Agenda item

Mr Mark Wolski presented the report.

The meeting welcomed the report and heard:

·      It was clear that drug dealing was going on in the community along with antisocial behaviour. A common query was what the Council would do about it.  Northumberland Park had enormous amounts of resource over the years, but was resistant to change. It was not clear what the sanctions there were for these sorts of issues.

·      It was important for the meeting to set priorities, making it clear as to what the priorities were and it was important to see how the Partnership was managing to progress on the outcomes.

·      Although a strategy was present and priorities within it were clearly outlined, it was important to challenge how frequently these were discussed and reminded of them.  It was unclear how much they drove the progress of the meeting. It could be useful to set a standard agenda to include the statute of responsibilities and priorities that was diarised to ensure everything was covered.

·      If only one area was focused upon, it was possible to go a whole year without actually discussing a priority. A summary report of the outputs and headlines in relation to the priority could be done.

·      The strategy was clear in the priorities, but there were also visions and objectives. Sometimes the priorities appeared in all of the areas.

·      Having space on the agenda for any new and important issues that could arise was important.

·      It was difficult to determine how focus was improved in aeras like Youth Justice where different partners were delivering different parts of it.

·      Various other boards such as the Strategic Board and other strategic meetings occurred and it was important that representatives attended those - as regular updates on what was happening were delivered in those meetings.

·      The Council was undergoing a financial process and would be actively reducing the number of meetings.

·      It was unclear what the Partnership actually did which affected any improvement. Evidence for this was difficult to gather. It was important for the Partnership to test itself against real life improvements. KPIs were useful, but real-life experience was another standard of measurement. Officers or councillors often only got a snapshot of people's lives. Public Health needed to be involved. There were some public health issues around drug dealing, drug taking or substance abuse in families. Representatives from Housing were present at the meeting and the collaboration needed to be wider.

·      Other parties could be invited to the meeting including Probation, Education, the Chair of the Secondary Heads Group could also be invited. However, this could be discussed separately, as part of the Secondary Heads were part of the Youth Justice Management. This link could be strengthened in a different way to feed into the Partnership.   

·      Smartphones were being discussed as a public health issue as it related to harassment, bullying and trolling.

·      A small group from across the Partnership could get together to think about what had been discussed and contemplate it further. Priorities were still valid, but setting up to discuss the rigor around what would be reported on could mean priorities being neglected. It was important to focus on what the CSP did in the next 18 months based on its priorities during that time. 

·      It would be useful to understand what kind of different support was activated at different stages for an individual or a family. This would help give a practical understanding of what strategic priorities were being implemented and helping people operationally.

·      Priorities subject to the existing strategy may use language not precise enough. The use of a small group could define what was going to be focused upon.

·      The performance report was really positive. These could sometimes be too long with too much data. Alongside it, a thematic update on priorities would be useful. Different parts of the Partnership could provide a report and it would be possible to work out where re-prioritisation was needed. This could be something that could be part of the small group to consider. 

·      An updated terms of reference could go back to the dashboard.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.