Community safety boards

Report: 9
Date: 3 February 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

This report introduces the concept of a Community Safety Board (CSB). It also sets out the progress made in establishing two pilot CSBs in the London Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham and Islington.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Committee notes the progress being made in establishing two pilot Community Safety Boards in the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington; and
2. agrees to receive further progress reports on this subject at subsequent meetings.

B. Supporting information

Hammersmith and Fulham

1. The MPA no longer funds a Community Police Consultative Group (CPCG) in Hammersmith and Fulham. Reasons for this, cited not only by MPA staff but also by CPCG staff and officers, the Borough Commander and Local Authority Members, include: a lack of representation on the CPCG of many sections of the local community coupled with a sense that the CPCG did not have roots in the community at large; no apparent willingness on the part of the CPCG membership to change this status quo; insurmountable organisational difficulties, staffing crises and resignations; alienation of the Local Authority; the Borough Commander’s confidence in the group had been lost; irrelevance and inertia had set in.

2. The possibility of establishing a CSB was widely canvassed throughout the borough’s statutory and voluntary sectors and received significant support. A meeting was held at the end of September 2004 that was well attended by community and voluntary sector groups, as well as the Local Authority. The meeting agreed by a large majority to set up a CSB. One more meeting was deemed necessary to review the proposed CSB’s membership and structure and establish its main priorities. The date for this next and last private Hammersmith and Fulham CSB meeting has now been set as 1 February 2005. It is hoped that all procedural matters can be resolved at this meeting. A proposal will be tabled at the next Hammersmith & Fulham CDRP meeting on 8 February 2005 that the structural linkages between the CSB and the CDRP proposed in this report be accepted by the CDRP.

Islington

3. The MPA does not fund a CPCG in Islington either. Islington’s CPCG had likewise proved unfit for purpose. The numbers of members and attendees were low; the group lacked credibility and profile within the community and amongst local partners, to the extent that no community groups were present at its 2003 AGM. There was little evidence of effective activity beyond the meetings themselves; diversity amongst the membership was severely limited; the same parochial issues were being raised repeatedly; the group had little Local Authority backing and the Borough Commander had voiced general dissatisfaction with its effectiveness.

4. In Islington, two meetings have been held to discuss the establishment of a CSB with a small working group. The core membership of the CSB has been provisionally agreed with a wider membership proposed for co-option. The date for the next and last private Islington CSB meeting has now been set as 31 January 2005. It is hoped that all procedural matters can be agreed at this meeting. A proposal will be tabled at the next Islington CDRP meeting on 15 February 2005 that the structural linkages between the CSB and the CDRP proposed in this report be accepted by the CDRP.

Pilot project

5. The Home Office booklet ‘Making Consultation Work’ suggests that ‘experimentation with different approaches will and should continue’. It is clear that a limited pilot project establishing, tracking and monitoring CSBs in two London Boroughs is compatible with the developmental framework and research agenda of the MPA’s community engagement function.

6. At this stage the CSB model is experimental and confined to two pilot sites: the London Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham and Islington. It is nonetheless hoped that CSBs will be seen to have the potential for replication.

7. This report, however, makes no indication as to whether CSBs will be introduced elsewhere and should not be taken as any indication of an intention on the part of the MPA to disband or de-fund CPCGs elsewhere in London. The CSB is just one mechanism by which the MPA might discharge its statutory responsibility to seek and hear Londoners’ views on policing and community safety at a local level. It is not the only viable mode of community engagement available to the MPA.

8. Since the recent arrival in the MPA Community Engagement Unit of a new Community Engagement Officer and Community Engagement Facilitator, meetings regarding the CSBs have been held between these staff and key statutory agencies in both Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington. Individuals consulted have included: relevant MPA link members, MPS borough commanders, lead councillors for community safety, heads of law and public services and MPS safer neighbourhoods officers. A round of meetings with key community and voluntary sector agencies in the boroughs has also commenced. Now that the Community Engagement Unit is moving towards a full staff complement, it has been possible to allocate a specific member of staff to each CSB. This should accelerate the developmental process and allow both CSBs to be fully functioning before the end of this financial year.

Concept of a Community Safety Board

9. The CSB is a new structure for consulting with local communities regarding policing and community safety at a borough level. It has been devised in conjunction with the community by the MPA. Where introduced, it will replace, rather than accompany, the borough’s CPCG.

10. The CSB will play a borough-wide, strategic and proactive role. This differentiates it from consultative work with a localised, reactive, tactical or operational focus occurring at the borough level through Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs), at the sector level through Sector Working Groups (SWGs) and at the ward level through Safer Neighbourhoods (SN). The CSB should not get involved in individual grievances and casework, for which there are more appropriate fora.

11. The CSB will not duplicate the work of existing local consultative arrangements and will build upon existing community structures. It will, however, establish formal linkages with such bodies. The relationships between the CSB and existing consultative and strategic structures must therefore be clearly defined.

Community Safety Boards in the Crime and Disorder Reduction framework

12. The CSB will relate to, differ from, and link to existing community-police consultative arrangements in the borough as follows:

13. IAGs, whilst borough-wide, tend to be confidential and anonymous, meet in camera, focus on specific special interests and/or serve (valuably) as reactive Critical Incident Panels (CIPs). CSB members are not afforded anonymity, CSB meetings are held in public, adopt a broad, strategic perspective and are proactive in addressing community safety issues. One member of the borough IAG will sit as a member on the CSB. This is to ensure that each group understands the activities and remit of the other, and so that appropriate information-sharing can take place.

