Meeting documents

Members will receive the statutory annual update from the County Council’s crime and disorder reduction partnership; The Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership. They will review partnerships progress over the past year against the plan and consider the priorities for the coming year providing their views and comments on the plan.

 

James Sainsbury, Acting Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership Manager

 

Papers:

Crime and Disorder information paper

Draft Safer Bucks Plan

James Sainsbury, Acting Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership Manager was welcomed to the meeting.

 

Members of the Committee were referred to the draft Safer Bucks Plan and the report detailing the progress against the Safer Bucks Plan 2013/14, priorities for 2014/15 and emergent priorities within the plan.

 

Mr Sainsbury highlighted the following salient points of the report:-

 

The Safer Bucks Plan forms the Community Safety Agreement and is a requirement under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.  As Buckinghamshire has a two tier Authority system, both the Districts and Bucks County Council are required to have such a plan in place.

 

The Safer Bucks Plan is designed to identify;

·      How the partners can work together to address the most important community safety issues relevant to the county. These issues are based on analysis of crime and disorder data and on feedback from the community.

·      The issues that will be fed into the work of the partnership across the county and will set out how the partners plan to deliver against these priorities.

 

Key highlights of the achievements are:-

 

·           A substantial reduction (35%) in reported incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) across Buckinghamshire, equating to 4,372 fewer incidents than the previous year

·           An increase in reporting of Domestic Violence (DV) which is considered as positive development as DV is traditionally a hidden and under reported crime.

·           A decrease of 20% incidents of serious acquisitive crime (222 fewer reported incidents when compared to the same period last year).

·           In line with the recommendations from the Macpherson report (70 recommendations for a series of measures that would subject the police to greater public control, enshrine rights for victims of crime and extend the number of offences classified as racist), the Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership has commissioned Thames Valley Victim Support to be the lead agency, to provide support to victims of hate crime and provide case and risk management for hate crime incidents. 

·           There is a new emergent work stream in terms of the Community Safety Team working in partnership with Trading Standards and Thames Valley Police to analyse current and potential hot spots for door step crime to help with the strategies to protect vulnerable individuals and the community.

·           Substance misuse in the community - there is greater emphasis on moving the cohort into recovery in line with the Government strategy.  Funding has been sourced from the Police and Crime Panel for this area of work.

 

Key issues are:-

·           Reducing violence, acquisitive crime, re-offending, anti-social behaviour

·           Working with communities to address the negative impact of drug and alcohol misuse

·           Working together to address emerging concerns

·           Addressing concerns and issues relating to gangs

·           Countywide priorities for supporting stronger communities

·           Protecting the vulnerable

 

During discussion, the following questions were asked and points made:-

 

The chart on page 26 of the agenda shows the current structure of the Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership.  Is it possible to have a brief summary of the governance arrangements and the relationship between the Board and the Groups as the arrangements shown on the chart appear to be slightly complicated? Mr Sainsbury explained that as Buckinghamshire has a two tier authority system, there is the requirement to have a Community Safety Plan for both the County Council and the Districts.

The Safer and Stronger Bucks Co-ordinating Group oversees the delivery of the priorities against the action plan. Each District is required to have its own Community Safety Partnership (Strategy Group).  The District CSP’s look to apply crime reduction initiatives relevant to the emergent issues in their district which could relate to a particular hot spot for a specific type of crime.

 

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was introduced before the creation of the Police and Crime Commissioners and Police and Crime Panel.  What are the minimum legal requirements of the Community Safety teams on a District and County basis? There is concern about the large number of bodies shown in the partnership structure and the large number of meetings that take place.  Is there proper delivery and is there a better way of doing this? Mr Sainsbury said last year the Drug and Alcohol Action Team Board was merged with Safer and Stronger Board.  The Governance structure is constantly being re-visited to see how they can be made more efficient. Some of the sub structures such as the Thematic Groups have moved to a more Task and Finish basis.

 

Value for Money is very pertinent. The Community Safety team and the Drug and Alcohol Team have halved in the last seven years.  There is the need to move to much more of a commissioning type model and for a strategic view to be taken. An example is the Drug and Alcohol Treatment programme – there is strong evidence to show there are significant savings to be made if there is investment in the programme.

