In accordance with the Partnership Constitution, the first meeting after 1st September served as the Annual General Meeting.
The business conducted was the appointment of Chair and Vice Chair and of representatives on other bodies.
A list of the appointments to be made, and of the current office holders and representatives, were detailed within the report.
1. Geoff Lee be appointed Chair.
2. Jane Humphreys be appointed Vice Chair.
3. Superintendent Alastair Simpson and Lucia Saiger - Alastair Simpson be appointed as representatives on Stockton Renaissance.
Register of Interests
Over the last two months the Partnerships register of interests had undergone its annual update. Responses had been received from all active members of the Partnership, and all but three had declared nil returns.
Councillor Jim Beall had declared that he had a relative who was employed by CRI, who provide a range of services commissioned via DAAT funding, and Tina Williams had declared her involvement with the Bridges Family and Carers Service, which was well known to members of the Partnership, although Tina represented the Central Area Partnership Board on the Safer Stockton Partnership.
Sam Millward-Gibbons had reported that she received funding from Tristar Homes for Junior Neighbourhood Watch.
AGREED that the Register of Interests report be noted.
|The representative from the Northern Area Partnership Board reported that a pilot scheme aimed at educating young people against dangers of drug taking was being run in schools in the Billingham area. The organiser of the scheme would like to come to a future meeting of the Partnership to outline what the scheme involved.|
Members felt that any scheme that diverted young people away from drugs was a good initiative but felt that the organiser should probably present their scheme to a future meeting of DAART rather than the Partnership at this stage.
|Members received a presentation from Stockton Drug Treatment Services Working Together for Recovery. The presentation covered the following key areas:-|
* Access to Services
* Engaging Service Users to Achieve Successful Completions
* Sustained Recovery
Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the presentation.
|Members received a presentation on violent crime by Alastair Simpson (Cleveland Police). The presentation covered the following key areas:-|
* The figures for:-
- all violence
- serious violence
- Assault with injury
- Assault without injury
- Other violence
* What the Police know
* Violent Crime Targets
* What the Police are doing
Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the presentation.
|Consideration was given to a report that set out the recorded crime and anti-social behaviour figures for April - August 2012/13 compared to the same period in 2011/12. Overall crime was down by 8% and ASB incidents were down by 24.5%. Of note, shoplifting was included as a separate category but it was also included within other theft.|
The Police reported that the figures should now be split into two areas:-
* Publically reported crime
* Police generated crime
|Members received the DAAT Quarterly Performance Report 2012/13. The report covered the following key areas:-|
* Numbers of Adults in Drug Treatment
* Top three drugs for those in treatment
* Successful completion
* Re-represent rates
* Arrest referral
* 18 year olds in treatment
* Employment and Training
* Drug rehabilitation requirements
* Young People
Members asked if the Police could feedback the DV's??? from the custody suite. The Police confirmed that they would be happy to do this.
|Since 1998 the Safer Stockton Partnership had carried out five cycles of consultation with local people about the priorities on which the Community Safety Plan for the borough should be based, the number of responses had steadily increased numbers as follows:-|
1998 - 150
2001 - 1,500
2004 - 2,500
2007 - 4,000
2010 - 5,222
Over the years the Partnership had used organisational memory of what had worked well and used an increasing variety of response mechanisms to generate and improve response rates. Whilst it was anticipated that the Partnership would continue to see an increase in the number of responses via the web, it was likely that most responses would once again come from face to face consultation.
A key element of the consultation strategy had been keeping the faith with respondents and a core aim of this approach had been to inform residents and thereby reduce fear of crime whilst raising awareness of relevant crime reduction measures that needed to be considered. Analysis from 2010 showed that after reading the accompanying consultation magazine 42% of respondents felt that they were well informed, 24% did not feel well informed and the views of 34% were unknown. After reading the magazine 35% of respondents felt safer, 55% felt no difference and only 4% felt less safe.
The consultation would support three key aims:-
1) Provide legitimacy to the Partnership's medium term target planning
2) Educate the public on crime and ASB in Stockton enabling them to make an informed choice on future priorities
3) Reduce the fear of crime and ASB
Using this tried and tested approach coupled with knowledge from the Partnership Strategic Assessment would assist with ensuring that the Safer Stockton Partnership continued to:-
- Contribute towards a reduction in crime and the fear crime
- Provide community reassurance as well as give local residents the opportunity to influence decisions in their area
- Identify and deal with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime through a partnership approach
- Highlight the level of satisfaction of different groups with the way the police and local council deal with anti-social behaviour
- Enable the partnership to gain an understanding of the current issues and views of local people in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour.
The 2011/12 Partnership Strategic Assessment would help to direct the content of the audit document. This would be completed in December 2012 and would identify any emerging trends, ongoing issues and areas of concern.
The target in Consultation 2010 was for a total of 5,000 responses. A total of 5,222 responses was achieved, an increase of 4% of the original target. It was proposed that for audit 2013 the Partnership looked to repeat this challenging target. Along with the following:-
a) Ensure responses of at least 1% per ward, in particular from wards with higher levels of crime and anti social behaviour and above average levels of fear of crime. In 2010 all wards achieved at least a 1% response rate.
b) To increase responses from the BME population to above 5% of the population. In 2010 4.7% was achieved.
c) To maintain responses from the 16 - 34 age group (sometimes defined as hard to reach) at 19%, the response rate in 2010 was 18.7%.
Interim costs for the production and delivery of the Audit document would be approximately £30,000. The proposed formula was detailed within the report.
The Council held the Partnership budget and this was a holding account whereby funds could be carried forward so any partner who would like to supply the funding in this financial year could do so.
Members were asked to consider and endorse the proposals set out for Audit 2013.
Members discussed the yearly contribution figures and the potential budget implications. It was outlined that in the future public health would come under a Council budget. The Police outlined that £7k would be difficult to find and that the CPA already did a number of surveys. A Member also felt that the Partnership should be applauded in carrying out the survey but the Partnership should look at the information the survey had provided and if it added value.
The Chair asked if any further thoughts could be sent in writing to Mike Batty.
|Members were presented with Police Crime Commissioner Business Cases for:-|
* Safer Stockton Partnership
* Youth Offending Services
* Drug & Alcohol Arrest Referral Service
Members requested the following:-
* A sentence be inserted outlining that there is currently a domestic violence review
* The actual cost of Habour
* What funding comes from PCT Streams as this will be changing
|Members were presented with a response to the Age Restricted Products and Services - A Code of Practice for Regulatory Delivery, Consultation Paper.|
The consultation built on the Age Restricted Products and Framework which was published in November 2011.
The code set out an approach for those that were responsible for regulatory delivery in this area that underpins the principles set out in the framework for regulators and enforcers in respect of compliance and enforcement activities undertaken in the area of age restricted products and services. It was structured in four sections:-
* prioritisation and targeting;
* working with businesses and communities;
* conduct of checks on compliance;
* and responses to non-compliance.
The proposal was that the draft code would be applicable to all local regulatory activities undertaken in England and Wales. It covered all products and services for which statutory age restrictions were in place including alcohol, cigarettes, gambling services and fireworks, and all relevant compliance and enforcement activities, whether in relation to premises, or to the online supply of these products and services.
Whilst the code was primarily aimed at local authorities, BRDO recommended that other enforcement agencies operating in this area also had regard to relevant provisions in this code.
The consultation would close on the 28th September 2012.
|A letter from Sultan Alam (PCC Candidate) was circulated to Members. |
|Members were presented with a report that outlined that the Government would be abolishing the Council Tax Benefit scheme and all Councils in England and Wales must replace this with a new Local Tax Support Scheme by April 2013.|
|Members were presented with the Neighbourhood Watch and associated Watch Schemes in Cleveland - Service Level Agreement 2012 - 2015.|
|It was reported that there was some on-going work with regard to awareness of people being radicalised.|
|Members were presented with the details of the Crown Prosecution Service reorganisation.|
|Members were provided with a report on a proposal for the development of a Preferred Provider Network to support the commissioning of services and facilitate engagement with local private and voluntary sector agencies.|
The proposal was written in the context of the forthcoming appointment of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and the need for the Commissioner, Probation Trust and others to engage effectively with, and commission community safety and criminal justice related services from local private, voluntary and community agencies.
The Preferred Provider Network could:-
Serve as a single point of contact for commissioners of services to source and develop services
Provide a single coordinated route to commissioning
Enable commissioning at scale - but using local small providers
Give a route for closed tenders of low value (under EU procurement rules)
Provide a forum to shape and develop local solutions
Facilitate a more structured analysis of need and provision across the area
Minimise risk by ensuring a minimum quality standard for inclusion
Work with existing (and developing) sector led strategic forums
Provide advice and support (and a platform) to local providers to enable them to tender for services.
It was proposed that the Network be developed as a pilot for an initial period of one year such that by October 2013 there would be a PPN ready to support a new approach to commissioning being part of the 2014/15 planning and budget process. It would then be for the PCC (and partners) to evaluate the success of the pilot and decide whether a PPN should be maintained and if so determine funding arrangements.
The report contained the supporting mechanisms and structure, Governance and implementation.
It was proposed that the development of the PPN would stimulate innovation in the design and delivery of services, contribute to a streamlined commissioning process, inform opportunities for the co-commissioning of services and shared budgets, and ultimately result in improved outcomes for the public of Cleveland.
It was reported that there had been separate discussions with the local voluntary sector. There was then a discussion about the name of the network and if it was appropraite as there seemed to be some confusion about whether this was a mapping exercise or if it was the commissioning of services.
Members of the Partnership expressed serious misgivings about the proposal as it stood, since it seemed not to take account of the development of the two local consortia of voluntary organisations, in relation to Health & Wellbeing issues and Childrens & Young Peoples issues, and felt unable to support the proposal in its current form.
As this was a pilot scheme it was requested that any further comments be submitted to Sarah Wilson or Mike Batty.
|Members requested that an item be put on the next meeting regarding alcohol pricing.|