14. Sector Working Groups (SWGs) and Problem Solving Groups (PSGs), where they exist (there is only one in Hammersmith & Fulham and Islington combined), operate at a police sector level, usually dividing the borough into two or three sectors. They are tactical groups, which have resources at their disposal to address local crime concerns. CSBs do not have police resources immediately at their disposal, are not tactical in their focus, and do not have a remit as narrow as that of the SWGs. It is envisaged that where SWGs or PSGs (but not their local authority equivalents) exist, they will be invited to send a member to sit on the CSB.

15. Safer Neighbourhoods (SN) Community Panels (CPs) and Key Individual Networks (KINs) involve the local community in police priority setting and operational decision making at a ward level. Their outlook is rightly parochial. CSBs have a much wider focus than SN CPs and KINs, and much broader boundaries. Initially, a representative from each SN ward’s CP or KIN will sit as a member on the CSB.

16. The CDRP is the primary strategic body in a London borough as far as community safety is concerned. The link between the CSB and the CDRP is crucial. The CSB must be able to hold the CDRP to account. Therefore, not only must there be a standing agenda item at all CDRP Executive meetings entitled ‘Input from the CSB’, but the Chair of the CSB must sit by right on the CDRP Executive and this understanding (i.e. their role) must be built into the terms of reference of both the CSB and the CDRP.

17. For the MPA, supporting community consultation at a local level cannot be divorced from, or seen as a substitute for, effective community involvement in pan-London police governance. The MPA Link Member therefore has an important function to perform in feeding information tabled at the CSB meetings they attend into pan-London decision-making where appropriate.

18. Diagram 1 illustrates the number and nature of the relationships between the CSB and the constellation of consultative and strategic structures that already exist in London.

Membership of a Community Safety Board

19. Initially, for reasons of expedience, the MPA will select members for the pilot CSBs in Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington. In doing so the MPA will not duplicate wholesale IAG memberships or rely overly upon each borough’s ‘usual suspects’. The MPA will seek out ‘new blood’ where possible, and will be creative, energetic and supportive in its recruitment drive. In the future, recruitment of members to CSBs will become more open and less MPA-led. Options including nomination & election and advertisement and interview will be explored.

20. The advent of a CSB entails a deliberate shift from the open access of a CPCG to an exclusive board membership. It is therefore vital that a clear justification is available for the inclusion of each member on the CSB. Justifications might include, for example: members drawn from sizeable minority populations according to demographic data; members drawn from groups disproportionately victimised; members representing a neighbourhood with particularly high crime levels; members drawn from traditionally underrepresented or hard-to-reach communities.

21. The CSB employs the concept of organisational membership to spread its reach and influence far beyond the limited membership itself. CSB members must therefore be able to demonstrate that they: consult and canvass members of their community in between CSB meetings to ascertain their concerns, issues and views; advocate these concerns, issues and views at CSB meetings; and feed back to members of their community after each CSB meeting what was said at the meeting and what decisions were taken, information imparted or recommendations made. Mechanisms such as a standing CSB agenda item ‘Members’ Oral Updates‘ will be used to ensure members are meeting this expectation. It is vital that CSB members themselves perform informal consultation of the silent majority.

Community Safety Boards in practice

22. Each CSB will have a built-in 6-monthly review process of its membership, chair, structure and practices. Evaluation by the MPA will form a part of this review process.

23. The CSB will initially be serviced administratively by officers of the MPA Community Engagement Unit. It is envisaged that the CSB will become self-administering (i.e. able to afford to employ an administrator of its own accord) in due course.

24. The CSB must be ‘community-friendly’ in its domestic arrangements to maximise the likelihood of members’ sustained involvement and to encourage attendance by the public. Resources will therefore be made available to cover the cost of members’ transport, childcare, interpretation and reasonable expenses incurred. Consideration will be given to the most convenient time for meetings and care will be taken to ensure appropriate language is used and the level of formality will be kept in check. Appropriate venues and facilities will be considered, taking account such issues as accessibility of venues; good transport links; and the provision of refreshments being provided, if needed. At CSB meetings; any members wishing to bring companions with them for moral or other support may do so; appropriate training will be made available to CSBs’ community members and chairs to assist them in fulfilling their CSB responsibilities.

C. Equality and diversity implications

It is the express intent of the MPA that in establishing these pilot CSBs all aspects of diversity are given due consideration. In particular, we intend to ensure that the membership of the CSBs includes representatives of groups within the local community who are considered hard-to-reach, sizeable minorities in the area, or groups who are disproportionately victimised in the borough. Census 2001 statistics and crime and disorder Audit 2001 data will be two of a number of sources of information upon which these decisions are made.

D. Financial implications

The MPA will initially make funding available from its Community Engagement Unit budget to cover all expenditure on the CSBs’ behalf. However, it is the MPA’s intention to help local CSB members and partners identify and submit bids to, local, regional and national funding streams across the private, public, voluntary and community sectors. In doing so, it is anticipated that the CSBs, in due course, become self-financing, self-servicing, self-sustaining unincorporated associations benefiting from financial and operational independence from the MPA.

E. Background papers

• None

F. Contact details

Report authors: Christopher Calnan (Community Engagement Unit) and Andy Hull (Community Engagement Unit)

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback