Equality and diversity as a function of Safer Neighbourhoods – concurrent report

Report: 08
Date: 24 May 2007
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This purpose of this report is to outline some of the key challenges and concerns from a range of equality and diversity perspectives as they relate to Safer Neighbourhoods.

A. Recommendations

That members agree:

1. To receive a progress report on the seven-stage model, hate crimes and the composition of Safer Neighbourhood Panels within the next 12 months.
2. To refer any comments in relation to discipline issues as it affects Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) to Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSCC).
3. For the MPS to conduct a comprehensive review of the impact and effect of Safer Neighbourhood Panels within the next 18 months.

B. Supporting information

1. Safer Neighbourhoods has been described as a ‘revolution in policing’. Supported by both the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) and rolled out a full year ahead of schedule, the MPS has now delivered 630 Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) across all 624 Wards in London. In addition, further resources for SNTs have been secured through Local Authority/Partnership funding.

2. The template of Safer Neighbourhoods (SNs) has been developed in other areas of policing such as Safer Transport and builds on the Safer Schools initiative. The impact of Safer Neighbourhoods also cuts across a range of corporate MPS programmes including (but not limited to) the Met Modernisation Programme (MMP), counter-terrorism work and the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Games.

3. It should be noted that two of the main reasons for the successful rollout of this programme was not only that it was what Londoners wanted (i.e. local policing), but also the political will and commitment of MPA members, the Mayor and Greater London Assembly members, as well as senior and frontline police officers and staff.

4. Whilst it is almost impossible to directly correlate recent improvements in crime reduction in areas such as robbery and burglary with SNs (although perceptions of crime can be measured particularly at a ward level), the impact of ‘a police force in every ward’ equally cannot be ignored.

5. Against this backdrop of success, the purpose of this concurrent report is to highlight some of the key equality and diversity issues emerging in relation to Safer Neighbourhoods as they relate to employment, service delivery and community engagement. The four areas are:

1. Discipline Issues
2. The Seven-Stage Model
3. Hate Crime
4. Safer Neighbourhood Panels

Employment

6. High profile reports in the past 18 months from both the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and ACAS have stated that improving employee relations is key to productivity improvements; business performance and employee satisfaction are raised when employee relations are based on mutual trust and respect.

7. The speed with which SNs was rolled out resulted in having to promote a number of police constables to the rank of sergeant. In addition, there were issues concerning the quality of PCSOs initially recruited to this group.

8. The most recent data submitted by the MPS [1] to the Authority indicates that whilst there has been a reduction in the number of cases recorded against PCSOs (which is significant when coupled with the increase in PCSO numbers), this group still remains the most significant in terms of disciplinary activity within the police family. Some of the key data is as follows:

• As of 30 November 2006, PCSO made up 17% (2,691) of the workforce
• 1 April to 30 November 2006 – of the 183 cases recorded during this period, 43 (23.4%) cases were recorded against PCSOs
• 183 cases equates to 0.02% of staff subject to disciplinary action [2]

9. In order to further contextualise this data, the diversity information is as follows:

Gender

• 1 April to 30 November 2006 – 84 (45%) cases were recorded for females and 97 against males
• As of 30 November 2006, females made up 54% of the workforce; therefore females continue to be under-represented as a proportion in the discipline process

Ethnicity

• As of 30 November 2006, staff from a black and minority ethnic (BME) group made up 24% (4,141) of the workforce.
• 1 April to 30 November 2006 – 70 (38%) cases were recorded against staff from a black and minority ethnic (BME) group and 111 cases against white members of staff.
• The last two years show that there remains a disproportionate representation of BME staff exposed to the disciplinary process.

Ethnicity Impact Within The PCSO role

• As of 30 November 2006, 33% of PCSOs were from a BME group.
• 1 April to 30 November 2006 – 21 of the 70 cases (30%) were recorded against PCSOs.
• During the course of the past year, there has been a shift from a disproportionately higher level of discipline amongst PCSOs to a disproportionately lower level of discipline amongst PCSOs.

10. The primary reasons for invoking the disciplinary process are:

• Unsatisfactory attendance
• Criminal acts under investigation
• Misuse of Information Technology Systems
• Unacceptable behaviour
• Unsatisfactory performance

11. In previous reports to EODB by other areas of police activity, the three questions consistently posed by the MPS to the MPA are:

1. “What does success of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme look like in relation to equality and diversity issues?”
2. “What equality and diversity outcomes would the MPA EODB recommend we work towards?”
3. “What does effective and efficient stakeholder engagement look like from the EODB’s perspective?”

