Agenda item

The Police and Justice Act 2006 requires local authorities to undertake annual scrutiny of Community Safety Partnerships.  Surrey County Council’s Resident Experience Board can meet the requirements of the Act as it has the legal power to scrutinise and make reports or recommendations regarding the functioning of the responsible authorities that comprise a Community Safety Partnership.

This paper sets out the current responsibilities of the Community Safety Partnerships and the County Strategy Group (known as the Community Safety Board) and informs the Committee of current priorities and the activity that has taken place to address them during 2014/15.

Declarations of Interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Louise Round, Chair of East Surrey Community Safety Partnership

Kamini Sanghani, Partnerships Director, Kent, Surrey & Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company (KSS CRC)

Joanna Grimshaw, Anti-Social Behaviour Manager, Surrey Police

Louise Gibbins, Community Safety Officer

Superintendent Clive Davies, Surrey Police

Camilla Edmiston, Community Safety Officer, Woking Borough Council

Cllr Beryl Hunwicks, Woking Borough Council

Cllr Charlotte Morley, Surrey Heath Borough Council

Jane Last, Lead Manager, Community Safety Partnerships

Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Unit Lead Manager

Keith McGrory, Community Safety Officer, Spelthorne Borough Council

Jeff Harris, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Sarah Haywood, Senior Partnership Policy Officer (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)

Helen Harrison, Public Health Principal, Commissioning and Performance.

Simon Moore, Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

Richard Walsh, Cabinet Member for Localities and Community Wellbeing

Key Hammond, Cabinet Associate Member for Community Safety Services

Key Points Raised During the Discussion:

1.    The Community Safety Unit Lead Manager introduced the report, explaining that legislation requires the Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) to be scrutinised each year and that the Resident Experience Board fulfills this function giving an overview of county issues and priorities. The structure chart on page 79 was also explained. It was noted that the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner has had an effect on CSPs, and has changed the way the partnerships worked. Funding now comes from the main Police budget. Work of the CSPs is assessed annually, and takes into account crime data in the county. Using this information, action plans for each CSP are drawn up and assessed during the year.

2.    The Chairman inquired about the link between the CSPs and the Community Safety Board, and how far the CSPs take into account the strategic direction that it sets. The Community Safety Unit Lead Manager explained that the strategic plans were developed in conjunction with the CSPs.

3.    The Chairman asked about the relationship between the Community Safety Board and the CSPs and what gains the CSPs get from the Board. The Chair of East Surrey CSP noted that they adopt the Surrey-wide priorities, such as domestic abuse and substance abuse, and take a balanced view of taking local action versus a county-wide direction.

4.    Members questioned the public perception of low level anti-social crime increasing and the resources being put into zero-tolerance by the Police and Crime Commissioner, whereas the statistics actually show that violent crime is on the increase and queried what the CSPs attach importance to. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner responded that zero-tolerance doesn’t just apply to ‘low level’ crime, and that crime recording has changed in the past few years.

5.    Members also asked about the Community Safety Board and questioned how representative it is, given that 6 people attend, representing 6 boroughs. It was replied that the districts and boroughs had agreed to move from all 11 being represented, to 3 representing clusters of CSPs, and 3 councillors, who are charged with communicating with other CSP representatives. The Cabinet Associate Member noted that her Lead Members group gives an opportunity for districts and boroughs to feedback experiences.

6.    The Vice-Chairman asked about child sexual exploitation and made the point that this can happen at any age, and asked about the Community Safety Board’s work on this. The Community Safety Unit Lead Manager stated that this topic area is owned by the Children’s Safeguarding Board, and that they have strong links with the CSPS and Community Safety Board. Another Member noted that a useful presentation on the issue is available to districts and boroughs. The Chair of East Surrey CSP noted that there are issues around the transition age of 18 that are being looked at by the Child Sexual Exploitation Strategy Group. It was noted that Annex 6 contained further information on work that districts and boroughs are doing.

7.    The Public Health Principal was invited to share the experiences public health has with the CSPs, and noted that they work closely with partners around substance misuse and the drug and alcohol strategy, mental health and domestic abuse, reporting into the Community Safety Board.

8.    The Partnerships Director, Kent, Surrey & Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company, noted that probation colleagues regularly attend CSPs and are working with them on community payback projects.

9.    Superintendant Davies commented that the combined CSPs are good, as one meeting can provide more oversight, particularly on big issues such as child sexual exploitation. The police find it useful getting all partners in the same room and using it as a forum for checking whether intelligence and data is reflected on the ground.

10.  The Assistant Chief Fire Officer noted that the CSP model reduces some of the demand on officers’ time and welcome the engagement with and exposure to other agencies, particularly around collaboration. This reduces the risk of different agencies working in silos, which is helpful as fire and rescue have similar vulnerabilities to take on board as the police do.

11.  The Chairman questioned whether the merger in the East of the county sets an example for other areas to follow. In response it was explained that the East Surrey CSP came about as a coalition of the willing and would require individual CSPs to want to do this, which at the moment none do. A Member mentioned that there is a potential for a loss of accountability with joint structures and explained that good communication would be required to reassure partners.

12.  Members asked about the Community Safety Fund and what attributes to the increase in incidents of domestic abuse. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner explained that the Police and Crime Commissioner had a discretionary £50,000 for community safety funding, and this now sits within the policing budget. This is scrutinised by the Police and Crime Panel and the Police Audit Committee. A bid from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice for £100,000 to spend on domestic abuse prevention is allowing substantial investment in this area. The Lead Manager for Community Safety Partnerships explained that the increase in domestic abuse reporting is partly because of increased confidence in reporting, following historic underreporting. There has also been an increase in successful prosecutions. Furthermore, £200,000 has been made available for education projects around healthy relationships and support to children in schools.

13.  Members questioned why the Runnymede Safety Partnership funding was withdrawn and it was explained that it was not withdrawn, but money that was previously given to Community Safety Partnerships now is available to be bid for from the Police and Crime Commissioner’s fund. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner offered to make available information on what bids have been successful.

14.  Members noted that a lot of resident complaints concern cars, and asked what could be done about antisocial driving and parking. Officers responded that the Community Safety Board doesn’t have the remit to act on this. The Joint Enforcement Teams have had some success in this area however. It was also noted that Safe Drive Stay Alive, a driving safety awareness project run by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service, helps to combat some of the issues of anti-social and dangerous driving among younger drivers.

Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

1.    The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner offered to make available information on what community safety fund bids have been successful.

Recommendations:

1.    That the Community Safety Board develop a memorandum of understanding with the local Community Safety Partnerships. This should reflect that we can be stronger together and deliver better outcomes for residents through joint working, and include joint performance management arrangements for issues that are of common concern across the county, such as domestic abuse, anti-social behaviour and the Prevent work, to be sent to the Resident Experience Board within six months. Gordon Falconer is to oversee this.

2.    That scrutiny officers for county, district and borough councils and community safety officers review scrutiny arrangements for the Community Safety Partnerships, to confirm local scrutiny arrangements and consider whether the Resident Experience Board should focus on the scrutiny of the Community Safety Board and county-wide strategic issues or whether it should scrutinise local Community Safety Partnership activity in more detail, to be reported back to the Resident Experience Board within six months.

3.    That the Cabinet Member:

a.    leads a discussion with County Members who sit on Community Safety Partnerships on how the work of the Community Safety Partnerships reflects local concerns and priorities of residents.

b.    requests that the Cabinet Associate leads a discussion with the Lead Members Group to explore how the work of Community Safety Partnerships reflects local concerns and priorities of residents.

c.    requests that the Community Partnership Team gathers evidence of how local concerns and priorities of residents are reflected by Community Safety Partnerships.
and feeds this information back to a future Resident Experience Board meeting within six months.