Agenda item

Rachel Duke, LGA Adviser, introduced the item on the LGA’s future of community safety services review and outlined the contents of the draft report. She explained that following the SSCB meeting in June 2016, officers were tasked with looking at the challenges faced by councils and their partners when it came to community safety and how best they might respond to these. It was noted that the aim of the item was not to find a particular solution to the issues but to stimulate discussion and support councils and partners to identify how best to work together locally. A survey was sent to all community safety managers in England and Wales, the responses from which were used, alongside previous research to develop a discussion paper outlining key themes and questions. The paper was used to inform two stakeholder workshops and discussions at other meetings.

The key findings were briefly outlined and it was noted that councils and their partners had an important role to play in response to community safety. The issue of localism had been explored during the stakeholder meetings, including where it made sense to work at a very local level, and where it made sense to join up at ‘greater than CSP’ level. The report concluded that better integration across agencies, mature relationships, strong leadership and local flexibility were all needed to allow local areas to identify and implement what approaches best suits them.

The next steps suggested included supporting areas to have discussions with their partner agencies through developing the discussion paper further, peer support, and the LGA leadership programme. The LGA officers sought comments from members about the report and proposed next steps.

As part of the discussion, members made the following comments:

·         Some members expressed disappointment with the report, noting that they hoped for stronger recommendations, but agreed that it was clear there was a role for councils, and their partner agencies, in keeping communities safe.

·         It was agreed that partnerships were better than single agencies in delivering community safety services but that the report needed to say more about how to bring these groups and different partnership structures together. Several members said that there was no ‘one size fits all’ answer and that the report needs to reflect the fact that areas have different challenges.

·         It was mentioned a number of times that councils were keen to lead or work on many community safety issues but that they were limited by a lack of resources and capacity. It was noted that the same issue applied to police forces which were struggling due to a lack of funding.

·         A suggestion was made that a further exploration of opportunities for lobbying for longer term funding for service providers could be carried out as part of the review’s follow up.

·         Members highlighted an issue about links between the local police, community groups and councils. Members said that the police in their areas used to hold regular community engagement meetings but that these seem to have stopped, leaving some community groups feeling that the police were not prioritising continuing engagement.

·         Members suggested that it might be useful to include some best practice case studies in the report.

·         Some members noted disappointment that the report made limited reference to some of the new community safety issues councils are tackling such as modern slavery, human trafficking, radicalisation, organised crime, prostitution and gun and knife crime. Members wanted the report to acknowledge these issues and the pressure they put on local councils, more explicitly.

·         A discussion was had about councils’ role in reducing reoffending. It was noted that housing was a particular problem and that while councils had an obligation to offer support with housing, registering with doctors and seeking employment to some specific groups, these obligations do not apply to those who have recently been released from prison. Providing wrap around support to ex-offenders in conjunction with other agencies may help to reduce reoffending rates.

·         The Chair referred to an issue raised by the leader of the opposition at Plymouth City Council about the 2015 murder of Tanis Bhandari, and concerns about information sharing between agencies regarding one of those convicted of his murder. 

·         This led on to a broader discussion about information sharing between agencies and it was noted that it is very difficult for agencies to keep residents safe if there isn’t free sharing of information. This issue may be exacerbated by the two-tier probation system Members felt that every community safety team across the country ought to fulfil a duty to promote and encourage information sharing between partners. Consideration was also given to the frontline staff delivering public services and how improved information sharing could offer them more protection.

·         The report stated that the LGA would develop the discussion paper and would commission more detailed case studies for inclusion in the report. Members asked if the case studies would include examples from public service mutuals and social enterprises. Officers said that they would explore this option and would have further conversations with areas with existing mutual models in use, and with areas that had rejected these models.

Decision:

Members noted the report and the recommendation.

Actions:

1.    Officers to consider the comments raised by members and discuss this again at the next lead members’ meeting in May.

2.    Officers to produce an updated report to present at the next SSCB meeting on 5 June.

3.    Officers to either arrange a meeting with the Ministry of Justice to discuss information sharing between probation and partners, or draft a letter to the responsible Minister.

4.    Officers to liaise with councils who have explored the use of public sector mutuals, and provide feedback at the next meeting.