12. To this end, a template has been devised in relation to identifying critical success factors in relation to equality and diversity, key outcomes and evidence of stakeholder engagement in relation to employment. These are as follows:

1. Critical Success Factor: No significant disparity between the experiences of people based on their identity e.g. ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief, or age.
2. Key Outcomes: Managers being trained and able to demonstrate that they manage all their staff fairly and proportionately; equity of treatment between police officers, PCSOs and police staff; police officers, PCSOs and police staff clear about objectives, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities which are supported by regular reviews; increased confidence and effectiveness in managing poor performance; increase in levels of complaints; local resolution of disputes; more effective ways in handling and resolving complaints; evidence-led internal investigations; greater transparency in the resolution of disputes; increased levels of timeliness in resolutions of disputes; use of internal data to identify, review, monitor and evaluate areas of improvement; evidence-led internal investigations; evidence that the organisation is learning from its past and actively uses its ‘corporate memory’; timeliness in resolutions of disputes.
3. Effective & Efficient Stakeholder Engagement: Evidence of appropriate and timely consultation with key stakeholders, including S.A.M.U.R.A.I [3]; increased evidence of learning from outside bodies and agencies, including corporate IAGs; developing a range of engagement model through Key Individual Networks (KINs) with individuals, staff and other important networks.

12. EODB encourages the Central Safer Neighbourhood Unit (CSNU) to continue working with the MPS HR Practice Support Team in examining the data and taking proportionate, evidence-led remedial action as and where necessary.

Service delivery

13. Two of the areas of concern in relation to service delivery relate to the seven-stage model and hate crime.

14. The seven-stage model has been pivotal to the success of SNs and has been used as an information-gathering and learning tool in the development of this programme. As further information and intelligence is collated, on-going refinements will need to be made to ensure that equality and diversity is fully integrated within the model. For example: under the stage ‘identify public preferences for action’, how will SNTs identify the ‘public preferences’ for hard to hear communities? Under the stage ‘plan and act’, how will SNTs implement actions identified in the MPS Single Equalities Scheme? Under the stage ‘review’, how will the progress towards meeting the Equality Standard for Local Government (ESLG) [4] be incorporated within this activity?

15. In relation to hate crime, anecdotal evidence submitted to the MPA Domestic Violence Board indicates that whilst some SNTs routinely exchange information on hate crimes with their borough Community Safety Units (CSUs), this is not consistent across all 624 wards. The sharing of intelligence is critical to the safety of hate crimes such as domestic violence, race and faith hate crime and homophobic crime. There has been a public commitment made by the MPS to improve communication between CSUs and SNTs. The Race Hate Crime Forum (RHCF) local authority Hate Crime Coordinators’ Group (HCCG) should enable better structures for communication. The MPA’s new Engagement & Partnership Unit (E&PU) should be linked into any proposed developments.

16. If SNTs are, as the main report proposes [5], to be further mainstreamed with the MPS, then the use of increased community intelligence will be critical in supporting investigations and reducing crime.

17. In relation to service delivery, the critical success factors, key outcomes and effective and efficient stakeholder engagement from an equality and diversity perspective are:

1. Critical Success Factors: No significant disparity in the MPS’ response to the experiences of people based on their identity in relation to a) the incident(s)/crime(s) they have experienced or b) alleged to have committed.
2. Key Outcomes: Clear levels of accountability; increased performance at local Safer Neighbourhood level; reduction in communities’ fear of crime; increased levels of public satisfaction when encountering the police; clear evidence of personal diversity objectives linked to performance; use of equality impact assessments to structure the delivery of service; evidence of sharing good practice with other business units; and use of community impact assessments in communicating key outcomes.
3. Effective & Efficient Stakeholder Engagement: Evidence of provision of accurate and intelligible information; of providing information in formats relevant to community groups; evidence of using the experiences of victims, perpetrators and witnesses to inform future service provision.

Community Engagement

16. One of the unique success factors with the Safer Neighbourhoods programme has been the creation of the Safer Neighbourhood Panels (SNPs). This is where local people assist in prioritising, directing and problem-solving with SNTs issues of local concern.

17. As stated in the MPS report, out of the 565 SNTs, 382 have community leads. This means that 183 SNTs do not have panels led by members of the community; however, it should equally be noted that SNTs have been successful in so relatively short a timeframe to have so many wards led by local people.

18. Three of the areas of concern from an equality and diversity perspective relate to: composition of SNPs, communication and monitoring.

19. Composition of SNPs remains one of the biggest challenges on the equality and diversity front. As stated in the report, “…the Central SNU does not currently the composition of Neighbourhood Panels in terms of the six-equality/diversity strands. “[6] However, without this data there is always the danger – perceived or actual – that Panel membership is related to ‘the usual suspects’/‘those who shout the loudest’, possibly resulting in panels not being representative either demographically or in terms of communities of interests and therefore, not accurately reflecting the local ward they serve. For example, a local concern may be the levels of robbery in a ward. However, a resident may be experiencing homophobic crime, but does not want to raise this issue for fear of being ‘outed’. How does SN respond in a way that reflects the citizen agenda, whilst balancing and addressing what may appear to be competing demands?

20. Given the size, investment and impact of the programme, allied to the MPS’ general duty under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (RR[A]A2000) in view of its functions, policing priorities and relevance, it is hard to see why, from a legal standpoint, the composition of SNPs are not monitored.

