Agenda item

Community Safety Partnership Annual Report

To review the Community Safety Partnership Annual Report

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 11 to 36, which provided an annual update on the work of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP).

 

The report outlined an overall reduction in crime offences of 9.9% across the Wokingham Borough in the last 12 months. Incidents which had seen an overall reduction included burglary, vehicle crime, and drugs possession offences. As a result of the pandemic, there were a number of areas of concern including car meets in Council car parks and open spaces, and domestic abuse. The community safety team have lead a tri-Borough operational based response with local service providers and key stakeholders to adapt services for victims of domestic abuse. The CSP had 4 key priorities which came to an end on 1st June 2021, which included addressing violence against women and girls, tackling anti-social behaviour; harmful behaviour and organised crime, reduction and prevention of exploitation and and address the needs of vulnerable victims and offenders, and empowering and enabling the resilience of local communities.

 

Bill Soane (Executive Member for Neighbourhood and Communities), Narinder Brah (CSP Manager) and Felicity Parker (Superintendent, Bracknell and Wokingham Local Police Area) attended the meeting to answer Member questions.

 

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           Were there any specific statistics relating to cybercrime within the Borough? Officer response – Cybercrime was a key area which had been highlighted within the strategic assessment. There had not been ay local increase in this area, and Action Fraud was an agency which helped victims deal with cybercrime. The CSP was also supported through colleagues within the Public Protection Partnership, who had noticed personal protection equipment and vaccination fraud offences. In the future, additional details relating to cybercrime within the Borough would be added to the annual update report.

 

·           The data on agenda page 14 related to anti-social behaviour was absent from the report, and it was believed that this was previously provided by the Thames Valley Police (TVP). What were the current figures and how did they impact on the overall crime figures? Police response – The data was available, but not to hand, and would be circulated to the Committee.

 

·           There had been decrease in areas such as burglary incidents and domestic abuse. There was a concern that less instances of domestic abuse may have been reported because of victims being in lockdown with their abusers. What could be done to ensure the safety of those at risk? Police response – There had been a significant decrease in burglary incidents, which was something that the CSP was proud of and they were awaiting to see if this trend continued post Covid-19 (C-19). During the first lockdown, visits were made to medium and repeat risk victims of domestic abuse to ensure that they were being provided the best service possible.

 

·           Agenda page 27 had indicated an overall reduction of CSP funding of around £1000. What effect would this have on service delivery? Officer response - This funding was based on a historical formula. This issue had been flagged internally and would be picked up, and conversations would occur with the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

·           What did the MARAC team consider? Officer response – The MARAC team only dealt with cases which had been professionally risk assessed as being high risk.

 

·           Agenda page 23 indicated a reduction in attendance of Kicks sessions from 25 attendees last year to just 5.5 this year. Could this be clarified? Officer response – Clarification would be provided to the Committee.

 

·           The precept for the PCC had increased for the current financial year, yet the funding for the CSP had reduced. What was the rationale behind this? Police response – The PCC precept went some way towards the CSP, however it also funded other services such as Victims First.

 

·           What were the details of the new five-year domestic abuse contract? Office response – The CSP would continue to work closely with Berkshire Women’s Aid, however the new contract had been awarded to Cranstoun who would provide a 24/7 victims helpline, close working with victims to reduce risks to them and their family, in addition to offering refuge provision. The contract also provided for work with schools for young people who were victims of domestic abuse or who had witnessed domestic abuse. An update could be provided for the March Committee to update on the progress of the contract in its first six months.

 

·           Did the substance misuse service work with those who had misused in the past and had changed their ways? Officer response – The CSP worked with a number of agencies and contract providers, and it was recognised that an experienced person was beneficial and could help others with recovery. There was a new contract in place which attracted additional funding, and had allowed for a specific young people service (Here 4 You) to be created.

 

·           How effectively was the local Prevent service working? Officer response – There were good and robust local processes in place to safeguard individuals. This was about partners communicating with each other clearly and flagging up concerns. Concerns were then flagged up to the “Channel Panel”. Locally, Prevent heard of a lot of cases of concerns and acted accordingly.

 

·           Were operations still carried out to target shops who were selling alcohol to underage persons? Police response – This process was still carried out, however it required cadets to carry out the process. Due to C-19, cadets were unable to come on-board, however as soon as they returned then spot checks would be carried out. Trading standards and the police took “secret shopper” exercises very seriously.

 

·           Were food delivery firms checking the age of recipients on delivery of alcohol? Executive member response – Delivery drivers were required to check the age of the person opening the door if the order included alcohol, and were instructed to remove items of alcohol and refund if the person could not prove that they were over 21 years old. Some firm’s drivers were not checking however.

 

·           What work was being done to promote preventative measures against antisocial behaviour? Police response – There was a joint piece of work with the CSP which was looking how young people could be prevented at the earliest possible stage from engaging in serious violence.

 

·           How was engagement with housing associations being improved? Police response – There was a strategic group set up to work with housing associations, which had a similar stock to that of WBC. Members could raise concerns where they knew of examples of housing associations not dealing with instances of anti-social behaviour. The CSP worked with a number of housing associations on a strategic level on a number of issues including anti-social behaviour.

 

·           The domestic abuse bill broadened the definition of domestic abuse, what strategy was in place to deal with any increase in service requests? Officer response – Officers were in the process of ensuring that the service was compliant with the new domestic abuse bill, including bringing website content up to date, including information about safe spaces.

 

·           Would the healthy relationship course be opened to all schools? Officer response – The CSP was working with children in all schools, and various pathways were being looked at to provide the best support for children within the Borough. There was a very detailed piece of work taking place under housing needs assessments to work with the victims of domestic abuse, both children’s and adults, to ensure that their housing needs were met.

 

·           The Committee were keen to hear from the “voice of a child”, and to have a report sent back to Committee.

 

·           What were the CSP and EMRAC doing in relation to county lines? Police response – There were a number of operations underway to combat county lines, however the rates in the Wokingham Borough were much lower than in other areas.

 

·           What were the thoughts on how the Borough worked with the CSP? Police response – It had been an interesting year which was hard to qualify, however the police had been hugely impressed by the work of the Narinder Brah and Simon Price. There were a number of sub-groups which needed sufficient levels of response, and the CSP needed to see how they could make the services provided as best as possible.

 

·           Effective data sharing was key between different organisations, was this being carried out effectively and in a timely fashion? Officer and Police response – Thames Valley police had a considerable amount of data, and shared what they felt was useful with the CSP on a quarterly basis. Additional data could be provided upon request. The creation of the violence reduction dashboard would use Thames Valley Police data and data from Local Authorities, and in future data from Health Services would be added. Data ensured that projects and funding were being put in the right places, whilst looking at new and existing trends.

 

·           Was there an opportunity to send a police officer into schools to talk about substance misuse? Officer and police response – Each school had a liaison officer assigned to them. When a drug incident happened at a school, the police were often led by the school to make contact prior to the police responding. There had been a national increase in cannabis use, not just locally. The new contract would allow for additional offers for children and young people, including increased education around substance misuse.

 

·           How was knife crime reduction being targeted and achieved? Police response – There was a new strategic partnership which looked at serious crime including knife crime. The partnership was looking at identifying pupils at risk, and where a high risk individual was identified then this would be escalated to the multi-agency team.

 

·           Were there any areas of the Borough which would benefit from a neighbourhood action group? Police response – If there were any gaps which the community would like filled, the police would be happy to facilitate this process. This could involve setting up a new group, or involving the nearest group and expanding it.

 

·           The Committee thanked the police and the CSP for keeping crime levels low despite cuts to their budget from Central Government over a period of time.

 

·           Was there any data relating to prosecutions of race related crimes? Police response – There were small but still unacceptable numbers of race crime within the Borough, which were increasing. This was a difficult crime to detect as it could happen in the street, with the perpetrators moving on very quickly. The police and CSP wanted more people to feel confident about coming forward and reporting these crimes, and as such if reported crime figures went up then this would be a good thing.

 

·           Had there been increased engagement between the community and PCSOs? Police response – Neighbourhood policing was difficult last year due to keeping the community safe from C-19. There would be two neighbourhood teams from August, including one problem solving team, which would provide effective engagement and give people confidence.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)     Bill Soane, Felicity Parker, and Narinder Brah be thanked for attending the Committee;

 

2)     Additional details relating to cybercrime statistics be added to future update reports;

 

3)     Data relating to anti-social behaviour be circulated to the Committee;

 

4)     Clarification regarding attendance at Kicks sessions be provided to the Committee;

 

5)     An update on the first 6-months of the new domestic abuse contract be provided to the Committee at their March 2022 meeting;

 

6)     An update report relating to the “voice of a child” be provided to the Committee;

 

7)     An annual update on the work of CSP return to the Committee in twelve months’ time.

Supporting documents: