Community engagement funding 2005/06

Report: 8
Date: 3 February 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

This report sets out the proposed community engagement fund allocation to the community police consultative groups for 2005/06.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members agree to fund the following groups without condition: Barking, Barnet, Bexley, Camden, Croydon, Havering, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster;
2. approval to fund the following groups with the condition of the provision of mandatory information before 31 March 2005: Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Kensington, Lambeth, Merton, Redbridge and Sutton;
3. the Committee note the specific conditions for funding Tower Hamlets CPCG as set out in paragraph 22 of the report;
4. members agree not to fund the following groups: Brent, Bromley, and Ealing.;
5. members note the withdrawal of the London Chairs Forum bid as set out in paragraph 28 to 29 of the report;
6. members note officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London as out in 35-40 of the report;
7. the Committee agrees to receive a report on the future of community engagement funding at its meeting of 21 April 2005; and
8. the Committee is reminded that the Appeals Panel will meet on 22 February 2005 and that therefore the grounds of any appeal must be received at the MPA by 5 pm on 17 February 2005

B. Supporting information

Guidelines and criteria

1. Officers of the Community Engagement Unit reviewed the 2004/05 application pack in October 2004 and produced a draft application pack for 2005/06 A number of Chairs and Administrators were invited to give their views on the draft pack at a meeting held on 25 October 2004

2. Subsequent to that meeting a number of revisions were made to the draft. The revised application pack was sent out on 29 October 2004 and 2 funding workshops were held on 3 and 4 November 2004, to which all Chairs and Administrators were invited. Objections were made to some of the clauses in the application pack, which officers undertook to refer back for consideration.

3. Whilst many of the amendments suggested were of a minor nature: two could be considered to be of major importance:

• changing the requirement for group officers to live in their borough to live or work in the borough; and
• dropping the requirement for each group to have its own bank account

4. After due consideration it was agreed to accede to these requests with the proviso that the issue of independent bank accounts be reconsidered in the light of the future relationship between the MPA and the CPCGs.

5. The return date for completed applications was 17 December 2004. Most of the groups returned their applications on or even before the closing date. A small number of groups requested extra leeway on urgent grounds including serious ill health and had their deadline extended

Eligibility

6. The Guidelines require that all funding requests must meet the general objective 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 borough’s diverse character.
• Informed community engagement in the policing of the borough.

Assessment criteria

7. The assessment of the applications by officers of the Community Engagement Unit 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:

Administration and governance

8. The group:

• Must be a fully constituted not-for-profit voluntary sector organisation.
• Must demonstrate financial accountability. For example, having a bank account, the treasurer reporting quarterly finance updates to the group.
• Must have elected officers elected by the general membership.
• Elected officers must serve in a voluntary capacity.
• Elected officers must be representative of and be resident / or work in the Borough.
• Must have a Treasurer elected from the membership of the group to oversee the monies of the group.
• Must demonstrate the participation of the Borough police in the activities for which funding is sought.
• Must have a service level agreement between the group and any other organisation providing administrative support to the group.

Budget Plan

9. The group:

• Must demonstrate sound financial management.
• Must demonstrate the budget is reasonable and justified, in terms of community engagement and consultation.
• Must demonstrate value for money in terms of administrative support, for example; is the money paid appropriate to skills and competencies outlined in the service level agreement.
• Must demonstrate value for money in terms of stationery/ office supplies, photocopying, advertising/publicity and other expenses, for example; is the money paid good value for the goods and services received.
• Should show an ability to gain in-kind support from other sources, for example; a donation of a photocopier, getting office space for free, or other similar support.
• Should show an ability to gain income from other sources.

Community engagement activity

10. The group:

• Must consult on the local policing priorities and feed results of local community engagement into the annual policing priority setting process. (In order to contribute to the annual policing priority setting process groups will be asked to feed results and priorities into the MPA before June each year).
• Engages in local crime and disorder partnership initiatives, and is involved in;
• safer neighbourhood projects.
• sector working groups.
• and importantly this year the three yearly crime audit and crime reduction/community safety strategy.
• Promotes and facilitates the engagement of local communities in the delivery of policing services.
• Enables community monitoring and influence on the decision-making of policing.
• Demonstrates the ability of the organisation and its staff to carry out the activities.
• Demonstrates that the activities are realistic and attainable
• Must demonstrate equality and diversity in all aspects of community engagement activity.

11. From the above list particular stress was placed on the following:

• Involvement in the triennial Crime and Disorder Audit.
• Involvement in the triennial Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy.
• Involvement in the emerging Safer Neighbourhood initiative.

12. It was strongly felt that as a minimum all CPCGs should be able to demonstrate substantial involvement in the above activities

Process

13. 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 an elected Chair’s and Treasurer’s signature, a copy of the group’s Annual Report, a Service Level Agreement where appropriate, a list of members, confirmation that group officers live or work in the their borough and an Equalities Statement backed by a breakdown of the group’s Executive.

14. Separate assessments were undertaken of each group’s application by two different officers using an assessment system that considered the application under four different headings:

• Mandatory information.
• Administration and governance.
• Finance and budget.
• Community engagement activity.

15. 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.

16. When the process was completed each group was scored and a table of weighted scores was produced – in recognition of its importance to the MPA the score on Community Engagement was given twice the weight of the other elements. The table also indicates which boroughs met the mandatory requirements (see Appendix 1).

Budget

17. The total budget allocation for community engagement grants funding for 2005/06 is £1,027,000 Taking into account other commitments such as pilot project funding, training and development projects and the need to provide resources for groups which have traditionally been under funded this allows for a standstill budget based on the 2004/05 allocation plus a 2.5% increase in staffing costs. A table listing the proposed funding by group is attached as Appendix 2

Recommendations

18. The funding recommendations is in three parts:

• Those groups to receive funding without condition.
• Those groups to receive funding on condition that all outstanding mandatory information is supplied by the 31 March 2005.
• Those groups for whom no funding is recommended.

