Community engagement funding 2006/07

Report: 7
Date: 3 March 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report outlines the considerable progress being made to transform community police engagement arrangements at the borough level, and sets out the proposed community engagement funding allocations to the borough wide community engagement groups for 2006/07.

A. Recommendations

That members

1. note the considerable progress being made in reforming the arrangements for borough wide community engagement groups;
2. agree to fund the following groups without major conditions: Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Harrow, Haringey, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston, Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham, Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster and the London PCCG Forum;
3. approve funding for the following groups subject to further development work and a review of their budgets and resources: Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Havering, Merton, Newham, Redbridge and Sutton;
4. note the specific conditions for funding Lambeth CPCG and Tower Hamlets Borough Policing Forum as set out in paragraphs 32-34 of the report;
5. agree not to fund the following groups at this time and to receive a further report on local progress at an appropriate juncture: Bexley and Hackney;
6. note the particular arrangements for the following boroughs: Brent, Greenwich, Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham;
7. note officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London as set out in Appendix 1; and
8. receive a further progress report at its meeting in October 2006.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA, which was established in July 2000, inherited from the Commissioner the responsibility for funding and supporting the borough community engagement groups then known as CPCGs.

2. From April 2001 onwards an annual report recommending funding arrangements was submitted to the appropriate MPA committee for approval.

3. It should be noted that prior to 2004/05 the Groups had received little or no support and guidance in terms of developing their role.

4. Nevertheless there were growing concerns that many Groups were not coming to terms with the changing and increasingly crowded community safety and community engagement landscape e.g. the role of the CDRPs and the emerging Safer Neighbourhood initiative.

Review of Community Engagement Groups

5. The Chair of the Authority met with representatives of the Groups on 19 January 2005 and wrote to them on 23 February 2005 outlining his views of how the relationship between the Groups and the MPA might develop in the period ahead.

6. Following this exchange the Community Engagement Committee determined that a complete review of the community police engagement arrangements at borough level would be carried out and the results presented to its meeting in June 2005.

7. In carrying out the review considerable consultation was had with the community engagement groups, Borough Commanders, members and officers of the MPA and representatives of the borough community safety managers.

8. All were agreed that there was a need for reform and that indeed reforms were already taking place in certain boroughs in the light of the changing circumstances.

9. The main issues that emerged and were put before the Community Engagement Committee in June 2005 were the need for:

• Consultation and engagement to become an integral part of local CDRP activity.
• The Groups to drive local plans and to hold all partners - not just the police – to account
• The Groups to engage with the emergence of safer neighbourhood policing and the associated ward based community panels
• The Groups to play a full part in the MPA’s strategic consultation at a pan-London level
• Other models of engagement to be tested and innovative arrangements to reach out to and involve hard to reach communities to be sought
• The MPA to allocate resources more evenly across London.
• The independence and integrity of the Groups to be protected with the MPA acting as the guarantor

10. In the light of these conclusions and directions, the Community Engagement Committee also directed that, rather than a complete devolution of funding responsibility for the Groups to the CDRPs, there should be in place a more proactive and formal sharing of responsibility decision making between the MPA, its local CDRP partners and the community engagement groups. The committee also directed that a new funding process be designed and ready for the 2006/07 round.

Reformed funding process

11. In undertaking this work officers carried out a further round of consultation to establish the best way of proceeding with particular attention being paid to obtaining the views of the borough Community Safety Managers and the following 3 part process emerged:

• A Community Engagement Conference.
• A screening form process to allow local consensus to emerge.
• A full funding application form to be submitted to the MPA.

Community Engagement Conference

12. The conference which was held on 22 November 2005 was designed to showcase the increasing variety of approaches and pilots that the community engagement groups are using to reposition themselves in the light of the changing environment within which they operate. It also examined the ways the Groups are trying to engage with young people.

13. The main purpose of the conference was to give the Groups and the local statutory partners the opportunity to consider a number of different structural arrangements before meeting to achieve a local consensus on the best way forward for each borough.

14. The conference was well attended by Borough Commanders, Community Safety Managers and the Groups themselves. It was very well received and a consensus emerged that it would be worthwhile holding such an event on an annual basis.

Local consensus

15. The next stage in the process required that in each borough MPA Link Member, Borough Commander, Community Safety Manager and the Group Chair to meet locally and attempt to reach a consensus on the structure of the Group, its relationship with local partners and its main work plan for 2006/07. The Community Engagement Unit supplied a short screening form to be returned recording the local decision but otherwise took no part in this stage of the process.

