|The minutes of the meeting held on 25th September 2012 were presented to Members. There were 2 amendments to the minutes:-|
1. AGM/Register of Interests - correct Superintendent Simpson's surname.
2. Proposal for a preferred provider network - Add the following paragraph:-
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 Children & Young People's issues, and felt unable to support the proposal in its current form.
|Letters from James Wharton MP and Alex Cunningham MP were emailed to Members.|
|Members were provided with the minutes of the Safeguarding Adults Committee of 18th September 2012.|
|Members were provided with the notes from the Scanning and Challenge Group of 3rd October 2012.|
Members were asked whether Counter Terrorism still needed to be reported at every meeting. It was agreed that this item could be removed from the agenda for the time being.
Rationalisation of Partnership Boards
Members were informed that ACPO were visiting the North East in February scrutinising police presence on Partnership Boards with a view to rationalising partnership boards. SSP were not aware of this and the matter would be looked into further.
|Members were provided with a report to provide information to members to enable a discussion regarding alcohol related offending in the Borough of Stockton.|
It was reported that the Social Norms pilot that had taken place in schools was going to be repeated again. Research from the pilot study indicated that 56% of young people who were drinking alcohol were getting it from their parents. Members felt that we needed to get the right message across indicating health problems caused from drinking.
It was stated that Harbour and Lifeline would be doing some referral work together.
Discussion was held on the minimum unit price for alcohol and whether this may have an impact. It was noted that the consultation had not yet begun for introducing a minimum unit price and that more information would be presented once the consultation had started.
It was felt that there needed to be more national advertising campaigns.
Discussion was held on ways to encourage young people not to drink alcohol as well as the need to educate parents. The Chair stated that we needed to look at best practice methods.
It was stated that we should be targeting staff with appropriate key messages during Alcohol and Drug Awareness week.
|Members were provided with a report that sets out the recorded crime and anti-social behaviour figures for April - September 2012/13 compared to the same period in 2011/12 . Overall crime was currently down by 6.2% and ASB incidents were down by 25.1%. Of note, shoplifting was now included as a separate category but it was also included within other theft.|
Members would like to see what was being done generally as a deterrent to anti social behaviour by young people. Jane Humphreys would provide a report to the next meeting.
There had been an increase in the proportion of anti social behaviour incidents reported to the ASB Team and members requested information on what measures had been put in place to encourage reporting.
It was reported that Durham University were doing some research on profiles on first time entrants.
|Members were provided with the Community Safety Plan Quarter 2 performance.|
It was noted that focus groups would be held in January 2013.
Members were pleased with the figures and felt that the information should be put in Stockton News in the new year.
It was requested that some more information be provided on the reduction of 53% in violence with injury.
|Members were provided with the Youth Offending Service Quarter 2 Performance.|
Members requested that they be provided with comparison data for other similar authorities against these figures for future meetings.
|This report addresses issues discussed at the last meeting of the Partnership, on 25 September, and proposed a revised way forward.|
A well-managed consultation programme would also bring significant benefits above and beyond the legitimacy of the resulting Plan, full detail of the proposals were provided within the report.
Funding the consultation programme was estimated to be around £30k which could be made up as follows:-
Use of SSP reserves inc DHR reserve £13,000
Specific contributions to consultation programme:
DTV Trust - £1,500
Police - £1,000
SBC - £4,500
Fire Brigade - £1,250
PCC - £1,250
Health (PCT/CCG) - £1,500
DAAT - £3,000
Tristar Homes - £3,000
|The Government was seeking to increase the use and availability of Restorative Justice within communities. In order to support this, Restorative Solutions, a Community Interest Company (CIC) have been appointed to support the development of two national programmes, one of which involves the setting up of Restorative Justice Panels.|
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was looking to encourage local groups to form Neighbourhood Justice Panels (NJPs) with the aim of dealing with local crime, disorder and other disputes and problems using restorative approaches. The NJPs were made up of a range of organisations/groups including representatives from community safety partnerships, police, probation and youth offending teams, ASB teams, social housing organisations and volunteers from the local community.
Members suggested that Trevor Watson be invited to a future meeting to provide a presentation to the partnership.
Some Government funding had already been allocated for restorative justice. Lucia Saiger had already introduced some work around restorative justice, however it was noted that there were different tiers.
It was suggested that a pre meeting be held to identify what work was already taking place to ensure that nothing was duplicated.
|The Local Government Association had produced a report entitled Anti-Social Behaviour - Emerging practice from call handling and case management trials. This report outlined best practice and provided some practical examples of effective processes. In order to ensure that the current system for carrying out risk assessments and supporting repeat callers in Stockton was effective we were proposing to make some slight changes to the existing procedures. Members were asked to note the following, and agree the two points that were listed below detailing re-risk assessment and changing the wording of one of the questions used in our ASB form:-|
Within our current risk assessment process we followed best practice by risk assessing all callers who were reporting anti-social behaviour using the vulnerability risk assessment' form. This form used a scoring system which would indicate a high, medium or low risk, of which all high risk cases were referred to the Victim Witness Support Officer; those at Medium were referred using officer discretion usually in agreement with the Victim Witness Support Officer. Low risk callers were not referred.
To improve and develop our services further there was a recommendation in the report to improve the performance of caseloads' through the re-risk assessment of a client's vulnerability to monitor client's levels at agreed intervals whilst working on open cases. Currently the ASB Team only risk assesses vulnerability at first contact. It was proposed that re-risk assessment was implemented to monitor potential increase / decrease in the level of risk and vulnerability and that support would be adjusted accordingly.
It was proposed to change the multiple choice options in question 10 "How do you feel by what has happened?" from "not at all, affected a little, moderately affected, affected a lot, and extremely affected" to "not at all, changed routine or avoid locations, distressed, affected physical or mental health." It was felt that these options offer more insight and would provide more in-depth detail on the impact on the person enabling us to better understand the effect of the ASB on that person.
|There was a fair amount of activity taking place such as a police community event, candidates interview on Radio Cleveland, hustings etc.|
|The Listening and Learning - Improving support for victims in Cleveland report outlines the findings from the Victims Services Advocates (VSA) project. The project was commissioned by the former Victims Commissioner in anticipation of the arrival of the PCC for Cleveland. This paper to the Safer Stockton Partnership outlined the key findings of the report along with the final recommendations which the VSA had suggested the incoming PCC takes into consideration.|
Victim Support were hoping that the PCC would recognise the importance of their role and taking victims comments and questions forward on their behalf.
|Members were provided with a project initiation document for ANEC and North East Public Sector Prisons Partnership - Reduce Re-offending.|
It was noted that the interim report should be ready between December - March, with the final report being available in June 2013.
It was suggested that Mike Batty request more information on timescales with the possibility of ANEC providing an update to Members of the Partnership.
|Members were provided with an update from Peter Kelly, Director of Public Health. The transition process was on target. The Strategy for Public Health had been approved by full Council which had 2 key aims:- Health inequalities and giving every child the best start.|
Members were updated on the work of the Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board. The Board would come out of shadow form on 1st April 2013. The constitution had not been determined as yet as the recommendations from the LGA Peer Review were currently being considered.
|Tees Valley was one of the 15 areas in England invited to prepare bids against this programme, to which BLF have committed £100 million, targeted on adults with needs in relation to at least three of the four priority issues i.e. reoffending, substance misuse, homelessness and mental health.|