A tool which has been agreed by the Home Office, the Treasury and Department of Health identified that in Bucks if you just look at the crime and Health elements alone, there is a saving of £4.79 for every £1 spent.  This was one of the highest returns in the whole of the south east.

Community safety is a key area in which to deliver efficiencies. Community Safety interventions help to reduce demand on other services. The fear of crime has been a strong outcome from resident surveys.

 

With the move of responsibility, is there scope to access some of the Public Health monies that have been awarded to the County Council? There was a pooled budget from the Primary Care Trust and the Department of Health, the Home Office etc. to address substance misuse. The budgets are now all contained in the Public Health grant.  As part of the MTP process, Public Health as taken over the responsibility of some of the commissioning around DV and Refuges.  Public Health is moving more into the Community Safety arena.  The Health and Care Act 2013 placed more of a responsibility on Public Health to take more of an active role in Community Safety issues.

 

It would be helpful if the Committee had an understanding of the structure of the Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership i.e. District and County level.  It would be helpful to have a plan of the involvement of the District, who is involved at that level and how any issues are moved to County level. Could streamlining be improved by connecting areas of the existing structure? Mr Sainsbury explained that bodies are very well connected and there is joint representation in the structure.  The Community Safety Team in the County Council is approximately 5.7FTE.  The service is working towards much more of a commissioning agenda and how various elements can be outsourced.  There is also the wider picture to take into account and how the service can be more commercially minded.

 

There needs to be a wider understanding of how the system works and the clear distinction of the levels of the structure.  Is there duplication of work, is the Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership Board adding value to the Districts or are the Districts adding value to the countywide Board.

 

Is there a County and District as this is the structure that was advised? If there were refreshed statutory powers, what would be best for Bucks?

Mr Sainsbury explained that at the moment there is the statutory responsibility is due to the make-up of Bucks.

 

Under Section 17 there is the general duty.  Is this duty discharged with ‘light touch’ at certain levels?

 

As the Council moves towards commissioning, to what extent could/or should the County’s Community Safety function be that of a commissioner and governance and oversight of commissioned services? Mr Sainsbury reported that further work needs to take place in the area of commissioning i.e. Domestic Violence is a good quality commissioned service that will delivery efficiencies for the County Council and their partners in Health and the Police.  More community budgeting response needs to take place as well as the identification of where potential efficiencies can be made if smarter commissioning takes place. There needs to be the development of a partnership in the community arena in Community Safety and bringing partners on board.

 

In terms of the Community Safety function, do you think that the NHS and the Police will see the benefit of the joint working and will take advantage of partnership working? Mr Sainsbury explained that there are currently partners within the Board. A piece of commissioning has been undertaken whereby an early intervention has been put in place within the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Police Area which has worked very well.  Thames Valley Police and the Bucks County Council are joint commissioning a joint post there. Discussions have taken with the Police and Crime Commissioner’s office about expanding this model countywide.

 

With the growth in the commissioning structure, what steps are being taken to ensure that value for money is being received when the services are commissioned? Mr Sainsbury explained that the commissioning process should automatically develop a better understanding of the services and Value for Money should also be looked into.  The possibility of joint commissioning around Domestic Violence services is being discussed within which Commercial Services will benchmark the County Council against other providers.

 

Would BCC or the District Councils commission substance misuse services or would the Community Safety team be co-ordinating this to ensure that there is only one commissioning body.  Mr Sainsbury explained that the Community Safety Team commissions and co-ordinates all of the substance misuse treatment services in Buckinghamshire.  If the commissioning of services was delegated to the Districts, there would be four separate substance misuse services and there would not be the efficiencies of scale.

 

The fact that other bodies could commission services has been alluded to. Where would you say the commissioning of other services in Bucks doesn’t happen? Mr Sainsbury explained that Domestic Violence is currently one of the largest work-streams.  Work is taking place to try to pool funding and joint commissioning arrangements. A Needs Assessment has just been undertaken.  This will be taken to the Board with the aim of progressing to joint commissioning arrangements where all of the funding is brought together under one contracts to deliver these elements as well as delivering efficiencies from a simpler process.

 

Could the Committee have sight of the Needs Assessment as it would provide a good insight of the work taking place?  Mr Sainsbury said that the expected publication date of the Needs Assessment is June.  The Needs Assessment has been undertaken by Professor Neil McKeganey and is the first of its type. The concern underpinning this is a lot of evidence has been seen with Bucks about legal high use and the United Nations has also highlighted that the United Kingdom has the highest legal high use on Europe, second highest in the world bar America. There needs to be a better understanding of this issue.

Action: Mr Sainsbury

 

What partners are involved with Community Safety Team to try and help solve doorstep crime? Mr Sainsbury said that work takes place with partners in Trading Standards. The results of data analysis which has been undertaken by the Community Safety Team has been passed to Trading Standards. Police reports have been looked at to see if they have been coded correctly.  In one quarter, 150 reports of doorstep crime were found of which only 12 considered a crime and were acted on.  Work is going to take place with Trading Standards and Adults and Family Wellbeing to address this.

 

With regard to the S17 requirements, what opportunities have been taken to educate and ensure other service areas are aware of their role and responsibility to consider the impact of crime and disorder within their services, working towards a council wide approach to meeting the legislative requirements rather than a separate function? Mr Sainsbury said that work is ongoing to make sure that the partners understand the benefits that the Community Safety team (CST) can bring to them.  We have been using the Adult Safeguarding Board to highlight the fact that half of adult safeguarding is due to an incident of domestic violence in the home.  If the Community Safety team received more referrals, we could be a real resource and help in reducing costs. Work is taking place on the delivery of a Family Drug and Alcohol Court in Bucks, where in conjunction with Children and Young People and Safeguarding teams and counterparts in Milton Keynes, a core structure is being set up that that will look into areas where substance misuse is a primary factor behind safeguarding.  It is hoped that the Court will have the specialist knowledge to move this into a position of permanency quicker i.e. treatment for the families or move the child into care. It is an ongoing challenge for the partnership in how we sell the wider benefits to the Council as a whole and look at how we can reduce costs.

 

There is concern about duplication of services but there are also areas that could fall through the gaps. Mr Sainsbury reported that a three year audit of Child Protection Plans highlighted substance misuse and domestic violence as the highest referral factors.  The same two issues also emerged from repeat Child Protection Plans.  It is an ongoing challenge for all Councils to understand all of the dependencies, have good referrals structures in place and not to commission in isolation.

 

Page 34 – item 4.1 – if one of the countywide priorities is achieving better cohesion in communities, how does that balance with the Medium Term Plan (MTP) and budget setting process.  The Communities and Cohesion officers within the County Council are being de-funded, and the money is being converted to Citizens Advice Bureau staff, what evidence is there that this will deliver a better service and address the priorities in the report. Mr Sainsbury said that he cannot comment on the cuts to funding around cohesion as this is not his service area.  The Community Safety Team assists with the delivery of a number of events i.e. Cohesion Forums and has commissioned support around tacking hate crime via Victims Support.

 

This would be a very different piece of work if a member from the Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) contacts the Local Authority about a crime issue or a risk about cohesion.  What happens when there is no longer the staff or resources in the Authority to manage this? Mr Sainsbury explained that this technically qualifies as hate crime as so would be taken on by the Police or Victim Support. Services are commissioned from Victim Support to deal with hate crime.

 

Section 4.2.1 of the report refers to Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC). The report says the MARAC figures for the BME, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) groups and males residents show an increase in victims which in line with the rest of the Thames Valley. What is ‘in line’, what is acceptable to be ‘in line’ and why is the plan so vague about reducing these figures and the extra work that needs to take place.  Can you expand on this please? Mr Sainsbury explained that the figures coming through from LGBT figures, hard to reach groups and Domestic violence sub groups are constantly being reviewed.  The report is highlighting that traditionally what is seen is that Domestic Violence in some ethnic communities is more hidden than in other communities and there is the need to tap into those areas more.  MARAC is much more high risk.  Works is continuing to get the message to into hard to reach communities to get try to get them into the right support.

 

If MARAC is high level, how does the Local Authority address the needs and issues to come out of this as the report is vague? Mr Sainsbury said that when services are jointly commissioned, there is the need to put in targets and encourage the provider to describe in the tender process how they are actually going to meet on these hard to reach groups.  One area of interest which is a Thames Valley wide approach is the Community Champions model i.e. having DV Champions and recruiting some of the champions from hard to reach communities to engage and help people access the right support services.

 

It would have been useful for the Committee to have the in-line figures mentioned in the report to give an understanding of what this benchmark is across Buckinghamshire and where there are capacity issues.