Funding without condition

19. The following groups fall into this category: Barking, Barnet, Bexley, Camden, Croydon, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster

Funding subject to condition

20. The following groups fall into this category: Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Kensington, Lambeth, Merton, Redbridge and Sutton

21. All that is required in order to release funding is the resolution of outstanding mandatory information examples of which are largely set out in paragraph 13 above

Tower Hamlets

22. In the case of Tower Hamlets, it is not a matter of supplying mandatory information but of the fact that the Borough Commander has withdrawn from participation in the group’s affairs on the grounds that it is unrepresentative, its meetings are poorly conducted and that it does not provide a channel for meaningful consultation. Funding therefore can only be released when it is clear that the MPA is satisfied that meaningful reforms have been carried out and that the Borough Commander feels that he is able to re-engage with the group.

No funding recommended

23. The following groups fall into this category: Brent, Bromley and Ealing

24. Three CPCGs, Brent, Bromley and Ealing scored less than 50% on the assessment. They also failed to provide all the mandatory information requested. A score of less than 50% is a clear indication that the group is failing to function as an effective way for residents to understand and influence policing practices, policies, plans and priorities at the borough level. For this reason no funding can be recommended for these groups.

Brent CPCG

25. Brent CPCG seems to be largely disconnected from the main community safety activities in the borough. In particular the group:

• Is not a member of the Brent Crime Prevention Strategy Group.
• Has played no formal part in the crime audit process.
• Is not playing any significant role in the proposals for the 3 year community safety strategy.
• Is not actively involved in the development and roll out of Safer Neighbourhoods.

Bromley CPCG

26. Bromley CPCG refused to provide diversity monitoring information on the grounds that members did not want to state this information, as it caused offence to the members of the group. The group were, however, reminded that the MPA required this information in its assessment in order to be considered for funding. Officers also found no evidence of:

• A satisfactory report on accomplishments and planned activity for 2005/06
• Involvement with Safer Neighbourhoods
• Engagement with the CDRP

Ealing CPCG

27. Ealing CPCG does not have a satisfactory involvement in community safety partnerships and has paid insufficient attention to equalities issues. In particular the group:

• Did not provide a service level agreement for their administration
• Did not include defined equalities targets of measures of progress for their current and proposed work plans.
• Is not involved in the CDRP.
• Has had no involvement in the Crime and Disorder Audit or the planning of the Crime and Disorder Strategy.

London Chairs Forum

28. The London Chairs Forum (LCF) has a very different role to the CPCGs, in that it does not engage with the community directly, but provides a federal centre for the CPCGs and body for channelling information and views to the MPA.

29. Officers did not feel able to recommend funding on the basis of the application that was received. This application has subsequently been withdrawn and further discussions will be held with the LCF the outcome of which will be reported to the Committee at its meeting in April 2005..

31. Each group will be informed by post of the committee’s decision. Any group which wishes to appeal against the committee’s decision may do so by giving notice of appeal setting out in writing the grounds of that appeal

Equality of funding and development

32. The Committee has previously expressed its concern at the wide variation in funding between one group and the other and directed officers to find a way to resolve this issue. In the current year funding to groups ranges from over £64,000 to £8,000. Such a wide variation cannot be entirely based on a rational analysis of local need and performance, but must at least partially be an historical inheritance from the period before the MPA came in into existence

33. Once the main funding recommendations have been agreed officers will meet with the relevant groups and determine to what extent it is possible to fulfil the outstanding committee decision taking into account the needs and ability of the groups concerned

34. Officers will also take the opportunity to see whether there is any innovative project work that might benefit from a small development grant.

Future arrangements for community engagement funding

35. The current arrangement whereby the MPA has the responsibility for funding and determining the nature of community engagement at the borough level is an inheritance from the period before London had a police authority.

36. It is based on a highly static approach where the pre-eminence of the Community Police Consultative Groups as the preferred means of engagement and consultation is taken for granted without local partnerships having much say in the matter.

37. It also assumes that that the MPA’s primary interest and responsibility is at a local rather than strategic and pan-London level and that it is sufficiently resourced to be able to comfortably carry out a grant management role across 32 boroughs.

38. Both the experience of the last few years and emerging trends such as Safer Neighbourhoods, the Community Safety Board pilots and the developing role of the CDRPs seems to indicate that the time is ripe for a complete review of the MPA’s role and function in terms of community engagement funding at the borough, responsibility for which may well be best devolved to a borough level.

39. This is reinforced by the recently issued Government White Paper which proposes new duties for local engagement on the police and local partnerships and a new duty on police authorities to secure the implementation of a strategy to engage the community at all levels within the police area.

40. Consultation with key stakeholders will take place in the next few months with a report outlining the best way forward being brought to a future meeting of the Community Engagement Committee

C. Equality and diversity implications

All groups have adopted an equalities statement and many groups are making efforts to ensure that both their membership and activities are in line with best practice. The assessment scoring included a diversity and equality target for each group activity. The sheet listing details of the group Executive requested details of ethnicity, gender, age range and disability. Most groups supplied these details without difficulty but a small minority of groups did all that they could to avoid supplying the information demonstrating that there is still a lot of work to be done in this area

D. Financial implications

The financial implications are the subject of the report, but will be contained within existing budgets.

E. Background papers

• None

F. Contact details

Report author: Christopher Calnan

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

A & G: Administration and Governance
Budget: Budget planning
CE: Community engagement

Appendix 2: Community Engagement Unit Funding for 2005-06

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback