Funding for Community and Police Consultative Groups and Independent Custody Visiting Panels 2002/03

Report: 3
Date: 09 April 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

The Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee was unable to consider the budget allocation to CPCGs and ICVPs at its meeting of 14 March 2002 because of a number of difficulties, including invalid applications, late submissions and further investigation being required of individual Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) and Independent Custody Visiting Panels (ICVPs). 

The majority of the outstanding matters have now been resolved and this Committee is asked to approve the budget allocation to CPCGs and ICVPs for the financial year 2002/03

A. Recommendation

1. Members agree and sign off the recommended budget allocation to each CPCG and ICVP for 2002/03.
2. Members note the processes in place for managing and monitoring the financial management of Groups and Panels.
3. Members note the proposals for detailed reviews to be carried out, in the current financial year, to inform the budget allocation process for 2003/04.
4. Members note the processes in place for managing the unallocated budgets to support MPA developments for Independent Custody Visiting and consultation.

B. Supporting information

1. In December 2001, Community and Police Consultative Groups and Independent Custody Visiting Panels were invited to submit applications for funding by February 2002. The large majority achieved this deadline. At the time of drafting this report, there remains a small number of Consultative Groups and Panels who have either not submitted an application or submitted an invalid (e.g. inappropriately authorised and signed) application.

2. In each case, officers have taken steps to speak directly with the Groups/Panels concerned and offered assistance where this was felt required.

Allocation process

3. The MPA lead members Nicholas Long (ICV panels) and Cecile Lothian (CPCGs), met with officers to agree the allocation of funding to each Group and Panel. This recommended allocation is attached at Appendix 1 (see Supporting material).

4. The lead members noted the inherent difficulties in the allocation process, given an inadequate basis for comparison between the consultative groups caused by a wide variation in practices and performance. The same was true for ICV Panels. This will need to be addressed in the current financial year through specific reviews such as the administrative staffing arrangements; pay levels of Groups and Panels and work programmes, etc.

Allocation criteria

5. A basic set of assessment criteria were used to assess the funding applications of Consultative Groups. These are attached at Appendix 2.

6. A different, less formal, set of criteria were used to assess the bids by ICV Panels. The principle applied was to ensure that a ceiling of £10,000 per Panel was achieved, on the basis that a similar number of visits were conducted by all, there were similar number of charging stations, etc. Where Panels were already operating at a cost above the proposed ceiling, it was agreed that, on the basis of their overall annualised detainee numbers, a smaller increase would be made to these Panels.

7. Where the operation of a Panel is likely to be significantly affected by the proposed allocated budget, the lead member for Panels will consider officers proposals for variations to the budget. This follows the process that was used in 2001/02.

8. The lead members have recommended that officers undertake a review of the operations of ICV Panels in the current financial year in order to inform the budget allocation process for 2003/04.

Overall budget allocation

9. The total budgeted amount for CPCGs and ICVPs for 2002/03 is £1.24m. This represents a slight increase of £25,000 on last year budget to offset the increase in staffing costs for administrators of the Groups and Panels. £952,000 is allocated for Consultation/CPCGs and £288,000 for ICV Panels.

Work programme for Consultative Groups

10. Members will note that for the first time Consultative Groups were required to submit a work programme outlining their consultation activities for the financial year. 26 Groups submitted a work programme (of varying detail and quality) with their bid application, 7 did not. The decision was taken that 10% of the allocation funding for those Groups which did not submit a work programme will be withheld by the MPA until this is received. A number of Groups will require support and advice on the work programme submitted to the Authority and officers have already met with or contacted the Chairs/Administrators of some where the financial bid was far greater than the proposed allocated budget.

Development budgets

11. The unallocated budget for ICVs will be used to meet a range of development costs including printing of new identification cards for Visitors; development of a new Custody Visiting report form and development of generic handbook, among others. These developments will be overseen by the three MPA Members with responsibility for this area of the authority's work.

12. Lead members have proposed that unallocated consultation budget should be used to support developments by Consultative Groups as well as meeting the wider MPA consultation and community engagement activities. The MPA and MPS plan to hold early meetings to agree the funding of the draft consultation strategy which was approved by the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee (14 March 2002) and the Best Value Implementation Plan, presented to the MPA/MPS Best Value Programme Board on 7 March 2002. Further budget reports may need to be developed following these meetings.

Financial management

13. The MPA has now contracted an agency Finance Officer to take responsibility for the financial management and processing of all Consultative groups and ICV Panels. The part time post will shortly be advertised. This role would greatly reduce the difficulties that have been experienced by some Groups and Panels. It would also assist in the development more efficient financial processes for Group

C. Financial implications

For the first time there is an identified unallocated balance to fund the developments of Independent Custody Visiting (£52,680) and Consultation (£72,120). Both these costs are likely to be reduced should Groups and Panels successfully appeal against the allocated budget. This could have implications for the development activities that are required for ICV and the wider MPA consultation responsibility.

D. Background papers

Best Value Review of Consultation CDO Committee 14 March 2002.

E. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith, CDO, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 2: General principles for accessing of CPCG bids

1. Accept that it is impossible to make common judgements/assessments on the bids overall, the circumstances of each bid will need to be considered.

2. Future allocation processes will need to be moved to a point when comparisons among Groups can be made with confidence.

3. All Groups were required to submit a copy of their work plan on order to assist in the assessment. Where no work plan has been submitted, this has been reflected in the allocation (i.e. there will be a 10% reduction in the funding allocation until the MPA receives and approved the work plan).

4. The inflation component in the budget of Groups has been capped at 3% inline with the general MPA/MPS budget.

5. No new growth has been allocated to any Group, any new activities (such as the Chair's Forum) need to be considered within the overall budget for Groups for 2002/03.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback