|A further amendment was made to the item 'Minutes of the meeting held on 25th September 2012' to provide an additional paragraph to the item 'Proposal for a Preferred Provider Network' an item that was considered at the meeting on 25th September 2012. The paragraph was as follows:-|
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.
|These matters would be addressed later in the agenda.|
|It was reported that funding was now in place for a Skateboard/BMX Park at John Whitehead Park.|
|Members were provided with the minutes of the YOS Management Board from 31st October 2012. The following issues were highlighted:|
- Inspection regime by HMI Probation would continue
- New remand framework
- Focus on looked after children
|Members were provided with an update on the reorganisational changes within Cleveland Police. A presentation had been provided at Ladgate Lane to discuss the proposed restructure.|
It was noted that interviews were being held today for the Chief Superintendent of Neighbourhood Policing and the other Chief Superintendents. The Chief Constable had set up a team to consider the structure and provide a preferred structure.
The preferred structure would be looked at in further detail to come into force April 2014.
It was suggested that the new Chief Superintendent of Neighbourhood Policing be invited to a future meeting.
|Members were provided with a presentation on criminal damage. The headlines were as follows:|
- Police and Crime Commissioner: " cutting, crime and disorder "
- retain and develop neighbourhood policing
- strong and swift response to ASB within 24 hours
- better deal for victims and witnesses
- divert people from offending focus on rehabilitation and the prevention of re-offending
Information was provided on performance measures, repeat victims, offences by ward etc.
The Partnership's challenges for 2012/13 were as follows:
- where do we foresee the risks/gaps
- what's our current approach and its success and how does it impact on finance
- what as a partnership can we do to build upon future success
- increased population/potential for swelling damage/housing providers response
Junior Neighbourhood Watch had suggested working with the Police to assist with a yearly campaign that could be rolled out into schools.
Discussion was held on alcohol fuelled criminal damage. It was reported that the night-time economy was controlled but there have been instances of criminal damage when people were on their way home.
Intensive work had been taking place in Thornaby with asylum seekers as many not reporting crimes as they were awaiting residency. It was reported that the UK Border Agency was taking a long time to determine cases and in the mean time asylum seekers were reluctant to report any criminal damage. It was stated that the 'coloured door' system was an issue. It was suggested that a representative of the Regional Refugee Forum be invited to a future meeting.
The next update on criminal damage would be in July.
|Members of the Safer Stockton Partnership had been sent a number of completed extracts of the PSA prior to the meeting for information and consideration.|
It was proposed that the full PSA would be circulated to all members of SSP via secure email prior to the meeting on the 5th February 2013. At this meeting members would then be requested to consider the document and agree the future recommendations for the forthcoming strategic period.
|Members were provided with the recorded crime and anti-social behaviour figures for April - October 2012 compared to the same period in 2011/12. Overall, total recorded crime had reduced by 5.1% and ASB incidents had reduced by 23.5%. |
|Members were provided with the DAAT Quarter 2 performance monitoring report.|
It was noted that there had been a change in the national recording measures for clients leaving treatment to be free of alcohol as well as drugs.
|Members were provided with the meeting dates for 2013/14 which were as follows:-|
7th May 2013
9th July 2013
27th August 2013
1st October 2013
5th November 2013
10th December 2013
28th January 2014
25th March 2014
6th May 2014
|Members were provided with the proposals and questions on five key areas set out in the Government's Alcohol Strategy (the Strategy'), published on 23 March 2012: |
the price level and mechanisms for a minimum unit price for alcohol;
introducing a ban on multi-buy promotions in the off-trade (see glossary);
reviewing the mandatory licensing conditions;
introducing health as a licensing objective for cumulative impact; and
reducing the burden of regulation on responsible businesses.
In the Strategy, the Government committed to introducing a minimum unit price. However, in other areas, this consultation seeks views on the introduction of policies. Respondents were asked about introducing a ban on multi-buy promotions in the off-trade (premises that were only authorised to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as shops and off-licences) and the introduction of health as a licensing objective for cumulative impact policies. This consultation also formed part of the review of the mandatory licensing conditions (sometimes called the Mandatory Code) in relation to the sale of alcohol. It also asks about a number of proposals to reduce burdens on responsible business and support local growth.
It was suggested that a full response be drafted to the consultation, to be submitted with the Chair's approval, before the closure of the consultation period. Partners were requested to submit any comments to David Kitching at [email protected] before 25 January 2013 who would prepare the draft response taking on board any comments received.
The Partnership's response should be based on the following principles:-
(a) continuing support for the principle of Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP)
(b) a preference for MUP at the level of 50p per unit of alcohol
(c) support for a ban on multi-buy promotions
(d) support for including the promotion of public health as a licensing objective for the purpose of all decisions on alcohol licensing (and not only for cumulative impact policies)
(e) a cautious approach to the proposed liberalisation of ancillary sales of alcohol
(f) a cautious approach to the proposed liberalisation of the scope of Temporary Event Notices (TENs), taking into account the potential impact on neighbours
(g) a proposal that the Government should undertake a fiscal assessment of the impact of introducing Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP), weighing the increased VAT return against the reduced sales, and any surplus generated should be passported to local authorities for investment in enforcement of MUP and improvement in community-based alcohol treatment
(h) the need for the Government to identify in far more detail what enforcement responsibilities and options would be created in respect of MUP, and the desirability of creating offences of both selling alcohol at below MUP and permitting alcohol to be sold at below MUP.
|Paul Lockwood - Stockton Police and Alex Evison-McCabe - IOM Team were in attendance at the meeting with a known high crime causer to discuss in depth why he has caused so many crimes in the past to help Members consider how crime could be reduced for those that repeatedly offend.|
The main issues that were brought out of the discussion were as follows:
- Loss of income/job
- lost home as a result of losing job, placed in hostel accommodation in Stockton despite having a family and having always lived in Billingham
- Drug users, shoplifters etc. already living in hostels encourage new people coming into the hostel to do the same
- only one meal per day in hostel need to steal to feed children etc.
- Drug addiction - need to steal to feed habit
- Security poor in some shops
- Stealing to order
- Lack of family support
- Being prescribed methadone when still on drugs/ should be drugs tested before being prescribed methadone.
Members asked about how his life was now and what had changed things. It was stated that family support which had enabled him to stabilise his home life had been a major factor and the help that he had received from Probation to enable him to submit bids to rent a flat, as often he had been previously turned away as he was a high crime causer.
Members thanked him for coming to the meeting and speaking openly to Members.
|Members were provided with a presentation by David Willingham, Integrated Youth Support Service and Joanne Nelson, Preventions Team C-ordinator.|
Members were provided with information on targeted youth support including the 'This is Me' risk taking behaviour tool kit, hotspot areas for outreach, partnership working, targeted work for young people involved in ASB and at risk of school exclusion. Case studies were provided.
Members of the Partnership requested that some targeted work with young people that were in the care system or living in hostels/temporary accommodation. Members also asked that work be carried out to find out how many 16 and 17 year olds were living in hostels/B&B's.
It was requested that information be provided to Councillors on the service so that they could advertise in their newsletters.
|A report was submitted to the Safer Stockton Partnership in October 2011 outlining the initial findings from an Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR) and Alcohol Specified Activity Requirement (ASAR) order pilot. It was agreed at that time that a further report would be submitted in an attempt to provide a clearer picture of the impact of these orders as at the time of the original report the data available on both offending and alcohol behaviour was limited.|
Members were provided with an indepth progress report. The following recommendations were made:-
1.1 To re-establish regular meetings which include both strategic and operation staff.
1.2 To explore the benefit of doing an in-depth piece of analysis to find the true cost versus benefit figure.
1.3 To explore the notion of identifying and adopting different strategies for the sub groups outlined within section 4.
1.4 To identify if the outlined orders should a) be available on a recurrent basis b) presented to the Police Crime Commissioner to secure investment.
Members held discussion on the report. It was felt that alcohol was playing a major part in crime within the Borough. It was stated that recurrent funding was not in place therefore the future of the service was uncertain. It was felt that it would be useful to identify the cost benefits against the cost of the orders.
|An Anti-Social Behaviour Order was only available for those aged 10 years and over and in Stockton we had followed this guideline for our prevention work with young people. However, it had been noted that some incidents do involve young people under the age of 10 and there was also evidence of some younger siblings being involved in the behaviour of older brothers and sisters. This had led to a situation where the Community Safety team monitor these individuals and no action was taken until they were over 10 years old. It had been agreed that this could lead to the victims of ASB perpetrated by those under 10 feeling as though no sanctions or consequences had occurred which could reduce confidence in the Community Safety team and deter future reports. In addition to this there was also a risk of the perpetrators behaviour escalating.|
An under 10's procedure had been developed to make parents of young people under 10 aware of their child's behaviour and try to offer support at a young age to prevent their behaviour escalating. This process would be dealt with in a sensitive way to ensure we were mindful of their understanding and referrals to support services would be made for vulnerable young people and their families. It was proposed that this procedure would link in with the Family Intervention Project (FIP) as well as other areas of Children Education and Social Care (CESC) Colleagues from CESC had been sent a copy of the procedure and a meeting would be arranged to discuss the procedure further. Consultation with Cleveland Police had also been carried out and they supported this policy.
Whilst it was anticipated that this policy would be used rarely it was recommended that the Partnership support its implementation and recognise how effective it could be in preventing a young person from being involved in further anti-social behaviour and criminal activity.
Members were provided with a full copy of the procedure.
|Members were provided with a report on arrests and drug treatment history. 100 selected arrests covering a range of offences from various categories and times were examined. The main findings were highlighted for Members information.|
|A meeting was held with partners from Probation, Community Safety, Tristar Homes and Trevor Watson, Restorative Solutions.|
At the meeting an indepth discussion was held and it was felt that there was an opportunity to develop a project which focused solely on victims and perpetrators of ASB as Restorative Practice (RP) could be seen as a useful resource in some cases prior to embarking on further sanctions through the courts or with housing providers.
The project would consist of the establishment of a virtual team' of 10 trained practitioners from a number of partner organisations full detail of this was provided within the report.
As part of the training package there would also be a community briefing as well as a one day training/awareness raising session for partners who are likely to refer cases for consideration for RP.
In terms of cost implications there was a requirement to cover all venue and refreshment costs for the sessions. An additional cost implication would also apply in the unlikely event that the session had to be cancelled.
It was recommended that subject to the approval of the Partnership the next steps of the process were to complete and sign the training contract and negotiate with Restorative Solutions suitable training dates and times.
|Members were provided with the Executive Summary of the Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016. An event would be held on 22nd January at 2pm at Ladgate Lane to comment on the full plan.|