 

Point 2.3.1 of the report is a laundry list of issues that could relate to the Welfare Reform Act - there is no action plan, details, risks or issues of what the County Council needs to do as an Authority. Mr Sainsbury explained that the report is high level.  The Community Safety team taps into all of the work undertaken by the County Council to try to understand the implications i.e. bedroom tax and multiple occupancy housing which could push people recovering from substance misuse etc into accommodation which is not suitable for them.  The Welfare Benefits Reforms are a concern to the service.  A piece of tenancy work has been commissioned from Connexions floating support to try to navigate some of the high risk people around the intricacies of the new legislation. The impact of the Benefits Welfare Reform is not fully understood at the moment.

 

As the report is being signed off by the Cabinet Member, the lack of the level of detail in the report is surprising.  This should be taken into account for next year’s report.

 

Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) has been a priority for some time now.  It is quite surprising to see in the appendix, the measures of success, that in 2014/15 the ASB systems still have to be analysed and evaluated. Mr Sainsbury explained that new ASB legislation came into place in March 2014 which has resulted in a significant change in how ASB is dealt with relating to the community trigger.  There is now a certain level of thresholds that have to be set i.e. how an incident is regarded as ASB.  There is also a new piece of legislation – the Community Remedy, where the victims of ASB can play a part in the sentencing and the plan around the reduction of ASB.  Work is taking place with Thames Valley Police colleagues to understand the implications of the new legislation.

 

It is surprising that the new legislation is not mentioned in point 6.3 of the report as one of the priorities.  ASB has a number of aspects; the main one is the perception people have of ASB and of safety i.e. the can sometimes be a disconnect of the night time economy versus crime against the person or property.  There are two issues in the report; delivering diversionary activities to reduce the instance of ASB and reducing the impact of ASB, how does this feed into other areas of the County Council i.e. Local Area forums (LAFs) and how does this work as a joint approach.  Mr Sainsbury said that often ASB is normally substance misuse related. A local provider, Addaction Young People, deliver ASB diversionary activities for young people. Often the LAFs will advise they have any ASB issues which will be fed back to the Commissioner for Young People via the LAF officer and a bespoke piece of diversionary activity would be put in place.  This would include analysing when the ASB is most likely to occur and putting a diversionary activity in place i.e. film clubs or a bike project whereby old bikes are purchased and young people work on them to make them fit for purpose. Neighbourhood Action Groups (NAGs) and LAFs form part of the whole tasking process.

 

Summary of discussions

·      One of the key areas is the structure of the Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership. One of the potential outcomes for the Committee to consider is do they want to see further streamlines of structures and partnership arrangements. Mr Sainsbury advised the partnership structure is agreed by the partners. Partner views within the structures need to be considered.

·      There needs to be an understanding of what is statutory and what is guidance?

·      The strategic commissioning approach - more information is needed about how this takes place at County level and how partners can be encouraged to join take part.

·      The joint commissioning arrangements and how efficiencies and value for money can be delivered.

 

·      The Environment Select Committee is supposed to hold the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership to account.  Has this been achieved during this meeting? There is the need to look at how this particular objective can be better achieved.

·      Should further work be undertaken to understand the Council wide approach and responsibilities and how this links in with the daily business.

·      The impact to demand management on other services the County Council and District Council delivers i.e. young people

·      The Chairman explained that this is the first time that the Environment Select Committee has met as the designated Crime and Disorder Committee. Some of the mechanics are understood and some issues and concerns of the Committee have been brought to light such as who signs off the draft plan. There is also the issue of value for money. Mr Sainsbury advised that the aim is for the report to be signed off by Cabinet in June.

·      Are there similar Committees at District level doing the same process? Mr Sainsbury said that Districts have their own scrutiny mechanisms for their own partnerships.

·      There is the need to demonstrate value for money to the taxpayer providing Community Safety

·      If the ETL Committee were to lead by example i.e. joint scrutiny, our position would be to emphasise the need to work in partnership and provide value for money.

 

The Committee agreed the following;

 

A Working Group is to be set up for later in the year to look at the points raised by Committee Members and how to best achieve the objective of holding the Safer and Stronger Bucks Partnership Board to account.

Action: Policy Officer

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Sainsbury for the very useful update.