Progress report on CPCG funding for 2004/05

Report: 6
Date: 13 May 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report summarises the progress being made on the implementation of the funding arrangements for Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) for 2004/05.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Committee note the progress being made on the implementation of funding arrangements for CPCGs for 2004/05; and
2. receive a further progress report at its next meeting

B. Supporting information

1. The Committee at its meeting on 18 March 2004 considered a report on the proposed CPCG funding programme for 2004/05 and agreed the following recommendations:

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 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.

2. This report sets out the progress made to date on implementing the Committee’s decisions as set out above and identifies areas where further work is required, including the consideration of a number of different arrangements to ensure continuing progress in addressing the MPA’s requirements in terms of local consultation and community engagement.

3. The Committee’s decisions on funding can be divided into four categories:

• Those Groups where it was agreed that no funding would be made
• Band 3 – Three months funding extended to 12 months subject to conditions
• Band 2 – Six months funding extended to 12 months subject to conditions
• Band 1 – Twelve months funding

4. Letters were sent out on the 22 March 2004 to the Chairs and Administrators of all groups informing them of the Committee’s decision concerning their funding arrangements for 2003/04. The letter also informed them of their right to appeal against the decision and the timetable for doing so. A Letter of Understanding was sent out on 5 April 2004 setting out the terms and conditions of funding and requiring the Chair to sign and return one copy to the MPA in order that funds can be released.

5. Six Groups have exercised their right to appeal. These are Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Havering, Hillingdon, Kensington and Chelsea, and Waltham Forest. An Appeals Panel has been convened for 5 May 2004 and the outcome will be reported orally to the Committee.

6. A member of the Community Engagement Unit has been assigned to work with each of the Groups in the first three categories set out above.

7. Groups receiving no funding:

• Barking and Dagenham - Initial contact has been made and a first meeting was held on 30 April
• Havering - Initial meetings have taken place and despite the Group’s appeal there are early indications of a positive approach to developing a new consultation model for Havering
• Islington - The Group decided not to appeal against the decision but to put their efforts into supporting the search for a new consultation model. This is being pursued with the Borough Commander and other interested parties

8. It should also be noted the progress with respect to the two other boroughs that no longer have a Group:

• Greenwich - A two-pronged approach is being developed and should be finalised in the next month. This will involve supporting and strengthening the four Community Action Panels, especially in terms of ‘hardest to reach’ communities; and the bringing together of the four geographical Panels on a borough-wide twice yearly basis.
• Hammersmith and Fulham - A proposal involving a community safety board of about 20 people has been agreed between the MPA and the Borough Commander, referred to the Local Authority, and will be presented to the Crime and Disorder Partnership on 11 May. The outcome will be reported orally to the Committee.

9. Groups in Band 3 (three months funding)

• Croydon - Discussion is taking place with the Local Authority regarding the Service Level Agreement and value for money. The Group are exploring alternative arrangements in case they become necessary.
• Ealing - The resolution of staffing issues has required the implementation of formal employment processes. Until these processes are completed, the capacity of the Group to implement its work plan will be hampered.
• Lambeth - A number of meetings have been held to address the issues of the Group’s governance, staffing and work programme.

10. The remaining Groups in this category are Hackney, Newham and Southwark. All of these Groups have been contacted and meetings are being arranged.

11. Groups in Band 2 (six months funding)

• Camden - A meeting has been held to clarify and expand upon the activities and achievements of the Group that were insufficiently brought out in their application form.

12. The remainder of the Groups are Bexley, Brent, Enfield, Hounslow, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. All of these Groups have been contacted and meetings are being arranged for the second half of May to establish what support they may need to meet the conditions that will allow the second 6 months funding to be released.

Groups in Band 3 (twelve months funding)

13. No specific arrangements have been made with these Groups, but of course, all Groups have to submit a progress report and financial record in September, which will ensure that any difficulties are brought to the MPAs attention. There will also be a certain amount of semi-formal contact throughout the period.

14. The information set out in paragraphs 4 to 10 above demonstrates that the earliest stages of implementing the Committee’s decisions are well under way. The remainder of the decisions concern joint work with the London Chairs’ Forum which was the subject of a meeting with its Executive on 27 April. Further discussions will be arranged in June by which time it is hoped that the necessary practical work of dealing with the 2004/05 funding round will be well advanced.

15. Part of the work with the Chairs’ Forum, particularly with respect to the provision of technical assistance and training, will need to centre around three main aspects of the partnership between the MPA and the CPCGs.

• Effective accountability for public monies and value for money on behalf of the Groups and effective guidance and practical support on behalf of the MPA.
• How the Groups can best provide ‘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’ and the amount of development support the MPA can provide
• How the Groups can support and reinforce neighbourhood local community engagement processes and structures developed in Safer Neighbourhoods.

16. Although that work has yet to begin, certain concerns have emerged during the current funding process. These are around the proper balance between local and pan – London interests where the Groups, as they are currently structured, will naturally emphasise the local, whereas the MPA will naturally tend to emphasise the pan – London. This comes down to the question of how far both bodies have mutual aims and objectives in terms of community engagement and consultation.

17. The two main interests for the MPA must be, (1) how local consultation enables it to build a strategic cross London picture of public responses to policing issues and how this can inform the MPAs own policies and plans and (2), how it supports and reinforces community engagement at the neighbourhood level. There is little evidence, as yet that the work of the CPCGs is well developed in either respect.

18. There is also the question of whether the current relationship between the MPA and the CPCGs is one that can ever deliver mutually satisfactory outcomes. This may be partially a matter of history with both CPCGs and MPA officers frequently expressing frustration and dissatisfaction; it is certainly a matter of the resources the MPA is able to commit to supporting the CPCGs. This already takes up the vast majority of the Community Engagement Unit’s resources in terms of both budget and work programme.

19. It may also be the way the relationship is structured and, after nearly four years it is, perhaps, an appropriate moment to explore with the London Chairs’ Forum and other relevant partnerships whether the relationship needs to change.

20. Any potential changes need to be explored and proposed before the arrangements for the 2005/06 funding round are due. Clearly, members will want to examine and express their own view on any such proposals and this may be best achieved by a meeting set aside for this specific purpose either in the late summer or early autumn.

C. Race and equality impact

A major component of the improvements that are being encouraged in the work of CPCGs that officers have met with, relate specifically to ensuring greater integration of equality and diversity provisions in their governance processes and work activities.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications from this report. Funding for the CPCGs is included in the MPA 2004/05 budget.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Christopher Calnan, 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