21. Finally, there is the issue about communication. One issue is about how SNP members are recruited e.g. what media is used? Flyers? Word-of-mouth? Local press? Whatever methodology is used, has SNs consistently considered using different approaches reflecting the diversity of needs within wards?

22. The CSNU has provided detailed guidelines to the SNTs about how Panels should be recruited; however, anecdotal evidence persists as to a lack of awareness of the existence of Panels in some sections of London’s diverse communities and how individuals can get involved.

23. In previous papers to the Authority on SN, members have consistently asked about the arrangements for SN meetings so that no one is or is made to feel excluded on the basis of their age, disability, etc – and how this is communicated. Also, members have stated that the MPS should accept that in some wards there would just not be sufficient people interested in a formal meeting structure, so the MPS should be alive to other ways of getting people involved.

24. In order for the strategic outcome “Communities are engaged with, confident in and satisfied with our service”, to be achieved, diverse communities and diverse sections within those communities need to feel and experience they have had some active involvement and engagement in policing – and not merely from the ‘intelligence-gathering’ perspective. In September 2006, the Strategic Research Unit carried out a review of the development of the Ward Panel meetings; given the new issues and learning emerging in relation to SNPs, it will be timely to conduct another evaluation of this aspect of the SN programme within the next 18 months.

25. In relation to community engagement, the critical success factors, key outcomes and effective and efficient stakeholder engagement in relation to equality and diversity are:

1. Critical Success Factor: No significant disparity between communities and intra-communities satisfaction of police communication, consultation and participation in the delivery of service.
2. Key Outcomes: Engagement with communities, especially new and emerging communities whose voices may have been overlooked or ignored; increased levels of reporting across a range of crimes; evidence of communities actively contributing to problem-solving; use of the ‘police family’ in addressing key issues of policing.
3. Effective & Efficient Stakeholder Engagement: Evidence of using information from link members, SNs, Community Engagement Groups (CEGs), Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and corporate and borough-specific Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) to inform service delivery; evidence that engagement is sustainable and uses internal and external specialists as and where appropriate; evidence that equality impact assessments are reviewed regularly; evidence of using the experiences of victims, suspects and witnesses to inform future service provision.

26. Finally: organisations such as the MPS and the MPA often talk about ‘corporate memory’. This is where and how information about how an organisation acts and respond is maintained and used. The MPS should also recognise that there is ‘community memory’ – that is, shared histories and perspectives from different communities in terms of how they have engaged with the police. Some of this ‘community memory’ can be recent and raw – take for example some of the experiences of some young people in relation to the use of ASBOs or stop and search or sections of the Muslim communities in relation to counter-terrorism activities. On account of ‘community memory’, it may take significant efforts on the part of the MPS to engage with some sections of London’s diverse communities. The actions, interventions and impact at a local level of SNTs may play a significant role in engaging with either ‘hard-to-hear’ communities or communities that may have possess negative memories/experiences with the police.

Outstanding issues

27. Notwithstanding the above, there are still a range of questions (in no order of priority) to be considered which have significant equality and diversity implications. Whilst SNTs may not as yet have fully formed answers, it may be important to see these as ‘markers’ to be addressed:

• How will SNTs/SNPs approach individuals who have multiple needs (e.g. in terms of access and vulnerability to crime)?
• What influence has SNs had on the development of the MPS’ Violent Crime Strategy?
• There is an implied assumption in some parts of the MPS that greater diversity in recruitment and/or rotation of tasks will lead to an improved workforce. However, if equality – the identification and dismantling of barriers – is not addressed, how will people’s experiences change?

Abbreviations

CSNU

Central Safer Neighbourhood Unit

CSU

Community Safety Unit(s)

EOC

Equal Opportunities Commission

HCCG

Hate Crime Co-ordinators Group

KIN

Key Individual Networks

PCSO

Police Community Support Officer(s)

RHCF

Race Hate Crime Forum

S.A.M.U.R.A.I.

Staff Association Meeting Up Regularly And Interacting

SNT

Safer Neighbourhood Team(s)

SNP

Safer Neighbourhood Panel(s)

C. Race and equality impact

1. Safer Neighbourhoods is one of the most significant change programmes in the MPS’ history and as such has major equality and diversity implications. The purpose of this report is to highlight the areas of concerns for the MPS and the steps it can take to ensure the successful integration of equality and diversity in SNTs day-to-day business.

2. Another area of success for Safer Neighbourhoods has been its ability to share its learning with other parts of the MPS. This is to be encouraged in view of significant change programmes such as the Met Modernisation Programme and the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics Games.

D. Financial implications

1. There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

E. Background papers

• Disciplinary Cases Involving Police Staff (Half Yearly Report, Period 1 April – 30 November 2006) – PSCC, 8 February 2007
• Reporter, Equality Exchange, EOC, September 2005
• The Acas Model Workplace, ACAS, November 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Laurence Gouldbourne, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback