Agenda item

The Board received a presentation on progress of the refresh underway of the Community Safety Partnership with a view to trialling a new way of working to support the development of the new Community Safety Strategy. An overview was provided of feedback provided by partners as part of the process in to how the strategic role of the Board could be enhanced going forward. The Chair extended thanks to partners for participating in the process and providing valuable feedback. It was emphasised that the review was an ongoing, iterative process.

Proposals were outlined for the CSP to concentrate on three key priorities going forward of reoffending, prevention and public confidence, with a view to focussing on areas where partners could add value. It was suggested that each of the priorities be supported by a priority partner to lead and drive forward discussions.

The Board held a brief round table discussion on key proposals arising from the review and provided the following feedback in response to key questions posed:

Q1 Are you supportive of a more focussed/strategic approach to CSP meetings:

·         General support was expressed for a more focussed and strategic approach to CSP meetings.

·         Concerns were raised over the potential for the CSP, in adopting a more strategic approach, losing oversight of other important partnership areas such as information sharing etc.

·         It was suggested that duties imposed on the Board under the Care Act be incorporated within the revised Terms of Reference including the disproportionate impact of crime on key vulnerable groups in society. Officers commented that potentially this could serve as a core strand across the three proposed priorities or under the prevention priority.

·         The importance was agreed of maintaining a focus on areas where the Board could add value, avoiding duplicating work and where possible joining up agendas e.g. across youth justice.

·         An exercise was proposed to map existing community safety related services provided across the voluntary sector to help reduce future duplication.

Q2 Do you agree with the three priority areas identified?

·         Concern was raised that the three priorities covered a very sizeable agenda and that the Board would need to agree clear definitions to achieve a balance between imposing too narrow or broad a focus. Particular concern was raised over the prevention priority within this context, as on a partnership level it was considered that the term was too broad and all encompassing. A clear definition was also required of early intervention within this context.

·         It was commented that the priorities should encompass a focus on wellbeing and safety as well as crime in the broader sense, in order to allow the participation of other agencies and organisations in a partnership approach.

·         The importance was emphasised of defining clear outcomes for priorities with reference to baseline data, maintaining an overriding focus on where value could be added and establishing clear links to correlating work being undertaken elsewhere. 

·         Concerns were raised over whether reoffending was the right choice as a key priority. It was commented that the reoffending priority was ‘bigger than crime’ and that the definition should be broader in also taking into account safety.

·         Clarification was required on where the ‘challenge’ element would come from around the prevention priority.

·         Further discussions would be required at a partnership level regarding the allocation of resources for these priorities set against individual organisational objectives and budgetary pressures.

·         The development of an effective communications strategy would be fundamental to efforts under a public confidence priority. 

·         It was suggested that consideration be given to how the CSP could add value to the Integrated Offender Management workstream.

Q3 Do you agree with the idea of having designated priority leads to improve accountability within the CSP?

·         Initial proposals for priority leads were reoffending-Police/Probation; prevention-Bridge Renewal Trust and public confidence-Homes for Haringey.

In light of the concerns raised by the Board regarding the three priorities put forward and requests for further development work to be undertaken, it was agreed that a revised report would come back to a future CSP meeting for further discussion [action: Will Shanks].

It was advised that revision was required of the paragraph within the draft Terms of Reference related to the Clinical Commissioning Group [action: Claire Kowalska].

RESOLVED

·         To note the current progress of the review and that further discussions would be held at a future CSP meeting following the undertaking of additional development work.