|a) Further to minute no. 307 it was requested that a letter be sent to lobby MP's regarding the introduction of a law that enabled peoples wealth to be questioned. The DAT would also produce a letter and Neighbourhood Watch would take this matter up with the Home Office.|
b) Further to minute no. 316 it was stated that the SSP supported the release of the Domestic Violence funding to support the Perpetrator Programme.
c) Drug Strategy Consultation - Minute No. 312 Members were informed that the group had now met and had submitted a response on behalf of the partnership.
|Members were informed that the minutes of the YOS Board for 15th October were not finalised and would be brought to the next meeting.|
|Members were provided with the action notes from the Scanning and Challenge Group for 18th October 2007. It was requested that a report on the BCU Fund be presented to a future meeting.|
|Members were presented with an analysis of the Tackling Crime and Disorder Audit 2007 and the performance against targets that were set in the Consultation Strategy paper that was brought to the meeting on 24th October 2006.|
Target C was to increase the overall response rate by 10% to at least 4,000. The closing date for responses was 5 October, 2007. By this date a total of 4,021 responses were received, achieving the target, however, 39 surveys could not be analysed due to errors on the forms. Some respondents had not understood the need to prioritise.
There were 3,982 valid responses received, which is an 8.1% increase on the 3,685 valid responses received in 2004. In addition, there were a further 21 forms received a week late which could not be included in the analysis.
Members were provided with full analysis of the age, gender, ethnicity and disability of respondents.
The aim of the consultation was to identify the five clear priorities of respondents, which following analysis were as follows:-
Anti Social Behaviour
Violent Crime (including Robbery/Mugging)
Diverting Young People from Offending
Discussion was held on Domestic Violence and whether it should be included within the top five priorities. Members felt that it was a high priority and should be included within the Violent Crime category.
Members also discussed having a 6th priority. It was felt that it would be preferable to have a floating 6th priority to highlight emerging issues. The current issue that was at the forefront of Partners priorities was 'Other Theft' due to the increase in theft of metals, shoplifting etc.
|There were a total of 48 targets in the Community Safety Plan for 2007/08. 30 of the targets were on target to achieve (green), 9 were slightly below expected performance to achieve (amber) and 6 were not likely to be achieved (red). The remaining 3 targets were not due an update this quarter.|
The red and amber targets were addressed in detail within the report and were under the headings:- Total Crime, Anti Social Behaviour, Drugs, Dwelling Burglary, Violent Crime, Deliberate Fires.
|The purpose of the report was to provide an update on half yearly performance against targets / objectives in the Youth Justice Plan (YJ Plan), and the underpinning theme of workforce development. |
The YJ Plan was structured around 15 themes identified by the YJB as fundamental to the delivery of the overall aims and objectives of the youth justice system.
The Inspection of the Youth Offending Service had taken place and paperwork, staff and partners had been scrutinised.
There would be changes to the Children's Trust Board which would assist in improving performance.
|At its meeting on 5 December 2006, the Partnership approved a Partnership Improvement Plan, and agreed to receive monitoring reports at six-monthly intervals for the intended 18 month lifetime of the Plan (minute 209 refers).|
The monitoring report for the second six months, to the end of September 2007, was detailed to Members for information.
Members were informed that the links between the SSP Website and other Partners websites was developing successfully. The Police Authority still needed to be included in the link.
|Members were provided with an extract of The Guidance for Community Safety Partnerships on Delivering Safer Communities: A guide to effective partnership working. The full text could be found at http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/guidance_for_effective_partnerships.pdf |
The Guidance outlined six Hallmarks of effective practice, i.e.
1) Empowered and Effective Leadership
2) Intelligence-led Business Processes
3) Effective and Responsive Delivery Structures
4) Engaged Communities
5) Visible and Constructive Accountability
6) Appropriate Skills and Knowledge
Also, attached for Members information was a table of the 40 statutory requirements.
Members discussed the areas that the Partnership needed to address. As part of this document there was a requirement for the Partnership to hold public meetings within Stockton on Tees. It was suggested that the Partnership could follow another meeting such as Newtown Neighbourhood Watch Group which was a well attended meeting. Advertising could be done through the Neighbourhood Watch Group. Once this meeting had been held the partnership could discuss/analyse how this worked prior to setting up other meetings.
The Police Authority stated that they would be able to loan the hand held voting devices for the meeting if required.
|Further to the discussion on this issue at the last meeting of the Partnership, a discussion was held on 9 October between Geoff Lee, Anne Howard and Mike Batty (apologies from Sue Maddison) on an early draft set of responses which Members were provided with.|
A number of indicators were flagged up for further discussion, which Members provided a collective answer to.
A further piece of work be undertaken to develop a simple statement of intent, referencing the Nolan principles and their application to the work of this partnership, with a view to inclusion in the Partnership Constitution.
|Members were provided with the initial DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) statement setting out the menu of 198 National Indicators from which Local Strategy Partnerships could choose up to 35 for inclusion in their Local Area Agreements. Targets would need to be set for those which were chosen. Informal feedback suggests that GONE may be looking for Targets to be set only in areas of genuine challenge.|
The indicators of particular interest to this Partnership were highlighted in pink. We have an indirect interest in many of the others. For, example, anything which reduces worklessness was likely to contribute to downward pressure on levels of crime and disorder, as, in the long term is anything which improves life chances for children and young people.
Of the 198 indicators, 35 appear under the heading of Safer Communities. All but two of them, which relate to road safety, were directly relevant to the work of this Partnership.
The choice of indicators and targets should also reflect other priorities as identified by our Community Safety plan consultation programme i.e.
b) Drug related offending
c) Violent Crime
d) Criminal damage
e) Diverting young people from offending
On the current knowledge base, it was suggested that the Partnership gives initial consideration to prioritising indicators as follows:-
a) NI 17 Perceptions of anti social behaviour (provided that the key question is posed in terms of in your area / neighbourhood, so as to reduce the impact of national media trends).
b) NI 38 Drug related (Class A) offending rate (depending on the detail of measurement - allied to our current local target for reducing the numbers of positive tests on arrest, but may not sit well with police targets to increase the number of interventions).
c) NI 15 Serious violent crime rate.
d) Consider the option of NI 195 (levels of graffiti, litter, detritus and fly posting) as a rough proxy for criminal damage (or develop our own local indicators based on the recorded crime category).
e) NI 111 First time entrants to the Youth Justice System aged 10 - 17 (if tension with OBTJ targets, can be removed or substantially reduced, and taking care to use the most realistic possible baseline).
It was also suggested that the Partnership receives a further report on this issue, once there had been the opportunity to do some further research on volumes and baselines.
|Members were provided with a copy of the draft Community Cohesion Strategy. As part of this Strategy members of the Safer Stockton Partnership were being asked to take responsibility for delivery of actions within the draft action plan.|
Members agreed to contribute to the following points within the action plan:-
EO9 - Review the Borough's Offensive Incident Reporting Mechanisms, promote them and monitor levels of reported offensive behaviour - Marilyn Davies/Gary Gamesby to take responsibility on behalf of the partnership.
EO10 - Tackle both anti-social behaviour and the high levels of residentperception of ASB
EO11 - Establish what mediation services are available in the Tees Valley and maximise their use as appropriate - It was felt that UNITE would be able to contribute.
|The total crime rate for our Borough in 2006/07 was 93.6 (crimes per thousand population), compared to a Tees Valley average of 122.5 and an England and Wales average of 101.1.|
This puts the rate 7.4% below the England and Wales average for the Borough.
One of the ambitions stated in the draft Sustainable Community Strategy for the Borough 2008 - 2021, on which we have previously been consulted, was to have levels of crime in Stockton well below national average figures during the duration of this strategy.
It was therefore felt appropriate to set targets in the next three year Community Safety Plan to increase the gap between the crime rate and the England and Wales average over the period. However, these will only be measurable at month 16, i.e. July of the year following the financial year in question, because of the delay in availability of the national average.
Any such target would be very challenging because it would mean that we have to improve our performance more quickly than the average performance improvement (or deteriorate more slowly than the average deterioration), in order to improve our relative standing. Over the last 10 years we have gone from having a total crime rate of 2.6% above the England and Wales average (1997) to 7.4% better than the England and Wales average (2006 / 07).
One of the issues to be debated was what we mean by well below average. One option might be to aim to get to 10% below the England and Wales average over the next 3 years with a view to getting to 20% below by 2021.
Members held discussion on the issues raised above and felt that it was important to identify other similar CDRP's to enable appropriate comparisons to be made prior to setting targets.
|Members were provided with a copy of the Housing and Community Safety Select Committee report on their review of the Neighbourhood Enforcement Service.|
|Members were provided with an update and were asked to view the MI5 website for further information www.MI5.co.uk.|
|Members were provided with the list of press releases for the period 8th September to 12th October, 2007.|
|The recorded crime figures for April 2007 - September 2007 compared with April 2006 - September 2006. The recorded anti social behaviour codes were also shown.|