|There were no interests declared.|
|Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 24th June 2014.|
|There were no matters arising.|
|There were no reports back.|
|There was no other business identified.|
|The notes of Scanning and Challange Group 17th July 2014 were noted.|
|Members considered an update on the Review of Troubled Families that provided an outline of the progress achieved during the second year (April 2013 to March 2014) of delivering the Troubled Families programme in Stockton, and provided an update on the future of the programme.|
The Council, along with all other principal local authorities in England, agreed to take part in the Governments Troubled Families programme over the three year period April 2012 - March 2015, and that the programme was targeted on families identified through a set of national criteria which include juvenile offending, involvement of any family member in Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), exclusion from school or unauthorised absence levels of 15% or more, and receipt of a range of worklessness benefits.
Contracts were set up with Tees Valley Housing (i.e. our existing Family Intervention Project - FIP) for 60% of the programme, which started on 1 August 2012 and with the VCS Synergy Consortium, supported by Catalyst, for the other 40%, which started on 1 October 2012, and the Consortium nominated A Way Out, the Childrens Society, Corner House Youth Project/KnowHow North East, and Eastern Ravens Trust as its four lead organisations for this work. It should be noted that there would be a formal change of name on the contract with Tees Valley Housing to Thirteen Care and Support, reflecting the formation of the Thirteen Group.
The profiles of family numbers to be allocated for the three years were provided along with a breakdown by ward. Based on the projections, the revised budget projections for the programme were also provided. It was noted that there was still a significant projected surplus over the three years, and that it was agreed by Cabinet on 13th June 2013 to use part of this to support a fourth year of programme delivery.
CLG classified a family as having been turned around when either the education, ASB and youth offending success conditions or the continuous employment success conditions had been achieved. Details of the success conditions were provided.
It was anticipated that Stockton would slip down the rankings to some extent when the next set of figures, including the February 2014 claims window, were published, as ninth position reflected the relatively rapid progress in Year One (2012/13), and other authorities were now catching up. The level of difficulty in achieving the employment outcomes varied across the country. However, it was anticipated that Stockton would maintain top quartile performance to the end of the programme. Louise Casey, the Director General of Troubled Families at CLG, wrote to the Chief Executive on 11th November 2013 expressing appreciation of Stocktons performance as really strong and well above the average. Following the May 2014 claims window there had claimed successes in the cases of 229 families, of which 211 met the CLG turned around definition, i.e a success rate of 46% to that point.
An independent evaluation of the work undertaken by Thirteen Care & Support (ranging across a mix of Troubled Families and Family Intervention Project cases) had been commissioned from Durham University.
The national evaluation programme commissioned by CLG was underway, and data had been supplied on a 10% sample of the Year One families for this purpose. Participation in this was as a Level 3 authority (there were four levels of participation, with Level 1 the most intense and detailed, and Level 4 the least).
On 24 June 2013 CLG announced a five year extension of the national programme from 2015/16 to 2019/20, likely to be funded at the level of £200 million per year i.e. £1 billion in total. The original three years, 2012/13 to 2014/15, were now referred to as Phase One, with the extra five being referred to as Phase Two or the Expanded Programme. The level of funding per family becomes less generous in Phase Two and details were provided.
CLG invited comments on the design of Phase Two. The following issues were raised as part of the response to that consultation:-
TIMING - the need to have all details in place by Autumn 2014, to allow for systems development and in order to retain staff on fixed term contracts
FUNDING - the need to avoid any further shift towards PBR because the financial risk to local authorities could make continued participation unattractive.
ELIGIBILITY - the need to allow for inclusion of a small proportion of families with children of pre-school age only.
RELAPSE - the need to recognise within the system that some cases would be closed and would subsequently need to be re-opened.
A new feature of our programme was incentivisation of families to join Tees Credit Union. Any adult in a family currently engaged with the programme who opens a TCU account and makes at least two deposits within the first eight weeks totalling at least £20 would receive an extra £20 paid into their account from TF funds. A limit of 250 adults (i.e. £5k) had been placed on this, but it was unlikely that take-up would get anywhere near this. This approach was based on a model developed by the national Illegal Money Lending Team and promoted - albeit with no success- to local taxi drivers, as a high risk group in terms of vulnerability to loan sharks. At the time of writing only one person had taken advantage of this offer.
In March 2014 CLG asked all participating local authorities to provide case studies, and the four local case studies submitted would be placed in the Members library.
For Year 3 of the Programme the former Head of Community Protection would be continuing to provide overall programme co-ordination and liaising with colleagues in the Children, Education and Social Care service group with a view to CESC leading on the delivery of Phase Two.
|The Partnership received information produced by Cleveland Police relating to criminal damage/mischief night. The main information included:-|
- Performance against set targets from criminal damage action plan.
- Crime levels
- Crime analysis
- Operational activity
- Forthcoming challenges.
Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions and make comment on the presentation and report and these could be summarised as follows:-
- Percentage of criminal damage crimes detected compared to other crimes?
- Communication of crimes caused issues when misleading information was shared on social media.
|Members were provided with information regarding the work being done with private landlords in the Stockton Town Centre area. The main information included:-|
- Hartington Road was a problematic area within the Town Centre with high numbers of criminal activity and anti-social behaviour(ASB).
- Work was being done with landlords from various organisations to discuss applications received for tenants before letting the properties. This was hopefully going to help with the criminal activity and ASB.
- A further meeting with the various organisations involved would meet in September.
- There was other areas within the borough that would benefit from similar work but Hartington Road was the first priority.
|Members considered a report that provided and overview on crime and anti-social behaviour levels in the borough of Stockton between April 14 to July 14. The information included:-|
- Between April and July 2014, both publicly reported (-8.9%) and total crime (-8.4%) had reduced.
- Comparisons with neighbouring local authority areas also showed that Stockton had seen the biggest reduction to date.
- Stockton also remained the safest place to live in relation to crime rates per 1000 population.
- Despite overall crime reducing, there had been increases in offences of violence, rape and burglary domestic.
- The end of year projection also showed a reduction of 4.5%, the biggest anticipated reduction compared to neighbouring local authorities.
- There was currently a slight increase in anti-social behaviour incidents (1.2%) giving an end of year projection of 10.2% however Stockton still had the lowest rate per 1000 population.
- There had been no significant changes to offending locations when compared to last year.
Members discussed the possiblity of doing a press release on the crime figures. It was agreed that it be reviewed after quarter 2 figures were reported.
|Consideration was given to the Youth Offending Service quarter 1 performance.|
|Consideration was given to the Community Safety quarter 1 performance report.|
|Members were provided with information regarding drug testing when an arrest had been made. Ian Coates (Cleveland Police) confirmed that drug testing did take place but, if it was a known drug user then testing would not be done. It was questioned whether this approach could be changed as the known drug user could be in treatment and any information could be helpful to the various organisations involved with them.|
|Members received an update regarding the Transforming Rehabilitation Strategy. Jeff Evans (DTV CRC) provided the following information:-|
- The ??? service split from 1st June 2014 and now operated as 2 seperate services.
- Probabtion would deal with all high risk that would be approximatley 350 cases. CRC would look at all other cases approximatley 650.
|Members received an update regards Stockton Town Centre. The main information included:-|
- The work currently being done with Hartington Road as reported at item 11.
- There had been 1 report of anti-social behaviour(ASB) and 1 ASB order.
|Members were provided with a copy of letter from the Home Office that announced the date of commencement for the new ASB powers with the Community Trigger and Community Remedy to be the 20th October. There was no detail of a Commencement Order on the Home Office/Government website yet and the Table of Commencement dates on the Government website was still showing to be determined as the date of commencement for the ASB powers, so we were in the process of attempting to gain further confirmation that the 20th October had been set as the date.|
A meeting had been arranged with SBC legal this month to work on amending the procedures to incorporate the new Injunction and Community Trigger process, ensuring we had any new procedures and documentation in place prior to commencement for Officers to familiarise themselves with and include in any training.
|There were no reports back.|
|Members were provided with a report that gave details on sex workers in Stockton. Details were provided of the work being undertaken and what the data collected told Stockton regarding sex workers in the borough.|