Community Engagement Funding 2020/21

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) has a statutory responsibility, in conjunction with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, for making arrangements for obtaining the views of the community and victims of crime on matters concerning policing in London (section 14, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, 2011).This function is discharged through a variety of mechanisms, including the Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs), which are an established borough level mechanism for delivering local police accountability and engagement, providing community members with the opportunity to speak directly with local senior police officers and to support local problem-solving projects that address local concerns. In addition, MOPAC also engages communities through the broader active citizenship programme, including support for digital tools to support Neighbourhood Watch.

This decision seeks to secure approval for the allocation of £1,095,000 to the 2020/21 Community Engagement Fund to deliver this programme of work.

That the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime approve the Community Engagement Fund budget for 2020/21 and specifically the allocation of:

• £1,000,000 for the delivery of local community-police engagement in line with the maximum allocations set out in Appendix A;

• Up to £ 95,000 to fund the provision of the Online Watch (OWL) system; and

• That the signing of individual agreements be delegated in line with the MOPAC scheme of delegation.

1. Introduction and background

1.1 The Police and Crime Plan 2017-21 (PCP) sets out the Mayor's ambitions for policing and recognises how critical it is to our efforts to make every community in London safer, that people can engage effectively with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The PCP commits MOPAC to continuing to support the work of Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs) and the community-led decision-making and local police accountability that is facilitated through them, as well as to a wider programme of public access and engagement. This decision sets out our plans for the wider public engagement and active citizenship programme and seeks approval for the associated budget.

2. Issues for consideration

2.1 Safer Neighbourhood Boards or equivalent local community engagement mechanisms are in place across London, bringing police and communities together to inform local policing and crime priorities and work with others to address local crime and safety problems collaboratively. In previous years MOPAC has made £1m available to support Safer Neighbourhood Boards and enable them to fund local projects to help cut neighbourhood crimes and boost public confidence. This work operates within the MOPAC public engagement framework established in 2018 and aligned to the three dimensions of active citizenship - ‘inform, influence and involve’.

2.2 The SNB priorities and core functions for 2020/1 will remain unchanged and are to:

• enable local engagement with the Police;

• enable local accountability of the police;

• focus on the Policing and Crime Plan (2017-21) key principles and priorities - putting victims first and reducing inequalities; keeping children and young people safe; tackling violence against women and girls and tackling hate crime and intolerance;

• monitor crime performance and public perceptions (community confidence);

• inform the development of policing priorities in the borough;

• monitor MPS support for the delivery of ward panels and community contact sessions; and

• engage with Borough Independent Advisory Groups and other local mechanisms (e.g. neighbourhood watch and stop and search monitoring groups) to support and inform their work across the borough.

2.3 In 2019/20, the funding criteria was amended to enable up to £3,000 per borough to be ring-fenced for the purposes of supporting Neighbourhood Watch (NHW) related activities. A limit of up to £5,000 for individual project allocations (with larger proposals considered by exception) was also implemented to help to guard against a growing tendency for larger voluntary sector organisations to submit significant applications (over £5,000) to multiple SNBs, which should more appropriately be directed to other funding streams, such as the Young Londoners’ Fund. Overall, the approach enabled sufficient flexibility for SNBs to respond to local need and effectively enabled them to target smaller scale projects. It is therefore proposed that the £5,000 maximum funding for individual projects continues in 2020/1.

2.4 The ringfencing of funds for NHW activities achieved mixed results, with some areas with less active NHW associations unable to effectively utilise the funding. A number of SNBs invested (or renewed investment) in the Online Watch Link (OWL) digital engagement system and there is some appetite to continue this into 2020/1. In December 2019, MOPAC implemented a contract variation until 31 March 2020 to provide additional funds to support the OWL system as an interim measure to secure a critical system that serves London Neighbourhood Watch. In addition, the provider has secured an additional source of funding for a two year period to 2022. Given the level of support amongst those using OWL, the benefits to be derived from centralising the management of NHW-related funding, and the need to develop a business case to scope requirements and implement a procurement process as necessary, it is proposed that funding for the system be continued until March 2021.

2.5 The MOPAC community engagement team has continued to engage with SNBs through forum events to facilitate learning and development and ensure the effective engagement of the MPS in their work. As well as valuing the one-to-one support, the Forum also indicated that they found the SNB funding surgeries and training seminars on using the SNB and other MOPAC data dashboards to be useful and effective in helping them to effectively carry out their functions. These will continue to be provided as appropriate.

2.6 The funding to SNBs will be separated into two elements; administration and project funding. The ring-fenced administration budget has been maintained at £166,400 divided equally amongst all SNBs (£5,200 each) to support delivery. However, it is expected that each project will be inclusive of any additional administrative charge. The remainder of the Fund (£833,600) will be available to the SNBs to support the local crime prevention and engagement projects of their choosing.



2.7 Each SNB/community engagement structure (CES) will be required to sign a grant agreement to confirm acceptance of the funding, acknowledgement of the accounting process and the extent of their and MOPAC’s liabilities.

2.8. The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is therefore asked to approve £1,095,000 in 2020/1 to support the MOPAC Community Engagement Fund.

3 Financial Comments

3.1 It is proposed that the 2020/21 approved funding to support the Safer Neighbourhood Boards/local engagement remains at £1,000,000 in line with the allocations detailed in Appendix A. In addition, up to £95,000 is proposed to support the provision of a digital public engagement tool.

3.2 It should be noted that while the total funding pot of £1,000,000 is available to SNBs, they are not obliged to apply for the full amount and MOPAC will only agree project funding to those who have adequately met the assessment criteria. SNBs will continue to be required to submit a mid-year return to confirm progress of the agreed projects and an end of year return, to be submitted with the application for the following year’s funding, to confirm completion or otherwise of the agreed projects. Any underspend will be recovered directly from the SNB or deducted from the following year’s allocation.

3.3 As in previous years, provision of £947,000 has been made within the 2020/21 MOPAC budget in relation to the £1,000,000 approved for SNBs/local engagement. This potentially means that up to £53,000 may need to be found elsewhere in the MOPAC budget, although in practice SNB/local engagement expenditure has historically remained within this budget amount. A further £95,000 has been set aside to cover the costs of the digital public engagement tool.

4. Commercial Issues

4.1 In December 2019, MOPAC implemented a contract variation until 31 March 2020 to provide additional funds to support the OWL system as an interim measure to secure a critical system that serves London Neighbourhood Watch. It is proposed that a further contract variation be implemented until March 2021 to facilitate the development of a business case to scope the appetite and requirements for such a system across London and to implement a procurement process as necessary. Legal advice has been sought in respect of the provision of further funding to support OWL and two key issues have been examined (i) potential conflicts with procurement law and (ii) the provision of state aid. On the first point, this matter would usually arise where there are or have been direct competitors in a procurement process who could argue that the provision of assistance of this nature puts them at a disadvantage to the incumbent provider. This is unlikely to arise in this case since OWL is largely funded by individual Safer Neighbourhood Boards/Local Authorities and no formal MOPAC-led procurement process has taken place in relation to this provision. On the second point, European Union rules dictate that it is illegal for EU countries to give financial help to some companies and not others in a way which would distort fair competition. However, under the De Minimis Regulation aid can be granted provided it does not exceed €200,000 over any period of three fiscal years. In this case, the proposed funding will fall well within this limit and would not therefore be unlawful. In addition, any impact will be further mitigated by the confirmation that there will be no provision to further extend support for OWL outside of a formal procurement process.

5. Legal Comments

5.1 The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is authorised to take this decision by the MOPAC Scheme of Consent & Delegation, Section 4, “Delegation to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime”, “Financial administration” para 4.7: “The approval of …MOPAC expenditure, income and funding of annual revenue budgets and capital programme”.

5.2 The activities set out in this decision are in accordance with MOPAC’ s responsibilities under section 14 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (the 2011 Act), to make arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing in the area. MOPAC’s general powers are set out in the 2011 Act. Section 3(6) of the 2011 Act provides that MOPAC must "secure the maintenance of the metropolitan police force and secure that the metropolitan police force is efficient and effective." Under Schedule 3, paragraph 7 of the 2011 Act, MOPAC has wide incidental powers to “do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the functions of the Office”. Paragraph 7(2) (a) provides that this includes entering into contracts and other agreements.

5.3 In addition, section 143 (1) (b) of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides an express power for MOPAC, as a local policing body, to provide or commission services "intended by the local policing body to help victims or witnesses of, or other persons affected by, offences and antisocial behaviour." Section 143(3) specifically allows MOPAC to make grants in connection with such arrangements and any grant may be made subject to any conditions that MOPAC deems appropriate. The proposals set out in this decision support MOPAC's duties under and are in accordance with MOPAC’s powers under that section.

