Agenda item

The Overview and Scrutiny Board are asked to consider and scrutinise the attached Community Safety Partnership report.

The Board is asked to consider this as part of the Board’s statutory role to scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions, in accordance with the The Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Bobbie Dove, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services introduced a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and which appears as Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The Director of Communities and Chief Superintendent Mark Callaghan, Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Chair, delivered a short presentation to accompany the report. The presentation highlighted recent changes to the CSP’s governance structure, key achievements to date, current priorities, and the development of a BCP crime and disorder reduction strategy.

The Director and Chief Superintendent responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       The Council had overall statutory responsibility for the CSP as lead partner, but all partners had a statutory duty to meet its objectives.

·       The CSP identified its key priorities using detailed information sources, including the annual strategic assessment. Priorities focussed on all communities in the BCP area, not just the town centres, and one of the strategic delivery groups was dedicated to ‘safer communities’.

·       It was not possible to prioritise every issue, but this did not mean issues were not being addressed in other ways by partners.

·       On the wider involvement of criminal justice services, it was confirmed that there was a gap in youth provision for secondary intervention which was now being addressed through CSP work around child exploitation. The Board was advised of the roles of the Dorset Criminal Justice Board and the pan Dorset Reducing Reoffending Board.

·       The priorities of the Police and Crime Plan were influenced by the areas of concern highlighted by communities.

·       A Board member enquired about the provision of more meaningful data and was assured that this could be provided in future reports, now the right structure was in place for the CSP to deliver on its priorities. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were being considered for the strategic delivery groups, and work had started on a new crime and disorder reduction strategy.

·       It was confirmed that the CSP used examples of the ‘lived experience’, involving victims and perpetrators, to help inform its work.

·       A communications strategy and a community engagement strategy were being developed, to promote awareness of the CSP, gain a better understanding of people’s experiences of crime and disorder, and make effective use of social media.

·       There was evidence that Community Protection Notices (CPNs) were effective in preventing reoffending, although not in all cases. There was also a warning stage prior to a formal CPN which was often effective in preventing escalation. 

·       There was discussion on the type of offences usually categorised as ‘low harm’ and the use of this terminology, with a recognition that all victims experienced harm. A Board member expressed frustration at the lack of progress in tackling ongoing vandalism in her ward. Members were encouraged to continue to report such issues to the ASB team and the Police as appropriate.

·       There were specific groups which focussed on hate crimes, engaging with the community and sharing data between partners.  The Community Engagement Strategy would help to identify existing advocacy groups in this area of work.

·       A Board member challenged the general acceptance of the use of cannabis/marijuana in public areas such as beaches and town centres, when it was clear that illegal drug dealing was associated with more serious criminal activities.

·       Reducing harm from substance misuse was a key priority and flowed through much of the CSP’s work.

·       The administrative structure of the CSP and the relationship between the executive, the strategic groups and working groups, was important in ensuring a co-ordinated and more effective approach.

·       Critical events for the CSP had included the death of a child and the Covid response. It was noted that the CSP was also statutory lead on domestic homicide review outcomes.

The Chairman thanked the Director and the Chief Superintendent for their input. He welcomed the plans for community engagement and indicated that the Board would look forward to considering this matter again once the CSP had developed further and more information on outcomes was available.