|(a) The total number of calls received to the ASB Hotline reporting incidents of ASB from 1st April 2011 - 29th February 2012 = 4432|
Of the 4432 calls received reporting incidents of ASB from members of the public 379 individuals had been highlighted as making 3 calls or more to the Hotline. This accounts for 2208 of the calls made or 38.1%
This figure had been calculated by a number of methods - for example a caller may have contacted the Hotline in relation to an individual incident over a number of months or an individual may have contacted 3 x times in one month regarding an on-going problem.
Of the 379 individuals identified 215 callers have been identified and highlighted at Multi Agency JAG meetings held each month in each of the 4 Police districts for further actions from Partner Agencies. This related to 1632 calls or 28.2%
The criterion for the JAG meetings was 3 calls or more within the JAG period which usually covered a 2 month period. Each individual highlighted was monitored by all partners and updates were provided at the next months meeting.
A number of calls were received at the request of ASB Officers to record incidents to assist with on-going cases and build up evidence for future enforcement action.
Members requested that a further summary report be produced for a future meeting.
b) There was a more detailed report later in the agenda.
|Geoff Turner (Western Area Partnership Board) stated that Marc Anderson, Neighbourhood Inspector from Thornaby Police Station had provided a presentation on crime statistics in the area which had been very positive.|
|Members were provided with a report that set out the recorded crime figures for April - February 2011/12 compared to the same period in 2010/11. A comparison of anti social behaviour incidents was not possible this financial year due to a change in recording practices as of 01/04/11.|
It was reported that there had been an increase in crime, approximately 90 more crimes this month in comparison to last year's monthly figure. However, it was anticipated that the target of 5% reduction in anti social behaviour would be met. It was felt that persistent offenders were the biggest problem. However, there were already a number of robust mechanisms in place to reduce these figures.
|Members were provided with the DAAT performance figures for Quarter 3. There had been an increase in young people in treatment. A consultation day had been arranged with young persons organisations to look at ways to address the problem. |
Consideration was being given to changes in drug testing in referral services in order to make improvements and possibly transfer the service to the Police. The National Treatment Agency would be introducing new performance measures.
|Members were provided with a copy of the planned reports for 2012/13. Members raised further items that they wished to be considered such as:-|
Health and Wellbeing Strategy
Police Commissioner - Working arrangements with Community Partnerships
Further discussion was held on an event for the Police Commissioner Candidates to put across their statements. Ideas were sought on who to aim the event/s at and possible venues. It was anticipated that the event would encourage awareness and people to vote.
|At the previous SSP it was agreed that the community safety targets and action plans for the six themed areas would be reviewed to both ensure that the current targets were the right ones to measure as well as incorporate the recommendations agreed from the Partnership Strategic Assessment. The majority of targets had remained the same for 2012/13, the amendments were highlighted within the report.|
|Members were provided with a report regarding the Home Office Consultation for the late night levy and early morning restriction orders.|
Members were provided the draft response to the consultation.
Discussion was held on the report and the impact of Operation Tranquility. Members also discussed 'Dial a Booze' and how/whether this would be affected. It was noted that 'Dial a Booze' was not licenced in Stockton but we could provide a comment within the consultation response.
|1Members were provided with a letter dated 12 March to Geoff Lee from Melanie Laws, the Chief Executive of the Association of North East Councils (ANEC), together with a report to the Corporate Management Team of Durham County Council (DCC).|
The letter sought views from Community Safety Partnerships on two options for collaborative working on DHRs.
The first of the two options was based on a principle of regional pooling of costs and risks. The report suggested a system of population-based contributions, with a maximum of £5,000. If Durham, as the largest authority in the region, were to pay £5,000 then the Stockton share would be approximately £1,800. However, the total yield, if all twelve localities contributed on this basis, would be only about £20,000. This sum could easily be spent on one complex review.
The second option was a pairing arrangement, proposed to operate between similar sized areas. The locations closest in size to Stockton were North Tyneside and Gateshead. Discussions had been taking place with Hartlepool for some time about a pairing arrangement, but have not yet come to fruition.
In order to evaluate the proposition properly it would be helpful to see the data on historic distribution of domestic homicides across the region.
|At the meeting of 8 November 2011 it was agreed to put in place a simple mechanism for monitoring the impact of public service cuts on the work of the Partnership. Key partner agencies had been asked to provide details and these were set out in the report.|
|Ian Hayton, Chief Fire Officer provided a presentation on the possible option of the Cleveland Fire Brigade becoming a Community Interest Company.|
The Key drivers for change were due to the growing demand for services with diminishing resources. Therefore, options were being considered to generate income and maximise commercial value. Central Government had provided funding for the research/pilot to take place.
Various options were being considered and it was anticipated that a full consultation exercise would take place in the Autumn.
|Members were informed that this was a 50 bed unit, with a therapeutic community and a drug recovery wing. It was difficult to influence those serving shorter sentences as they often wanted to just take the substitute drugs on offer. Close working and targeting of those on the IOM scheme took place.|
To take part on the scheme prisoners needed to be medically stable and agree to take on the programme and be included in group work. A prison officer was appointed to them to check that they remain drug free when they were released. The prison officer would also consider other aspects such as the prisoners family connections, housing provision on release and debts etc. A 4 week plan prior to release would be drawn up so that they were ready for release. The names were sent to Jeff Evans (IOM Team) to monitor what happens after release.
There were courses on offer such as peer mentoring, parenting, help with finances workshops etc.
The Government will review to consider the future of the pilot scheme.
|The concept of IOM 2 was to build on the IOM platform by potentially increasing the number of those managed by the IOM team to a number commensurate with the core agencies providing the staff to support the management of an increase in offenders. Initial discussions with senior managers within the Police, Probation and the DAAT supported the principle of this concept.|
It was hoped that by extending the numbers managed by the IOM team, a continued reduction in re-offending convictions across a larger cohort will reduce crime across the Borough.
DTV Probation Trust were committed to re-allocating Offender managers to the IOM scheme to ensure that an appropriate level of commitment was demonstrated in line with their goals of reducing re-offending. At this stage it was not envisaged that further resources would be seconded from other agencies. The Police had agreed to become further engaged with the management of offenders as opposed to the management of offences.
In terms of current operational delivery the introduction of a larger cohort, potentially of the order of about 250 offenders, would not impact on what was currently delivered. The cohort would be tracked and their reduction in convictions, or otherwise, would be subject to the same scrutiny as was currently in operation.
In terms of the strategic direction the Integrated Offender Management Strategy for the Borough would remain as outlined to the Safer Stockton Partnership in October 2011. There was a possibility of linkage between IOM 2 and the emerging Troubled Families programme, which emphasised a joined-up approach to families presenting problems of offending, lack of school inclusion and worklessness, depending on further details awaited from the Department for Communities and Local Government.
A further report would be presented in June outlining any emerging issues and identify any changes in performance.
|Members were provided with the Serious Violent Crime Scanning Document from April 2011 - January 2012.|
|Members were provided with the 5,222 responses to the Tackling Crime and Disorder Audit consultation that was carried out during the summer of 2010, only a third of respondents (1,719) indicated that they had read the magazine. Of these, 38% said they felt safer after reading the magazine (652 respondents), 55% said they felt no difference (952 respondents) and only 4% felt less safe (59 respondents). The report provided the full detail to Members.|
|Members were provided with a copy of the Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust's press release in response to the findings of the recent Offender Management 2 Inspection, together with the press release from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP).|
|Following approval of the DHR policy for Stockton, members of the partnership agreed that that it would be prudent to establish a financial resource which could be used should a domestic homicide occur in Stockton. The potential costs of staging a review had been estimated at £20,000 with the cost of appointing an independent chair up to £500.00 per day.|
It was agreed that all responsible authorities should be approached for a non-recurring contribution of £2,000 towards a fund which the partnership would use in the event of a homicide.
To date a total of £8,644 has been secured from the following:
- £2,000 contribution from Stockton on Tees PCT
- £2,000 contribution from Cleveland Police
- £2,000 contribution from Durham/Tees Valley Probation Trust
- £2,000 contribution from SBC Community Safety
- £644.00 contribution from 2012/13 SSCF allocation
|Further to the discussion at the last meeting of the Partnership, on 14 February 2012, proposals for the services to be provided by Harbour in 2012/13 were provided. Key volumes were still to be agreed.|
This document was considered at the meeting of the Domestic Violence Strategy Group on 5 March 2012. Agreement to the principle of funding flexibility by all SBC budget managers, along with the decision by Harbour to re-locate their office space from West Row to the Refuge, had made it possible for Harbour to redirect resources within the range of services so as to run the Refuge more efficiently and improve community services. In particular, this included reinstatement of a dedicated role of Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA), which had been temporarily discontinued following the cessation of Home Office funding, and which would register support for the MARAC process to its former level.
It was proposed to agree this service pattern with Harbour for an initial period of 6 months i.e. April to September 2012, with a view to a 12 month extension once the outcomes of relevant Efficiency, Improvement and Transformation (EIT) Reviews within the Council were determined.