5.4 Under Section 5.23 of MOPAC’s Scheme of Delegation, grant agreements under the value of £150,000 may be signed by the relevant MOPAC Director in line with their individual Scheme of Delegation.

5.5 Paragraph 3.3 above indicates that the contribution of £1,000,000 to the SNBs in accordance with Appendix A amounts to the provision of grant funding and not payment for services. Officers must ensure that the funding is distributed fairly and transparently, and in a manner, which affords value for money in accordance with MOPAC’s Financial Regulations and Contract Regulations.

5.6 Officers must ensure that a grant agreement is put in place between, and executed by, MOPAC and each recipient, before any commitment to fund is made.

6. Public Health Approach

6.1. The matters in this decision do not directly address street violence, knife crime, domestic violence and/or sexual abuse. However, the SNBs may fund projects that do address these issues. By its nature, the SNB/CES funding is targeted to specified localities (boroughs) and provides communities with the opportunity to be directly influencing local crime prevention activity. SNBs/CES also have access to a bespoke data dashboard and they are encouraged to use that data to help inform their local funding decisions.

7. GDPR and Data Privacy

7.1 A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) has been completed for the SNB/CES programme. The grant agreement sets out the responsibilities for Data Protection, Freedom of Information and transparency for both MOPAC and the SNBs/CES. Signing of the grant agreement indicates acceptance of the terms and the requirements to manage their funds accordingly.

8. Equality Comments

8.1 Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 provides that in the exercise of their functions, public authorities must have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010;

• advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and

• foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

8.2 To ensure SNBs support the key principle of reducing inequalities, there are two key areas in which they can make a positive impact (i) by addressing the disproportionate impact of crime on different areas and communities and (ii) by seeking to involve and represent diverse communities in police-community engagement.

8.3 SNBs are funded on the basis of a formula that aims to reflect the different levels of demand and need (the borough allocations are detailed in Appendix A). Differential borough needs have been taken into account using a formula to allocate funds, rather than working on the basis that all boroughs should receive an equal allocation. The formula has been constructed using updated Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) combined with updated population data. The IMD has been developed by the Office for National Statistics and is well-established as a robust formula on which to build programmes and allocate resources to the areas of greatest demand. The indices use statistical techniques to combine information on socio-economic factors, including crime, income deprivation, health deprivation and disability, to produce scores for areas across the whole of England. These are relevant to this exercise because of the correlation between deprivation and reduced levels of civic engagement and increased levels of crime and victimisation. The IMD data is collated and verified centrally and independently of MOPAC and the underlying datasets are updated as and when appropriate to ensure the best information available at the time is used.

8.4 The SNB guidance stipulates that boards should include groups/individuals who are able to represent the views of the diverse communities within their area, e.g. Faith groups, older people and children, as well as democratically elected representation to bring in wider community views. However, some SNBs have struggled to meet this requirement in terms of direct representation, although almost three quarters of the funded projects have had a community engagement outreach element to them. Many have targeted some of the most vulnerable or underrepresented groups in respect of policing and crime, including young people, older people, Eastern European and black and minority ethnic (BAME) communities.

8.5 Some boroughs are actively seeking community engagement alternatives to the SNB. MOPAC will work with the Boroughs to ensure that its statutory requirements are met and that any such alternatives are in line with MOPAC’ s equality and diversity policy. The funding formula as set out in Appendix A is based on an expectation of a full take up by all 32 Boroughs. As such there will be provision to meet funding requests to support alternatives to SNBs.

8.6 MOPAC will not support more than one community engagement structure in any Borough. Any alternative structure to an SNB must meet MOPAC’s statutory requirements including on equality, diversity and inclusion.

8.7 The involvement of community volunteers in the work of SNBs is important and central to the provision of community oversight of local policing. MOPAC will continue to provide direct support to SNBs through (i) the allocation of a single point of contact for every SNB, (ii) access to accurate and timely data through the MOPAC dashboards, and (iii) the provision of learning, support and development opportunities.

8.8 The provision of digital engagement tools provides a means to diversify opportunities for engagement beyond physical meetings and will enable a wider audience to be reached with crime prevention and safety advice.

9. Background/supporting papers

Appendix A – 2020/21 Safer Neighbourhood Board/local engagement allocations.