Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2025 were taken as read and confirmed as a correct record.

There were no matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

The Board considered the LRSCSB Action Log, a copy of which, marked ‘Agenda Item 4’, is filed with these minutes.

It was noted that most of the actions were on the agenda for the day’s meeting or were longer term actions that would be completed at future meetings.

With regards to Action no. 4 – report on Home Office Sub Threshold Pilot, it was explained that the Home Office had just begun their review of the Pilot and locally Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland would be feeding into the review. When the review was complete and published a report on it would be brought to the Board.

With regards to Action no. 8 – DarDR Support Officer post it was explained that conversations were taking place about extending that post and where the funding would come from. Once a decision had been made the Board would be updated.

RESOLVED:

That the status of the Actions in the Log be noted.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interests in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

No declarations were made. 

Sajan Devshi, Partnerships and Commissioning Officer, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner will present this report.

The Board considered a report of Sajan Devshi, Performance and Assurance Officer, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, which provided an update on the work of the Office. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda item 6’, is filed with these minutes.

It was noted that the government had announced that they intended to abolish the role of Police and Crime Commissioners when the Commissioners’ current term ended in 2028. In areas with a directly elected mayor the mayor would take on the powers of the Police and Crime Commissioner. In areas without mayors, police oversight would transfer to new policing boards made up mainly of local authority representatives. The specific police governance structure that would be in place in Leicestershire was unclear at the moment as a decision had yet to be made on local government reorganisation for the area and whether there would be a Strategic Authority with a mayor.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the update on the work of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner be noted.

Kaye Knowles, Interim Head of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Delivery Unit, will present this report.

The Board considered a report of Kaye Knowles, Interim Head of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR) Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) regarding His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMiP) inspection of LLR PDU and the subsequent action plan. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           HMiP had carried out their inspection in March 2025 and identified strengths of LLR PDU and areas for improvement. HMIP made 6 recommendations and an action plan had been developed to address the areas for improvement. Amongst the areas for improvement was the ability of LLR PDU to identify risks and mitigate against those risks. There was also an issue with LLR PDU staff having insufficient professional curiosity to look into offenders being dealt with in more detail. Another issue was whether the LLR PDU was taking the appropriate action in response to information received from the Police about offenders.

(ii)         One of the other issues identified by HMiP was the use of middle manager’s time and the amount of oversight they were having. It was felt that they were getting too involved in operational decisions and having to counter sign assessments when they would be better off focused elsewhere. A quality assurance cycle had been introduced which reduced the amount of oversight on the written assessment by the middle managers.

(iii)        Prison capacity issues had impacted on LLR PDU delivery because the Early Release Schemes had to be prioritised. In Leicestershire a multi-agency approach had been used to manage the Early Release Schemes and an Early Release Hub had been set up. The work involved partners relevant to victims, accommodation and drug treatment. The multi-agency work had been successful and was unique to Leicestershire. In response to a question as to what was the reoffending rate of prisoners released early under the scheme, it was agreed that a report on this would be provided at the next Board meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the update regarding Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Delivery Unit be noted.

Gurjit Samra-Rai, Strategic Lead – Safer Communities, Leicestershire County Council will present this report.

The Board considered a report of Gurjit Samra-Rai, Strategic Lead – Safer Communities, Leicestershire County Council, which proposed an increase in contributions to the Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) management process provided by Leicestershire County Council Safeguarding Partnership Board Office (SPBO). A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

The Board noted that the statutory duty to carry out DHRs was on Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Chairs. However, DHRs in Leicestershire and Rutland were managed by Leicestershire County Council on behalf of the CSPs. A number of specialist Leicestershire County Council officers supported the process including legal services, children and family services, adults and communities and safer communities. Leicestershire County Council did not charge a management fee. On an annual basis Leicestershire County Council contributed £30,000 towards DHRs, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (on behalf of Leicestershire Police) contributed £16,000 and each Community Safety Partnership contributed £2,500. The number and complexity of DHRs in Leicestershire was increasing therefore in order to cover the increased costs it was proposed that each District partner and Rutland County Council should be invoiced £5,000 per annum.

Members raised concerns that it was only the CSPs that were being asked to increase their contribution and not Leicestershire County Council. Members requested more data and information showing the costs and breakdown between CSPs and Leicestershire County Council of the work carried out with regards DHRs. In response it was explained that the alternative was that CSPs became responsible for managing their own DHRs.

It was agreed that a further report on this matter would be brought to the next meeting of the Board containing the extra detail, and a decision on the funding contributions would be postponed until then.

RESOLVED:

(a)        That the update regarding Domestic Homicide Reviews be noted;

(b)        That officers be requested to provide more data detailing the breakdown of work on Domestic Homicide Reviews in a report for the next meeting of the Board.

Gurjit Samra-Rai, Strategic Lead – Safer Communities, Leicestershire County Council will give a verbal update on progress.

The Board received a verbal update from Gurjit Samra-Rai, Strategic Lead – Safer Communities, Leicestershire County Council, regarding the new anti-social behaviour recording system known as ECINS.

Arising from the update the following points were noted:

(i)           Some progress had been made with ECINS and integration of the Police Storm system had gone well. A survey had been undertaken and the majority of users were happy with the system. Dip sampling had taken place and some user error had been identified.

(ii)         There were still some problems with the database for example in relation to the police input form, and the Genie search was only partially functioning. Regular meetings were taking place with ECINS, and ECINS were looking into the issues. One of the issues was a high turnover of staff.

(iii)        Whilst a number of areas in the country had moved to using ECINS for their ASB recording, other authorities were not having the same problems with ECINS as in Leicestershire and Rutland. This was because the ASB partnership in Leicestershire and Rutland was much more advanced than in other areas and used much more data sharing between agencies. Other areas saw Leicestershire and Rutland as a model of where they wanted to get to. The downside of this was that ASB recording was not as straightforward as it was elsewhere.

(iv)       It was intended that in future ECINS would be used for collecting more detailed information about individuals but at the moment the focus was on embedding the basics. Further development would take place in due course.

RESOLVED:

That the update regarding ECINS be noted.

Anita Chavda, Projects and Planning Officer, Community Safety Team, Leicestershire County Council, will present this report.

The Board considered a report of Anita Chavda, Projects and Planning Officer, Community Safety Team, Leicestershire County Council, regarding Safer Communities’ performance for 2025-26 Quarter 2. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the 2025-26 Quarter 2 performance be noted.

The next meeting of the Board will take place in person on Thursday 26 March 2026 at 10.00am in Sparkenhoe Committee Room at County Hall, Glenfield. There will not be an option for remote attendance.

RESOLVED:

That the next meeting of the Board take place in person on Thursday 26 March 2026 at 10.00am in Sparkenhoe Committee Room at County Hall, Glenfield.