Setting strategic priorities for community engagement and consultation

Report: 10
Date: 14 October 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report summarises the headlines from an analysis of several studies of policing priorities. It then explores the implications of the way Londoners think about operational priorities and makes recommendations for inclusion in the Community Engagement Strategy.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Community Engagement Strategy should give due attention to each of the four different ways in which Londoners think about operational police priorities;
2. the Community Engagement Committee should scrutinise all community engagement and consultation regarding policing and community safety matters in London;
3. agencies commissioning consultation or community engagement work should be asked to make explicit which one or more of the four sectors the piece of work is intended to address; and
4. the Community Engagement Strategy should include a programme of work to identify best practice in citizen influence over policing.

B. Supporting information

1. A report was presented to the Planning, Performance and Review Committee on 9 September 2004 pulling together the main findings from several major studies of policing priorities. These studies included the recent MPA and MPS on-line consultation on Londoners’ priorities for the 2005/05 Policing Plan, as well as a variety of consultations on policing priorities conducted by MPA, MPS and other agencies over the last few years.

2. The main findings of the PPRC report were:

• Londoners have a sophisticated way of thinking about operational priorities for policing, embodying views both on what the police do and the way that they do it, and simultaneously distinguishing between local and London wide priorities
• Londoners want citizen focused policing
• They are keen to see partnerships between the police and other agencies developed and extended
• They have a positive attitude towards preventative policing, but would like more say in how it is done.

3. This report to the Community Engagement Committee explores the implications of the way Londoners think about operational priorities and proposes a strategic framework for future community engagement and consultations and the role of the MPA.

4. As was reported to the PPRC Londoners do not have just one set of operational priorities. Instead, they think about policing in terms of two distinct dimensions: local versus London wide; and offence types versus service delivery. (These two dimensions combine to form four sectors as shown in Figure 1 below.)

5. In other words Londoners’ priorities differ according to whether they are thinking about what is happening locally or about what happens London wide. For example, they regard child abuse as being a very high priority for the MPS as a whole, but not as a particular priority locally (or at least not until an incident occurs locally).

6. Similarly, they distinguish between what the police do, i.e. the types of crime they concentrate on, and the way that they do it, i.e. service delivery. For example, they regard anti social behaviour and low level crime as the most important issues for the police to tackle in 2005/06, and at the same time they also want to see more police (and other uniforms) on the streets – but they do not necessarily see these two issues as having a causal relationship. It is as if they have different compartments in their minds, one labelled 'local priorities for police action' and another one 'priorities for delivery of policing locally'. (And similarly for the London wide priorities although in general these priorities are less salient than the local ones.)

7. What this means in practice is that there is little point in asking Londoners to decide between, for instance, action on child abuse and more visible policing – they will simply say that they want both. They will probably be able to set priorities within each of the four sectors in Figure 1 below, but are likely to regard questions about priorities between the sectors as meaningless.

Figure 1 - How Londoners think about policing in the capital

8. The results of the recent on-line consultation demonstrate this. The top 12 priorities identified by the consultation can be assigned to the four sectors of Figure 1 to make up Figure 2. Some of the individual priorities could be shifted to other sectors of the diagram, and several of the items could be placed in more than one sector, but the general point still stands – Londoners have a complex, four part view of policing priorities.

Figure 2 - The on-line consultation results

9. One implication of this diagram for community engagement practice is that it emphasises the importance of engaging in all four sectors, although not necessarily all at once, and not necessarily all to the same extent.

10. Another important implication is that different engagement mechanisms will be appropriate to different sectors. At present, as Figure 3 shows, MPA and the MPS have different mechanisms in place for local and for London wide community engagement, but by and large they use the same mechanisms to consult both on what the police do and also how they do it. While there does not seem to be any pressing reason to change this arrangement the distinction between what the police do and how they do it is an important one for Londoners and needs to be kept in mind.

Figure 3 - Some Current Community Engagement Mechanisms

11. The report presented to the Planning, Performance and Review Committee on 9 September 2004 concluded that what most Londoners want is ‘citizen focused policing’. Engagement with London’s communities on their own terms is an integral part of being citizen focused. ‘On their own terms’ means amongst other things engagement in all four sectors.

12. MPA has an over-riding role in respect of community engagement and consultation, namely to ensure that all activities carried out are of good quality and are effective in enabling the voices of Londoners to be heard. This must now include ensuring that, over time, there is sufficient attention paid to each of the four sectors (although not necessarily the same amount for each) and it is recommended that this requirement be built into the Community Engagement Strategy.

13. The question of ownership also arises. The range of engagement mechanisms set out in Figure 3 has a variety of ‘owners’ besides MPA. It is suggested that MPA, on behalf of Londoners, has a role to play in respect of scrutinising how the different owners carry out their consultation and community engagement activities. It is recommended that this should also be built into the Community Engagement Strategy. Similarly, it is recommended that the different owners be asked to clarify at the outset which one or more of the four sectors they intend to address in any particular piece of consultation or community engagement.

14. There has been a plethora of consultation and research in recent years, which has established in broad terms what it is the public want from their police in London. Since these priorities appear not to change very quickly, it may be thought timely for community engagement attention to move on from the issue of what it is citizens want to the next question, which is 'how can citizens actually affect policing?’ In this context, it is recommended that the Community Engagement Strategy should include a programme of work to identify and collate best practice in citizen influence over policing, drawing on the experience of other police authorities and also of other organisations.

C. Race and equality impact

The consultation process undertaken by the MPA and MPS gave particular attention to many of London’s diverse communities and a more targeted approach to community engagement will provide scope for a more targeted approach to the diverse needs of those communities.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications of the Community Engagement Strategy will be addressed in the covering paper for that Strategy; there are no other direct financial implications of this report.

E. Background papers

• Report to Planning, Performance and Review Committee – 9 September 2004

F. Contact details

Report author: John May

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback