Reforms of borough community engagement: MPA funding 2007/08

Report: 5
Date: 1 March 2007
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report outlines the further progress being made in reforming community engagement at the borough level, secondly the MPA funded Community Engagement Groups’ response to the reform programme, and thirdly the MPA’s recommended funding allocation to the borough community engagement groups for 200708.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members note the progress being made in carrying out the community engagement reform programme;
2. agree the funding levels without major conditions for the following Groups as set out in Appendix 2: Bexley, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston, Lambeth, Lewisham, Richmond, Southwark, Sutton and Tower Hamlets;
3. agree the funding levels subject to further development support work being carried out with the following Groups: Barnet, Brent, Havering, Hounslow, Newham, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster;
4. agree the separate development fund for those boroughs currently without a Community Engagement Group-Greenwich and Hackney and those where new structures and arrangements are urgently needed - Barking and Dagenham, Merton and Redbridge- as set out in Appendix 2;
5. agree the funding for the development of a new Pan-London body to replace the London Chairs Forum as outlined in Paragraph 34 and in Appendix 2; and
6. note the amount of £80,000 for special Community Engagement Projects as set out in Paragraphs 32 and 33 which will be allocated in consultation with the portfolio holder for Community Engagement and Citizen Focus

B. Supporting information

The background to community engagement reform programme and its strategic priorities

1. The MPA has a commitment to robust and effective community engagement arrangements being in place in each London borough. For the last 2 years it has worked with the existing community engagement groups (CPCGs and others) and local statutory partners to transform the nature of consultation and engagement at the borough level.

2. The MPA’s policy commitment to these reforms originate with the former Community Engagement Committee and has since been confirmed and reiterated in a number of reports perhaps most importantly and most recently with the adoption of the MPA Community Engagement Strategy, and in particular the reference to supporting community police engagement at a borough level by sharing funding decisions with local statutory partners.

3. Since its inception MPA support for all the borough based community engagement groups has remained constant totalling approximately £1 million a year. The only increase for the past 3 years has been a 2.5% inflation allowance for the staffing cost element of the grant. In real terms this means that available resources have been declining at the very time the MPA is seeking to implement its strategic priority of bringing about major reforms in local community police engagement.

4. The allocation to each borough has been dramatically uneven varying from £7,500 to over £50,000 a year. This is as a result of an inherited historical accident and has no rational basis. While it has been the MPA’s intent for the last two years to level up those groups receiving less than the maximum grant little progress has been possible due to budgetary constraints.

5. A key theme of the new Police and Criminal Justice Act as well as the White Paper on Local Government is that strong local partnerships are crucial to the safety and well being of communities. Underpinning this new legislation is a drive for greater local community accountability and community power and influence. Engaging and empowering local people are seen as the centrepiece of police reform. In support of this direction and to strengthen the MPA’s participation in this process the MPA’s support for community engagement in partnership with the Borough Commander and local CDRPs must be consistent, equal and robust.

6. In compliance with the MPA’s newly adopted Community Engagement Strategy, borough community engagement groups have been undergoing a process of change – with varying degrees of success – to not only become involved in the CDRP process but also to respond to and integrate the Safer Neighbourhood Panels into their membership. The basic standards required of the Groups by the MPA is to become more relevant, more representative, to reach out to all their communities, and to relate to the MPA in a much more proactive fashion. This requires a level of resources that most Groups presently do not have.

7. In being able to fulfil the above expectations and to work effectively with the local statutory partners, and hold them to account on behalf of their communities, the Groups must be fit for purpose and have the capacity to attract and leverage in other and additional support from other local sources.

8. In recognition of these factors, the MPA, in its budget for 2007/08, approved a growth of £250,000 in support of borough level community engagement. This is the first year of a 2 year programme of phased development to equalise and level up support to each borough of approximately £50,000 each. A further growth of £450,000 therefore will be required in 2008/09.

9. The objectives of the reform programme require that:

• Consultation and engagement become an integral part of local CDRP activity
• The Groups hold all partners – not just the police – to account
• The Groups engage with the emerging Safer Neighbourhood Panels
• The Groups play a full part in the MPA’s strategic consultation at a pan-London level
• The MPA allocate resources more evenly across London
• The independence and integrity of the Groups to be protected with the MPA acting as the guarantor.

10. The means of translating these objectives into practice are described in detail in Appendix 1. It requires the Groups to conform- to the “4 Rs”. That is to be: Relevant, Representative, Reaching Out and Relating to the MPA. It should be noted that for community engagement in all boroughs to reach an acceptable standard is a dynamic not a static process which will take 2 years to bring to completion.

Relevant

11. This involves membership of and active involvement in the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership holding the whole partnership and not just the Borough Commander to account on behalf of the communities of the borough. It also involves the need to participate in shaping the solutions required for the safety of the borough.

Representative

12. This involves serious and sustained efforts to ensure that the membership reflects the communities of the borough and that the Safer Neighbourhood Panels are represented on the Group.

Reach out into their communities

13. No membership can hope to be completely representative and there are groups of people who do not find formal meetings appropriate or congenial. The Groups must do more than hold bi-monthly meetings. They must reach out to and involve the communities that don’t do meetings.

Relate to the MPA

14. The Groups need to be involved by the MPA in creating appropriate mechanisms for them to feed into central policy and the strategic level of community engagement.

Improved funding process

15. The application form and process for 2007/08 funding has been entirely restructured to allow the Groups to concentrate on how they have and intend to implement the reform programme. The forms were also submitted to the MPA Link Member, Borough Commander and Community Safety Manager for their views BEFORE coming to the MPA for assessment. The extent and quality of the response to this process has markedly deepened the involvement of the local Partnerships in the MPA’s community engagement reform programme.

Review meetings and audits

16. A rigorous, proactive process of consultation has been undertaken with groups and local partners over the last 12 months which has included an Effectiveness Audit has been undertaken of the following underdeveloped and/or under resourced Groups: Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Merton, Redbridge, Sutton and (partially) Westminster. Audits have been well received by local partners and one MPA Link Member has requested that an Audit be carried out on another Group.

17. Other less formal review meetings have also been held with a number of Groups and Partners including the officers of the Group, Borough Commander, the local authority Community Safety Manager and the MPA Link Member. Meetings have been held with community safety managers through their pan London network and the equivalent arrangements for Borough Commanders. Meetings have also been held with Home Office civil servants to explain and promoter the MPA’s community engagement policies.

The community engagement groups response for 2007/08

18. Applications were received from all community engagement groups with the exception of Greenwich, Hackney and Redbridge, which are the subject of specific comments in the report. The London PCCG Chairs Forum (LCF) has submitted an innovative and exciting bid which is also the subject of specific comments in the report.

19. Nineteen of the applications range from satisfactory to excellent in responding to the required reforms. This includes Groups that would, based on their previous history, have been less well regarded but have made a deliberate and successful effort to embrace reform. The remaining 11 applications are the subject of specific comment in the report.

20. The overall standard of grant application is much improved particularly in terms of achievements and partnership working in the current year and the plans for 2007/08. There is clear evidence of much more outreach into the various communities and working alliances with other bodies.

21. The Groups have responded very positively to requests from the MPA for input into London wide issues. For example all the Groups made particular efforts, and have made a significant contribution, to the MPA’s Counter-Terrorism initiative: The London Debate. Many of them are also very active in the MPA’s Stop and Search monitoring process.

22. There is growing evidence of the improvement of the diversity of the Groups with positive steps being taken to interact with young people. Most Groups are now members of their CDRPs with several recently invited to join and their involvement with the Safer Neighbourhood Panels, which was given further stimulus by the successful October 2006 Community Engagement Conference, also continues to expand and deepen.

Contrasts

23. One result of the positive response of the majority of Groups to the reform programme, however, is the growing gap between these Groups and those which are clearly not moving forward. These Groups fall into 3 categories:

• Where the submitted application may not do justice to the reality on the ground
• Where the Group is capable of doing better with some development support
• Where funding cannot be recommended and a new Group needs to be set up with the assistance of local partners

London Chairs Forum application

24. The London PCCG Chairs Forum (LCF) has historically been poorly resourced. Discussions have been held with some of the more active Chairs to explore the possibility of a radical change to the Forum allowing it to undertake a more progressive and supportive role.
25. This has resulted in a major proposal for the LCF to undertake a number of pan-London tasks. These would include providing a community engagement good practice advice via a web site, of good practice seminars and the annual community engagement conference in conjunction with the MPA and other partners and holding both pan-London and regional meetings so that Groups can begin to support and learn from each other.

26. The application also envisages the new LCF having the capacity to identify and support failing Groups. This bid is extremely ambitious and at a proposed budget of £100k is outside current budget availability. In addition the LCF currently does not have the demonstrated skills to assist those Groups which are completely dysfunctional. Nevertheless this bid represents an extremely positive step and should be encouraged by an initial more modest funding to allow the LCF to develop its role starting with the exchange and promotion of good practice and mutual support.

MPA recommendations for 2007/08

27. There are many competing demands on the budget and it is vital that its allocation is used to most effectively support the MPA’s policies and the community engagement reform programme. Its use cannot be justified by simply allocating more money to administration and general support. The intent instead is to shift the balance of funding from administrative process to engagement while generally moving towards levelling up the under funded Groups. This is a developmental process and cannot be achieved in a single year.

Funding levels and effectiveness

28. Whilst under performing and failing Groups are often, but not invariably, amongst the most poorly funded there is no clear linkage between excellence and the level of funding for administration. An analysis of the applications indicates that what makes the difference is the imagination, commitment and activity of the volunteers who run the Groups especially the Chair and Executive.

29. What is required is a levelling up which allows Groups to move from a relatively re-active and passive role and having to deploy all their resources on administration to proactive community engagement work. There is also a clear need to help the members support and learn from each other and to use the financial resources to reinforce community engagement activity.

Effective use of 2007/08 budget

30. In moving towards the levelling up of support to all Groups it is recommended that funding be maintained for all Groups with some exceptions and to increase wherever feasible and appropriate up to a maximum of £50,000. The full list of funding recommendations is set out in Appendix 2.

Community engagement projects

31. A number of Groups have strongly urged that in order for the Groups to play a more proactive community engagement role part of the MPA budget be used to support specific community engagement projects. Such grants would be typically around £5k per project. This approach has particular merit in that it would encourage a collaborative approach between boroughs and stimulate best practice. These grants would also be much more likely to attract funding from other sources.

32. Examples of projects proposed were developing engagement with diverse groups especially young people and work with new immigrant and refugee communities. It is therefore proposed to set aside a sum of £80k for new community engagement projects and Groups applying would be encouraged to work together with other Groups sharing the same issues. Allocations of such project grants would be made in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Citizen Focus.

London chairs forum

33. It is recommended that the new LCF be funded to undertake the role and tasks of supporting good practice, interlinking the Groups on a regional and London wide basis and preparing submissions to the MPA on emerging London wide issues. Detailed discussions need to be continued with the LCF as it develops its capacity to assume these enlarged objectives, and at this stage it is recommended that funds be allocated a development worker and increased hours of the LCF Administrator to support more effective inter-group meetings. A sum of £50k is to be set aside for that purpose.

Groups to be funded with minor conditions or none

34. It is recommended that the following nineteen groups be funded with minor conditions or none, up to a maximum of £50,000 as detailed in Appendix I: - Bexley, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston, Lambeth, Lewisham, Richmond, Southwark, Sutton and Tower Hamlets [19]. The growth as reflected in these recommendations would, in appropriate cases, also be supplemented by funding up to a maximum of £5,000 for specific community engagement projects. These would be determined by the ability of the project to attract at least some matching funding from other local partners, that have scope for partnering with Groups in other boroughs, and that have the potential for dissemination and the sharing of best practice.

Groups needing some development support

35. The following are Groups whose application do not fully meet funding conditions but could improve with some development support:

Barnet, Brent, Havering, Hounslow, Newham, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster (8)

As part of that support it is proposed that a Review Meeting and Effectiveness Audit be undertaken in each of the boroughs to assist in identifying and addressing the specific conditions that need to be addressed, and to follow up with identified developmental support. Each Group will receive a letter setting out the grant requirements and will be invited to the review meeting to discuss how those requirements would best be implemented.

