Agenda item

To consider the annual report of the Community Safety Partnership

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 15-52, which gave an annual update on the work of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP).

NarinderBrar, CSP Manager, noted a number of highlights contained within the agenda report. The CSP had worked throughout the year with its members to manage crime and disorder within the Borough. Partnership working included the police, fire and probation services, whom were working cohesively to review the next steps of the partnership work plan. 2019 had seen a new Chair of the CSP, Superintendent Felicity Parker, begin work alongside a recently appointed and experienced permanent CSP manager.

A variety of recorded crimes had seen decreases including residential burglary and antisocial behaviour, whilst drug possession and vehicle related crime had seen increases within the Borough. The CSP’s 4^th domestic homicide review was currently being undertaken. These reviews were an instrument to investigate any serious fatalities within the Borough, and it was hoped that this specific review was to include in the summer of 2020. A successful anti-drug operation, Operation Oedipus, had been undertaken to deploy surveillance teams within the Borough. Various quantities of drugs had been seized within the locality as a direct result of this operation.

During the ensuing discussion Members raised the following points and queries:

·           Was the ‘Kicks’ project happening throughout the Borough? Officer response – The ‘Kicks’ project had been implemented in different locations around the Borough, including within schools on a weekly basis. Sessions were open to all and free of charge whist being run by qualified coaches. The sessions were designed to offer wider engagement with young people about issues such as drugs, antisocial behaviour and exploitation. Officers would provide Members with details regarding the locations on offer within the Borough for children to participate in sessions;

·           How was the ‘Kicks’ scheme funded, what were the plans for the scheme, and how was success measured? Officer response – The scheme was funded threefold by Tenant Services, the CSP and by the Sports & Leisure team. Funding was secured until 31 March 2021, and currently an online football gaming programme had been set up to comply with government guidelines on social distancing. Success was measured by a variety of KPIs which the ‘Kicks’ team were required to report back on periodically;

·           How had the virtual ‘Kicks’ programme been received? Officer response – This programme was in its early stages, and safeguarding procedures regarding connecting with children in an online environment had only just been put in place. Officers would report back on the success of this programme;

·           What were the underlying reasons for the increase in numbers of domestic abuse reports? Officer response - Domestic abuse could be a hidden crime, and on average a victim would be subject to around 35 offences before seeking support. This increase in reporting was seen as a positive as it was showing that more people had confidence to seek help and trust in the support network that was available. This trend was being seen on a national scale;

·           How many children were on the EMRAC radar? Officer response – These figures could be provided to Members outside of the Committee;

·           What were the underlying reasons behind the increase in reported drug related offences and vehicle thefts? Officer response – These increases were mainly based on an increased focus on policing activity whereby there had been more of a police emphasis on these areas within the locality. In addition, as Loddon Valley Police Centre was located within the locality, if any offender turned up in possession of drugs it was recorded as a drug offence. Regarding the vehicle thefts, as Wokingham was an affluent Borough with a high level of car ownership, offenders were travelling into the Borough to target specific high performance vehicles;

·           As domestic abuse cases could see a rise as children returned back to school, was the CSP ready to work with partners to support victims? Officer response – The CSP had weekly meetings with Berkshire Women’s Aid, Thames Valley Police and two neighbouring Borough Officials. This enabled the CSP to closely monitor the local situation, and there was a stable picture at present. Capacity had been increased across the partnership to enable a swift response to any increases in demand. Information regarding help and support regarding domestic abuse had been placed with food parcels;

·           Was the CSP seeking out best practice when working with Berkshire Women’s Aid? Officer response – Yes, the CSP worked with partners Thames Valley wide and were in regular contact. The CSP also looked for different approaches on a national level, and were actively looking for innovate ways to improve service provision;

·           Would the domestic homicide report be circulated once complete? Officer response – Yes, the CSP has a duty to publish the findings of these reports;

·           Was there any provisional date for the ‘Only fools carry knives’ event? Officer response – Not currently, however once a provisional date had been agreed this would be circulated;

·           Would the localities team have a greater presence at neighbourhood action groups in the future? Officer response – Yes, there was a greater focus on neighbourhood working and the localities team would have a better attendance in the future;

·           Was there a breakdown of where targeted religious offences had taken place? Officer response – Not currently, Officers would try to provide a more detailed breakdown;

·           Was additional police presence in the town centres being considered to combat antisocial behaviour? Officer response – Town centres were hotspots for antisocial behaviour, and there were town centre policing teams who were being as visible as possible. Partnerships with businesses and licensed premises’ were important to increase engagement with the community and to educate these businesses on how to report instances of antisocial behaviour;

·           How were the CSP working with schools to educate on drug use prevention? Officer response – The CSP could never do enough to raise awareness in this area and this had to be an ongoing focus. There was a safeguarding board that teachers could use to contact for advice, in addition to a multi-agency hub that teachers could use to raise specific concerns. The CSP were engaging with schools via relatable sources such as through social media. Peer on peer sessions were a good way to create discussion around this topic in a relatable way;

·           Could the CSP return to the Committee with an update this municipal year, including the progress made on keeping children away from drugs? Officer and Chairman’s response – An update would be taken to the committee in approximately 6 months’ time.

RESOLVED That:

1)     NarinderBrar be thanked for attending the Committee;

2)     The Committee be provided with additional details on the location of ‘Kicks sessions on offer;

3)     The Committee be provided with information regarding how many children were currently on the radar of the EMRAC team;

4)     The Committee be provided with details on how the virtual ‘Kicks’ sessions had been received;

5)     The Committee be informed of the provisional date of the ‘Only fools carry knives’ event;

6)     The Committee be provided with a more detailed breakdown of specific religious targeted crime, including the areas of the Borough where they had been reported;

7)     An update, including progress on keeping children away from drugs, return to the Committee in approximately 6 months’ time.