|There were no declarations of interest.|
|The minutes of the meeting held on 25th March 2014 were approved subject to John Bentley being listed in those present rather than apologies.|
|Members were provided with an update on the business case for funding presented to the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Business case had included funding for Youth Diversion Schemes, Domestic Violence Advisors, reducing reoffending.|
An update would be reported to a future meeting.
|There were no reports back.|
|There were no items of any other business identified.|
|The minutes of the Safeguarding Adults Peer Review held on 8 April 2014 were noted.|
|Members considered a report that set out the recorded crime and anti-social behaviour figures for April 2013 - March 2014 compared to the same time period in 2012/13.|
The Partnership noted some of the key findings for the period:-
Stockton had, once again seen a further reduction in total crime; with 207 fewer crimes recorded a 1.8% decrease.
Alongside this, those which were victim based (public reported) have also reduced by 94 crimes (-0.9%).
Comparisons with our peers also showed that once again Stockton was the safest place to live in the Tees Valley area based upon crime rates per 1000 population for both publicly and total crime.
Reductions had been seen in all but four crime categories - Rape, robbery business, shoplifting and Other Theft.
Despite shoplifting showing an increase this period, this was comparative to the first six months of the financial year when shoplifting was showing a 17.4% increase. This was also similar for Other Theft (16.8% increase first six months of the year).
Offences of burglary domestic had reduced by 96 crimes, averaging 1.18 offences a day. This compared to 5.6 offences ten years ago.
Violence had also continued to reduce by a further 89 crimes, with majority of the decrease linked to violence with injury (-60 offences).
However, incidents of anti-social behaviour had increased this 12 month period by 1149 incidents (9.5%) which was a similar picture across the Tees Valley area.
The Partnership considered the figures to be very encouraging and were testimony to the partnership working. Members noted the increase in ASB, which may continue over the summer, however, it was envisaged that programmes would offset help keep incidents to a minimum.
Members noted that a national report on Police Crime recording had indicated a under reporting of Crime. The Police representative indicated that the report specific to Cleveland would be available soon and he did not anticipate there being any criticism of recording as the process for recording and checking was extremely robust. It was noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner worked with the Chief Constable on this issue and he scrutinises the recording of crime.
|The Partnership received a report that provided an overview on the Community Safety Plan (CSP) targets that were implemented in April 2011.|
Members highlighted the need to review the target 2.1 'Increase the number of section 27 notices issued'.
Noted that target 2.3 Reduce the number of alcohol related crimes for those on an ASAR' had not been met. It was suggested that this may be a blip. Geoff Evans would be able to provide information on this at the next meeting.
Members noted that the Night time economies had developed in the Borough, including Norton and Billingham. It would be important to monitor these in case any issues started to emerge.
|The Partnership received a report relating to performance in Stockton on Tees Youth Offending Service.|
It was noted that performance had been very strong and the best for many years. It was explained that out of court disposals had assisted with this as had early interventions schemes, the troubled families programme and a reduction in youth alcohol consumption.
|Members considered a monitoring report for the Alcohol Strategy/ Action Plan. |
The report provided RAG rated text that provided members with details of the position relating to a range of issues covering to prevention, treatment and control. Ratings were also provided for performance measures within the Alcohol Action Plan.
|Members received a report relating to the ASB Act and Community Trigger Arrangements.|
Members were reminded that when this matter had previously been considered by the Part ship there had been queries relating to the possibility of the new legislation leading to an increase in reporting.
To provide some clarity around this Members were informed that the definition/test of ASB for the new Injunction to replace the ASBO had remained the same as the current definition of conduct that has caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress where the ASB was not housing related. For residential/housing related ASB the definition/test would be conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. Members noted that this two stage test should have no impact on how ASB would continue to be reported or investigated as the Council already used the two powers of the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) and Housing ASB Injunction (ASBI) that had the separate definitions, the new legislation had grouped these current powers in to one Injunction that could be used for both Community and Housing related ASB. At present the commencement date for the provision of the new Injunction was still to be determined and the Council would continue to make applications for ASBOs until a commencement date was known.
As part of the in-depth discussion on ASB later this year there would be a review into whether the change to using the new powers had had an impact on the levels of reported incidents.
Members noted that, as previously reported with the definition of ASB remaining the same the procedures for case development and interventions would remain the same with the option of enforcement action with the ASBOs being replaced by the Injunction. The Council would be keeping the process of looking to prevention and support to address the ASB before looking at any enforcement action.
With regard to the Community Trigger it was explained that it had been given a commencement date of 13th May 2014. At the last meeting the proposed threshold and procedure for Stocktons Community Trigger process was discussed and it was agreed that the relevant agencies would meet separately to agree this.
Members were provided with the Community Trigger Process and an associated process flowchart.
It was explained that the process would be displayed on the Council's web site. The Council's legal team would act as the first point of contact for someone wishing to activate the trigger.
Community Trigger activations would be reported to the Partnership and shared with the PCC.
|Members received a report that provided reponses to queries, asked at the Partnership's last meeting, relating to the Give it a Go initiative. Members had asked for the information prior to endorsing a £2,500 contribution to the initiative.|
It was noted that the PCC would provide on-going quality assurance in terms of checking the details of the groups and removing any that were deemed to be inappropriate.
It was queried how many groups were involved and it was indicated that this information would be forwarded to members.
|Members considered a schedule of planned reports for 2014/15.|
It was suggested that ASB be brought forward to December and Criminal Damage be slipped to February.
|Members considered a letter sent to the Chairman by the Council's CEO that raised concerns of Cllr Rose relating to the link between the sex industry and children at risk and them possibly entering the care system.|
It was noted that the Local Safeguarding Children Board had received a similar letter and would consider it. It was explained that this was not a major issue from a Child protection point of view.
It was noted that this Partnership had considered issues relating to sex workers but not from a child protection point of view.
It was suggested that discussions between appropriate partners, who were carrying out work in this area, take place and a response be made. The Partnership would revisit this matter when the work referred to had been completed. A response would be sent to the Chief Executive Officer explaining what the Partnership intended.
|Members were provided with Stockton Borough Council's Adult Safeguarding Report following the North East Regional Peer Challenge Programme.|
The focus of the Challenge had been on outcomes rather than strategies. Feedback had been extremely positive.
Members were reminded that one of the areas of consideration was that SSP could cover 'vulnerable people' as a priority. To help with this it had been agreed that reference would be made to prioritising the most vulnerable in the Community Safety Plan 14/17
|The Partnership was provided with a report that presented the HMICs report on Cleveland's Police's approach to tackling domestic abuse.|
It was noted that the report highlighted much effective work being done to tackle domestic abuse there were several areas for improvement that the Force would need to address. HMIC found:
- A lack of knowledge among call handlers as to the definitions of a repeat or a vulnerable victim.
- room for improvement in the training of staff and some officers around the complex issues and variety of forms that abuse could take.
- with regard to management of risk, that there was scope to tighten the continuing review of risk for medium risk victims and there was a lack of awareness in some response teams as to support that was available to victims.
- some weaknesses in the systems for ensuring the police's prisoner handling team routinely kept victims updated when a perpetrator was released without charge following initial arrest. There was also a need to do more to tackle the behaviour of the most serious domestic abuse perpetrators.
A number of recommendations had been made and these were the subject of a Force Action Plan.
The partnership agreed that there were lots of positives in the report and noted that the Action Plan had already been formulated and progress on this was expected quickly.
Members asked a number of questions about the report.
There was a discussion about the gender of victims of domestic abuse and the need to recognise the needs of male victims. It was noted that these comments would be fed into officers delivering the action plan.
|The Partnership received a presentation relating to Youth Direction and ASB Team Patrols initiative.|
Members noted what the project aimed to do which included:
- Promoting the Youth Direction offer in the designated area.
- adding value to existing diversionary programmes.
- help develop an area based responsive Youth Direction offer
Members were informed of how the project worked and noted the challenges involved. It was hoped the initiative would :-
- provide stronger partnership working.
- support the development of a tiered approach with targeted young people.
- contributing to delivery of Thornaby ASB partnership project at the Youthy.
- integral to the delivery of activity in The Hub/Billingham
- flexible model that would transfer to other ASB hotspots.
Members agreed that the initiative was extremely positive and were particularly pleased with the flexibility of the initiative to move areas when necessary and the positive feedback from the young people concerned.
It was agreed that an update on the initiative be provided in the autumn and possibly as part of the in depth review of ASB
|Members received a report relating to work, that was progressing, in relation to the formal wind up of probation services and a move to a National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company.|
Members were also provided with the most recent newsletter from the ROM reference group.
|Members were informed that partners would be working together in a joint initiative to promote the positive image of Stockton Town Centre. This would include:|
- Neighbourhood Enforcement and Anti-Social behaviour staff being highly visible at high activity times.
- Information being highlighted via posters, flyers, market stalls
- work with licensed premises reminding them of their responsibilities
- enforcement officers on the river
This would be reviewed after 6 months. This was specifically linked to the regeneration works but may be rolled out to other Town Centres.
|There were no reports back.|