Groups where new structures and arrangements are urgently needed

In each of the following boroughs new arrangements will need to be put in place which comply with MPA policy requirements

Barking and Dagenham, Merton and Redbridge

It should be noted that those boroughs needing most support are located on the east side of London. These are boroughs that are undergoing dramatic changes socially, economically and demographically. They are the most challenging and demand innovative and imaginative approaches to community engagement.

36. In each of these boroughs it is proposed to firstly establish a Review Group immediately involving key stakeholders who would lead a process of reform and change. Secondly, to support the Review Group in undertaking a broader process of community engagement and debate regarding the way forward; thirdly to facilitate a regional debate involving those boroughs experiencing similar challenges; and only then, fourthly to consider appropriate arrangements and structures.

37. The fifth stage in this process will entail the development of detailed workplans and budgets, and sixth is the submission of funding proposals to the MPA and other potential sources. In recognising this developmental process takes time, it is also proposed to establish a temporary, interim structure to ensure that the MPS and other statutory partners can continue to communicate and be accountable to community members. This will be established in collaboration with the local statutory partners and the community and voluntary sector.

C. Race and equality impact

All Groups have adopted an equalities statement and make efforts to ensure that both their membership and activities are in line with good practice. Many of them enhance this by reaching out to communities who do not normally attend formal meetings. All applications must include details of the Executive’s ethnicity, gender, age range and disability.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications are the subject of this report and are contained within existing budgets.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Christopher Calnan, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Standards of borough-based community police engagement

Purpose

The MPA will support the funding of community engagement at the borough level where it is satisfied that it provides an effective means by which residents can understand and influence local crime and safety policies, practices, plans and priorities at the borough level, as well as contribute at a pan London level.

In deciding on funding the MPA will take into account the level of competence demonstrated under the criteria of finance and administration, community representativeness and accountability, engagement activities and overall management.

Local community engagement processes must be:

Relevant and strengthen partnership working

• Community engagement must be an integral part of local partnership activity and funding will not be approved without the direct involvement and prior endorsement of the MPA Link Member, the Borough Commander and the Local Authority.
• Groups must have the capacity and be positioned to influence local plans and priorities and hold all partners –not just the police – answerable to the residents of the borough.
• Community engagement groups must have a place at the local partnership table.
• The different tiers of engagement in the borough must have proper linkage and be complementary. They must interlock and intermesh with the engagement activities of other local partners (for example with Safer Neighbourhood Community Panels).

Independent

• The integrity and independence of the community engagement groups is recognised.

Transparent

• For example, the selection of members and the outcomes of engagement must be a matter of public record.
• Structured, deliberative processes should be in place such as regular meetings which should generally be held in public at accessible venues and times.

Accountable

• Community engagement processes must allow for public accountability in the sense that statutory partners provide clear answers to reasonable questions about policy and practice.

Representative and inclusive

• Community engagement processes must be compliant with existing and impending equity legislation and conform, for example, to the requirements of the Race Equality Standards of the Statutory partners.
• Community engagement processes must be inclusive of all sectors of the boroughs’ population geographically (for example, by involving representation from Safer Neighbourhood Panels), and by communities of interest (for example, by being responsive to the diverse demographic makeup of the local population).

Reach out

• Community engagement processes must recognise that different communities, whether it be on the basis of disability, race and ethnicity, faith, sexual orientation, age, gender, or lifestyles will ‘not participate in the regular fora of groups and have distinct and separate needs that can only be addressed through outreach activities.

Funding

• MPA will provide core funding not exceeding £50, 000. Police and other partners will be encouraged to provide additional funding, and Groups are encouraged to raise funds and other forms of support from other sources.

Results oriented

• Members of the community who give their time must be satisfied that their contribution has been worthwhile. In bridging the ‘us and them’ feeling between the public and decision-makers, community engagement must be able to improve knowledge, trust, legitimacy and ownership.
• Policy and service decisions must demonstrate that they have considered and been influenced by the needs of users and local residents as articulated through these community engagement processes.
• Community engagement processes must provide the means to encourage people to develop the skill and interest in becoming more active in their communities.

Appendix 2

Community Engagement Groups funding recommendations 2007/08

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback