|Members were informed that the draft report for the adult inspection was due to be received this week.|
Tina Williams reported that the assessments for mental health patients were taking a long time to come back. It was stated that this was a matter for Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS however Jane Humphreys would have a look at the query in more detail, if examples were provided.
|It was requested that an update on the Home Office pilot scheme on payment by results for working with offenders in Peterbrough be provided. It was explained that this was a six year pilot scheme.|
|The Face the People Event would be held on 25th November at 2pm. Members were asked to note the new date.|
It was requested that Partners encourage their staff etc. to complete the SSP Crime and Disorder questionnaire in the back of the booklet, that was handed out to Members.
|Members were informed that a decision had been made to abolish the GONE network following a statement from the Home Office. GONE were currently looking at what aspects of their role could be transferred to other government departments. GONE were unable to offer any support to the Partnership or discuss performance and stated that this would be the last meeting that they would be attending. However, if the partnership required any assistance they were able to contact GONE. A policy document had been produced and a copy would be emailed to the partnership.|
The Partnership wished to thank GONE for attending the Partnership meetings and for their support and requested that a letter be sent on behalf of the partnership.
|Traditionally the British Crime Survey and locally MORI had been used to help us to identify how safe people feel. In 2008 a new element was introduced by government called the Place Survey which was linked to performance via national indicators. Police targets were also reviewed and a single national target was set to increase public confidence. Both of these had since been dropped by the new Coalition Government. Public confidence in how the police and council tackle anti social behaviour was not quite the same thing as providing reassurance and it was the latter that this partnership had focussed on. |
Members would recall that we had considered a number of reports on this issue over the last year and that some in depth analysis was carried out in October 2009 and brought to our 3rd November meeting. To recap this analysis used both crime and anti social behaviour data and it highlighted a number of wards in the borough with low crime but higher levels of fear of crime. This analysis identified Roseworth followed by Village ward having the highest discrepancy between recorded crime and anti social behaviour against perceptions. The partnership decided to focus their efforts in the coming year on Roseworth and to use the lessons learned to expand the work into other areas at a later date.
Cllr Beall, Roseworth Ward Councillor, was pleased with the evidence received from Roseworth. The CCTV cameras that were put in operation at Roseworth shops had been part of a high profile launch and there had been no issues in this area since their implementation. It was felt a priority by the ward Councillor to maintain the CCTV and any financial assistance towards this would be a priority for Roseworth. It was also felt that the area lacked in youth provision in the area.
|This report sets out the recorded crime figures, anti social behaviour disorder codes and Most Serious Violence figures for April - June 2010 compared with April - June 2009. |
|Members were informed that there had been an increase in female first time entrants over a long period of time. It was requested that further analysis of offences by gender be presented to the next meeting.|
|Members were informed that they were online to spend everything that had been allocated and therefore there was no underspend.|
|Members were provided with the Government White Paper and Home Office letter which required a response by 20 September.|
A proposed response on behalf of the Partnership was also provided. Geoff Lee and Darren Best had sight of an earlier draft and their comments had been incorporated.
The draft response to date appears as a narrative critique of the White Paper, seeking to show a balance between supporting some elements of the proposals and opposing others. It will also be necessary to make specific comments against all or most of the 23 Consultation Questions, which had been reproduced in the text of the draft response. In most cases this would involve pulling together the most relevant points from other parts of the response text.
Joanne Hodgkinson would clarify a number of points in more detail with Mike Batty relating to para 4.2 and 4.8.
Members felt that if an elected commissioner was appointed then it would be useful to invite them to future partnership meetings.
|Members were provided with a 6 month update from Reverend Derek Rosamond and Steve Brock of Stockton Town Pastors (STP).|
An internal review was carried out in June 2010 which included a:-
- comprehensive volunteer survey
- analysis of activity data
- assessment of progress against aims
- identified actions for development
It was reported that STP had been well received by those using the night time economy, partnerships with Police and Stockton Council had remained firm, volunteer commitment had remained strong, involvement in other public events were possibilities for the future.
It was reported that relationships with Taxi Drivers, the Police, Public Houses etc. had been established.
STP would like to have a premises on Stockton High Street.
It was suggested that STP feedback into the licensing review that was taking place.
|At the last meeting, on 6 July, the Partnership received feedback on this process from John Tench.|
Johns general feedback was that we appeared to be a very strong Partnership, and in particular that
(a) our results in the Lead & Guide section were as strong as seen anywhere in the Region;
(b) the sequence of moving from clear, evidenced priorities via detailed strategies to resources deployed. was also exceptionally strong; and
(c) that the free text / open ended comments made by respondents to the survey were generally very positive, which was an indication of the prevailing culture within the Partnership.
John identified two leading questions for us, as follows:-
(a) what is the deal with the public?; and
(b) what is the deal with austerity?
In discussion, it was suggested that our overall relationship with the public was along the lines of You tell us what the problems are, and well do something about them rather than, for example, You tell us what the problems are and well empower and facilitate you to do something about them yourselves (although, of course, we do draw on public involvement at the tactical level, in terms of community intelligence on issues including drug dealing and ASB, and by involving victims of ASB in compiling evidence for us to use on their behalf).
Some doubt was expressed about whether or not there was a groundswell of public enthusiasm for getting more involved, above and beyond the opportunities which already exist (e.g. special constabulary, police volunteer scheme, Neighbourhood Enforcement volunteer scheme, Neighbourhood Watch / Junior Neighbourhood Watch etc).
Successive governments had advocated providing more localised information on crime and disorder to enable the community to hold the partners to account, but turnout at our Face the People sessions and the Chief Constables annual consultation meeting does not suggest widespread dissatisfaction.
Ben Page of MORI, on his last visit to Stockton on 2009, made the point that the best way of securing community engagement was to provide very poor services, as in London Borough of Hackney in the 1980s. In terms of Community Safety we were currently at the opposite end of the spectrum.
One specific form of community involvement which we touched on in discussion was the involvement of Area Partnership Boards (APBs) in the work of SSP. Potential measures which we could adapt to make this link with residents more robust are
(a) placing the standing agenda item on feedback from APBs in a more prominent position on the SSP agenda (its currently at the end)
(b) provide more training./support to APB reps to give them greater skills and confidence in their roles (SRCGA may have a role in this)
(c) encouraging APBs (or even requiring them) to nominate a resident rep
(d) feeding back to APBs on the attendance records of their reps at SSP in order to inform their nomination process (see Appendix A attached)
(e) supplementing APB representation with representatives from the Community Engagement Network, as is the practice at other thematic partnerships.
All partner agencies could expect to have their budgets severely squeezed over the next few years. In particular, there was a significant likelihood that Home Office allocations to the Partnership i.e. Basic Command Unit Fund (via Police) and Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (via Council) would be drastically reduced or eliminated.
There would be a potential challenge in terms of co-terminosity. For the Council it was relatively straightforward to involve and consult other partners on the impact of its decision-making, but less so for the partner agencies that are organised at county level e.g. Police, Fire and Probation, where decision-making ranges across Cleveland and beyond (in the case of Probation), and the PCT.
It was requested that the Community Empowerment Network would find it useful to receive a presentation from the partnership.
|Members were provided with a copy of the NHS White Paper. The following points were highlighted:-|
- Organisational structures had been put out to consultation with a view to make 50% cuts.
- GP's would be the commissioners
- Connection with DAAT's
- Public Health Budget due in October
- Connectivity with partnerships/ safeguarding etc.
- Powers being transferred from PCT to GP's until 2012
- Proposal for public health function to come into local authority
|Members were informed that the Safeguarding Board had discussed holding an away day to discuss the impact of domestic violence on children and adults. It was anticipated that the away day would be held in the autumn with a facilitator hosting the event.|
|In May 2009 the Partnership agreed to establish an annual process of surveying the interests of members of the Partnership, and this had recently been undertaken.|
By way of context, the purpose of this exercise was to make transparent any interests which members of the Partnership may have, which may be perceived to have a potential impact on decision-making.
It was also worth noting that Councillors (Members of Stockton Council) complete a register of interests, which was available for public inspection on the Councils website (www.stockton.gov.uk) by following the links standards and probity and members interests and gifts and hospitality.
|Members were provided with the list of press releases from SSP for the period of the 23rd June 2010- 2nd August 2010 copies of the full articles were available from the Community Safety Team.|
|(b) New alcohol treatment service, they would provide a presentation to Members in September. Discussion was held on the stimulant service and whether there was more that could be done to get patients into treatment. The drugs dog was going into public houses and any people found with drugs were being encouraged to go for a treatment assessment. Jeff Evans would be reporting on Integrated Offender Management at the December meeting.|