Full funding application

16. Where a local consensus was reached a detailed application form was issued for the Group to complete and return by the end of January 2006. This form was then assessed independently by a minimum of 2 officers of the Community Engagement Unit. The result of these assessments form the basis of the recommendations contained in this report.

General summary

17. Twenty-eight boroughs were eligible to take part in this new process (the different arrangements for the 4 remaining boroughs are set out below.) In 26 out of the 28 boroughs a consensus was reached between all the local partners regarding local arrangements and directions. This was achieved without any direct MPA influence (other than by the Link Member), which is extremely encouraging. Work has already started in the 2 non consensus boroughs to examine the best way forward and this is set in paragraphs 36-38 below.

18. The analysis of the detailed application forms show that the number of Groups that either have already or plan to change their structure and approach is considerably greater than anticipated and that there is a general enthusiasm to embrace change and reform which needs to be supported and further developed by the MPA. For example a majority of Groups are now active and integral members of their CDRP and many of the Groups have restructured themselves to ensure representation and involvement with the emerging Safer Neighbourhood Panels. There is also significant evidence that many Groups are enlarging their membership and increasing the ways that they contact hard to reach groups.

Further reforms

19. A more detailed briefing paper will be drawn up and sent to MPA members and the other relevant parties setting out the various existing pilot models and reforms in Group structures, relationships with the CDRPs and Safer Neighbourhoods and how they consult hard to reach groups. This paper will be available by May 2006.

20. The arrangements for 2005/06 are clearly only the first stage of the reform process. Further consultation will need to take place with local statutory and community partners on whether the right balance has been struck between the role of the MPA and local partners, including the level of devolvement and the guarantee of independence for the community engagement groups.

21. There are a number of fora where such consultation will be undertaken by MPA Officers including the various meetings of the Borough Commanders, the pan-London meetings of the borough Community Safety Managers, the London CPCG Chairs Forum and the interagency Community Engagement Board which will contain representatives from the MPA, MPS, GLA, ALG, GOL, Community Safety Managers and community engagement groups. The opinions of the MPA Link members will be canvassed and fed into the process of reform.

22. As part of the second stage of the reform programme a review of the current funding process will also be undertaken with those who were involved in it – MPA Link members, borough commanders, community safety managers and community engagement groups. This will seek to further improve and enhance the involvement of local partners in the decision making process for 2007/08 and also involve them in a half year review of the 2006/07 commitments.

23. A critical analysis of all pilot models will be carried out with particular emphasis on the relationship between the Groups, CDRPs and Safer Neighbourhoods. This will result in a template of good practice models which the MPA, MPS and local partners can draw on and adopt in each of the boroughs. This will form the basis of a further report to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee at its October meeting. They will also be presented to the second annual Community Engagement conference which will be held in November 2006.

24. All of the above work must keep in mind and support both the findings of the Crime and Disorder Act Review and the recently published Policing and Justice Bill as they affect community engagement issues.

Financial opportunities

25. The MPA budget available for the funding of the community engagement groups in 2006/07 is £1, 046.000, which represents a 2.5% increase on the previous year, but is in real terms a standstill budget for the third year in a row. This budget has to cover the following the following:

• The provision of funding for each community engagement group
• The costs for the 2 Community Safety Board pilots.
• The narrowing of the gap between the Groups with the lowest and those with the greatest level of funding.
• The establishment of good practice and standards to drive the reform programme.
• Pan-London community engagement activity.
• The monitoring and evaluation of local restructuring arrangements.
• Continuing capacity to support innovative programme activities.
• Training and development and other capacity building exercises especially for the Groups who need the most support.

26. It should be noted that there is only one full time member of staff responsible for the majority of these issues and for supporting 29 out of the 32 boroughs. The current allocation of the budget will need to be restructured to make any serious progress with the reform programme.

27. The huge discrepancy in funding between the Groups has been of concern to Members of the Authority for some years. It has no rational basis, nor can it be demonstrated that a Group at the top end of the scale is proportionately in greater need or better than one at the middle or bottom. The discrepancy is purely an historical accident dating back to who asked for what funding in the 1980s.

28. It is proposed that the way to address these problems is to set a maximum funding level of £40,000 per Group. This would allow both the redistribution of some monies to the poorest Groups and at the same time to maintain the momentum in implementing the reform programme.

29. In placing this maximum funding per Group, it is acknowledged that for a few Groups it would reflect a significant reduction in funding from the MPA. It is proposed, therefore, to phase this in over a 2 year period with an immediate ceiling of £50, 000 for 2006/07.

30. This will free sufficient funds to move towards the equalisation of funding levels between the Groups over the next 2 years but leave relatively little for other aspects of the reform programme. This shortfall will be made up from overall savings and from other parts of the Community Engagement Unit budget.

31. The MPA also recognises that some of these Groups are undertaking innovative work. The MPA will wish to support this work but as part of a separate development funding stream.

32. All Groups below the maximum figure have had the salary element of their budget increased by 2.5%. It has been possible to make some overall increases to Groups actively pursuing the reform programme e.g. Croydon and Havering. In some cases e.g. Merton and Sutton there is a need to make a significant increase to their allocation.

33. This will need to be discussed with the Groups themselves as such increases will have an effect on their work plan. These discussions will take place in the near future and will involve the Link Member as well as local statutory partners. The increases will then be taken from the unallocated budget figure at the bottom of Appendix 1.

34. The following funding decisions are recommended:

Groups to be funded without major conditions

35. It is recommended that the following Groups be funded without major conditions at the amounts set out in Appendix 1: Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing Enfield, Harrow, Haringey, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston, Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster and the London PCCG Forum.

Groups to be funded subject to development work and budget review

36. It is recommended that the following groups are to be funded at the amounts set out in Appendix 1 subject to further development work and a review of the adequacy of their current budgets and resources: Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Havering, Merton, Newham Redbridge and Sutton.

Lambeth CPCG

37. Lambeth CPCG is still in the process of drawing up and presenting a costed programme of engagement activities to the Lambeth CDRP. It is not possible to make a final assessment of their application until that process is complete and therefore it is recommended that an initial 3 months funding is agreed at the amount set out in Appendix 1 to allow this process to take place.

38. Once the outcome has been presented to the Community Engagement Unit, officers will confer with the Link Member and the statutory partners before releasing the remainder of the funding.

Tower Hamlets Borough Policing Group

39. This body, which replaced the old CPCG, has made great progress since its inception at the beginning of the year. It has one significant weakness, however, which is its failure to engage with and gain membership of its CDRP. After discussions with the Group Administrator it is considered necessary to impose a deadline for this achievement by agreeing only 6 months funding and making the second half of the funding subject to a formal review of achievements.

Groups not to be funded at this time

40. Two boroughs failed to reach a consensus and are not therefore eligible for funding until such a consensus has been brokered. These are Bexley and Hackney.

Bexley

41 In the case of Bexley both the Link Member and the Community Engagement officer have held a number of meetings with the statutory and community partners and significant progress has been made. It is considered probable that a consensus will have been reached by 1st April 2006 which will allow the funding allocation set out in Appendix 1 to be released.

Hackney

42. Initial discussions with the local partners have made it very clear that there will be no consensus within the existing structure and that it will be necessary to explore and develop a new approach, possibly based on one of the existing pilot models being developed in other boroughs. The CPCG has been informed of the outcome as has the Link Member.

43. Sufficient money has been set aside in the budget to fund both the necessary development work and to support the new structure that emerges. It is hoped to start the development work before the end of the current financial year and to complete by the end of the first half of 2006/07.

Brent

44. In the financial year 2005/6 the CPCG in Brent was unsuccessful in bidding for continued MPA funding. The CPCG failed to meet the criteria laid out to justify further funding and was subsequently terminated.

45. A number of organisations have been contacted regarding the development of a replacement Community consultative mechanism and meetings held with most of them. This sign-up phase of the process has been completed and an initial meeting of the replacement body will be held on 23 March 2006. This initial meeting will be to seek agreement on things like the terms of reference of the group and other procedural issues.

46. The Brent Community Safety Board (CSB) aims to strengthen the ability of communities to contribute to the development of policies, plans, operations and services, and to enhance the public accountability of the local police commander and the local partnership. The CSB will provide a forum for information flow in all directions between police, local authority, partnerships and the local community.

Greenwich

47. The MPA withdrew recognition and funding from the Greenwich CPCG over 3 years ago. Various local arrangements having proved unsatisfactory the MPA commissioned Professor Mike Hough of Kings College London to review existing arrangements and after consulting local community and statutory partners he is in the process of finalising his recommendations.

48. These will be presented to the interested parties including the Link Member. It is hoped to implement the recommendations early in 2006/07 and a budget allocation has been made to support the new process.

The Community Safety Boards

49. In Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham the CPCGs were replaced by 2 Community Safety Boards which are being piloted and funded for a 2 year period. They will be subject to the same evaluation as the other pilots and, on the assumption that they become part of the good practice template, will be expected to apply for separate funding in 2007/08.

C. Race and equality impact

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 listed details of the group Executive including details of ethnicity, gender, age range and disability. Groups are being encouraged to apply a similar analysis to their corporate and individual membership and this will be reviewed during 2006/07.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications are the subject of the report, but are 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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback