Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.  Apologies for absence were reported on behalf of Mike Sandys (Chair of the Substance Misuse Board), Jane Moore (County Council Safer Communities lead), Cllr. Steve Corrall (Leicestershire Fire Authority), and Chief Supt. Sally Healy (Leicestershire Police).

The Chairman sought and obtained the consent of the Board to vary the order of business from that set out in the agenda.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2014 were taken as read and confirmed as a correct record.

Community Safety Partnership Information Sharing (minute 52)

Cllr. Graham confirmed that he had received a letter from James Fox about information which needed to be shared and and would consider the matter further.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interests in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.  He declared a personal interest in safer communities issues as a member of Melton Borough Council.

It was noted that all members who were also members of a District or Borough (or Parish or Town) Councils would have personal interests in issues which related to areas covered by those authorities. 

Gurjit Samra-Rai – Leicestershire County Council

The Board considered a report from Gurjit Samra-Rai giving an overview of the sub-regional strategic approach to Anti-Social Behaviour, including work which had been undertaken in preparation for the implementation of the ASB, Crime, and Policing Act 2014 which would become law in October.

The Chairman referred to minute 57 of the previous meeting and confirmed that Melton Borough Council’s Cabinet would consider the Community Trigger proposals shortly.  It was noted that not all partners in fact required approval by their Cabinets or equivalent. 

In response to questions from the Board, Gurjit said that -

·       There were links with the JAGs (the report just highlighted certain issues and this had not been included).  Terms of reference and minimum standards would be amended in the light of the JAG review.

·       She would circulate a paper which all partners could use as the basis for reports to their organisations.

·       The County Council’s Community Safety Team would deliver the training on the Community Trigger process and the wider changes to the legislation to County Councillors, before circulating the package to District authorities. The CST would be available to assist in delivering this training locally if requested.

·       Peer reviews were proposed as part of the process of closing complex cases where it may not have proved possible to resolve the issues, for example, neighbour disputes. As part of this process JAGs would review each others’ cases and perhaps in doing this identify actions/ possible solutions which had not been considered. 

·       Persistent joy-riding would meet the threshold for the Community Trigger, but this was also a criminal action and may need to be addressed as such.

It was noted that the Sentinel Task and Finish Group would report to the Board in early 2015.

NOTED:

(a)      The sub-regional approach to ASB;

(b)      The following issues, which were highlighted in the report -

i.      the key recommendations of the ‘light touch’ JAG review (paragraph 7.2),

ii.      the Incremental Approach (paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4),

iii.     that the draft Community Trigger document had been circulated for consultation and agreed (paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6).

Chief Supt. Sally Heally – Leicestershire Police

The Board received a presentation from Chief Insp. Neil Newell and Supt. Adam Streets regarding the operational changes which were being planned by Leicestershire Police and how these might affect partnership working.  A copy of the presentation slides is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman noted the need to make savings and to target work to make the best use of available resources, and commented that the proposals looked positive and could deliver better policing. He said that all partners needed to 

have regard to the effect that their budget reductions might have on others.

In response to issues raised by the Board, Neil Newell and Adam Streets advised that -

·         New IT solutions to support the changes were being trialled. This included in-car technology which could search for any 3G or 4G signal and connect to wi-fi in a way not previously possible, enabling cars to become wi-fi hotspots.  

Cllr. Pendleton said that Districts could assist by advising the Police of areas where mobile signal coverage was particularly poor and suggested that it might be possible to address such issues through S106 funding requests if it affected service delivery.

·         There would be a specific programme to consider Special Constabulary provision, but the changes detailed in the presentation referred only to police officer staffing across the Force, ie. not the Special Constabulary or PCSOs. 

·         It was recognised that there were potential risks in introducing a system which involved more case handovers and this would be managed carefully to ensure that matters were dealt with efficiently and appropriately, with due attention to local intelligence.

It was noted the presentation slides would be circulated to all with minutes of the meeting.

AGREED:

(a)            That the presentation be noted and the proposals supported in principle;

(b)            That Leicestershire Police be requested to bring further updates to the Board.

Sir Clive Loader – Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire

The Board considered a report from Sir Clive Loader giving an update on the developing links between the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) in understanding the latter’s contribution towards achieving the local Police and Crime Plan objectives. A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

Sir Clive thanked all the CSP Chairs for their time and contributions. He introduced the report, explaining that the Public Affairs Select Committee had concluded that numerical targets encouraged bad recording, although he would dispute that this was in fact the case. However now that the requirement for numerical targets had been removed and their use positively discouraged it would be necessary to look at other ways of measuring performance.  Not having numerical targets was not the same as not counting.  Figures would continue to be compiled and monitored to measure performance, and used as the basis for models to improve.

Responding to Cllr. Greenwood, Suzanne Houlihan said that recent Home Office guidance referred to an ‘outcome’ for each crime incident (as opposed to detection rates) and the audit process would track and report on these.  She added that performance monitoring would also have regard to issues that the public and media were interested in.

James Fox said that the senior officer group supporting the Board had also been involved in the work, linking Plan objectives to the existing performance framework where possible and helping to minimise duplication.

NOTED:

(a)      That a list of measures would be provided by CSP performance leads in conjunction with the CSP Chairs to show their performance towards the Plan;

(b)      That the CSP performance leads and the OPCC would meet again to discuss CSP performance indicators and to agree terms of reference for the performance product;

(c)      That each CSP would be asked to provide the quarterly performance product and a contextual summary of how its work contributes towards achieving the outcomes in the Plan;

(d)      The Strategic Partnership Executive Board and the Police and Crime Panel would be provided with a quarterly performance report detailing assessment of performance and a contextual summary of each CSP’s contribution towards its own objectives and Police and Crime Plan objectives; 

(e)      That Jane Moore, Head of Supporting Leicestershire Families and Safer Communities at Leicestershire County Council, and Sue Haslett, Senior Commissioning Manager at the OPCC, would be reviewing the Strategic Partnership Executive Board and Strategic Partnership Board to ensure an efficient and effective flow of information and tasking.

James Fox – Leicestershire County Council

The Board considered a report from James Fox regarding Safer Communities performance for quarter 1 of 2014/15, including current trends over the past six months and comparative information for the District areas.  A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

James said that whilst youth reoffending had risen the increase was smaller than earlier in the year.  Work was ongoing to evaluate the findings. 

In response to Mr. Mallinson, he agreed that the report did provide a different approach to that of the Police on performance measurements but some of this information (eg. crime rates and trends) had been specifically requested by the Board. Officers met regularly with the OPCC and Leicester City Council to look at areas of commonality and feed into partners’ plans.

AGREED:

(a)      That the 2014/15 quarter 1 performance information be noted;

(b)      That the Board continues to monitor performance trends.

James Fox – Leicestershire County Council

The Board considered a report from James Fox regarding the work of the Domestic Abuse Partnership (the Board having oversight of delivery of the Leicestershire Multi-Agency Domestic Abuse Strategy).  A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman said that the work of the Partnership and in particular the publication of Domestic Homicide Reviews was very important. He hoped that there would be regular reports to the Board and said that the Chair of the Domestic Abuse Partnership, Detective Chief Inspector Jon Brown would be invited to the next meeting of the Board.

James reported that campaign work with links to that being done in Leicester had just started and he would ensure that all partners on the Board were aware so that this could be tied in with other work taking place locally.

In response to Mr. Bill, James said that the quality and quantity of reporting from various communities varied.  Specific targeted outreach work sought to ensure that domestic abuse was addressed across the community, and that all victims were aware of the help available.  It was commented that the multi-disciplinary approach to domestic abuse would greatly assist with this.

Mr. Snartt referred to paragraph 6 of the report which suggested that there might be more significant risks to performance in the future when changes to funding streams took place and James undertook to provide a more detailed assessment of this in the next report to the Board.

AGREED:

(a)      That the work of the Domestic Abuse Partnership be noted;

(b)      That the development of a Multi-Agency commissioning approach to domestic abuse be supported;

(c)      That members be included in the consultation with stakeholders regarding the new Multi-Agency Commissioning Framework, as detailed in paragraph 16 of the report;

(d)      That regular reports be submitted to the Board.

Jane Moore – Leicestershire County Council

The Board considered a report from Janet Gower-Johnson which provided an overview and update to the Board on the work of the Supporting Leicestershire Families (SLF) service and the national Troubled Families programme. A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman said that the OPCC had increased its funding contribution to the SLF programme by £50,000 for the next year (across Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland) which was to be welcomed.

Responding to Cllr. Loydall, Walter McCulloch explained that the cost/benefit figures cited in the report were based on calculations by the Troubled Families Unit (TFU) and were a small sample.  Estimated savings across key agencies had varied; more detail would be available later in the year. 

Cllr. Snartt suggested that it would be useful to include mental health impacts in the outcomes.

Janet undertook to respond to Chris Traill with regard to the funding expected from the TFU in 2016 and what evidence the SLF programme might be required to produce to qualify for this.

AGREED:

(a)      That the performance of the Supporting Leicestershire Families service and proposals for Phase Two of the broader Troubled Families programme be noted;

(b)      That a further report be submitted to the Board in December.

Bob Bearne – Director of Offender Management for Leicestershire, East Midlands Community Rehabilitation Company

The Board heard an update from Mr. Bearne about the Transforming Rehabilitation programme.

Mr. Bearne referred to minute no. 60 of the previous meeting regarding the cessation of the Leicestershire Probation Trust and the transfer of its business to the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Company (for Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottingham and Rutland) which he represented.  He explained that the MoJ was running a competitive process to create 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to deliver rehabilitation services in England and Wales.  The bidding process was ongoing and the award of contracts was expected by early 2015.  The CRC would remain in public ownership until then.  He would report to the Board in December on the preferred bidder.

The Board expressed some concern as to how strategic partnerships would continue to operate with the two organisations.  It was noted that the terms of reference of the Board would need amendment in the light of the changes (minute 74 below also refers).  Mr. Bearne hoped that whichever organisation took over the CRC would recognise the importance of working with the CSPs.

In response to Cllr. Snartt, Mr. Bearne said that he would be pleased to bring a report on the work of the Reoffending Board to the next meeting.

AGREED:

(a)      That a further report would be made to the Board in December;

(b)      That a report on work of the Reoffending Board would be made to the Board in December.

Jane Moore – Leicestershire County Council

The Board considered a report from James Fox proposing changes to the membership and terms of reference of the Board.  These had last been reviewed in 2011, since when there had been a number of changes including amended regulations, new funding arrangements, and different Health and Probation structures.   A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

James highlighted the proposed changes, in particular the change to ‘one elected member per District area’ which would ensure that if two or more CSPs merged each District would retain representation on the Board.  He said that whilst the Police and Crime Commissioner and Rutland Council were not formally represented on the Board they were invited to the meetings.

The Board noted that a further amendment to the draft Membership and Terms of Reference was required to take account of the changes to the Probation service (minute 73 above refers); the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Company would need to be represented separately. 

AGREED:

That the revised Terms of Reference as set out in Appendix A to the report be approved subject to a further amendment to include one representative from the CRC (currently Mr. Bearne) and one from the National Probation Service.

Thursday 11 December 2014 at 2.00pm.

The Board noted that the next meeting was due to take place on Thursday 11 December 2014 at 10.00 am.