finance and administration’, ‘community representativeness and accountability’, ‘consultation activity’, and ‘management’. The total score for each family was weighted to reflect its overall importance to MPA’s stated objectives for its work with CPCGs. The overall assessment combines the family scores and is expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible. So, for example, an overall score of 100% would mean that the CPCG had met all 21 criteria in full.

Each CPCG application has been marked, using the scheme outlined above, by two assessors working independently. The overall score reflects their combined judgements. In a handful of cases a third assessor was brought in to resolve differences between the first two.

The next stage in the assessment process was to make recommendations on the funding asked for. The overall assessment scores were grouped into three bands for this purpose. Strict adherence to the scoring scheme would mean that those CPCGs in Band 1 (scores of 75% or more) would be given funding for 12 months, while those in Band 2 (50% - 74%) would be funded for six months initially, the second six months’ funding dependent on their meeting certain conditions. Band 3 (below 50%) would receive 3 months funding in the first instance, together with support from MPA to help them meet the conditions required for further funding.

However, it is recognised that any scoring system is bound to be mechanical, and not to allow room for professional judgement or special factors. Consequently, the final recommendations on banding and funding have tempered arithmetic with MPA officers’ judgement.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback