The Vice-Chairman welcomed the Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and senior officers from Kent Police to the meeting.
|
| The Chairman of the partnership gave a presentation setting out the background to how the partnership had originally been set up compared to how it currently operated, together with why Medway was now a safer place to live, work and play in than ever before. The presentation covered the following points:
|
| | • | a 18.5% reduction in all crime in Medway in the last year with 3,000 less recorded offences;
|
| | • | that public perception in Medway (measured by the British Crime Survey) was out of step with reality;
|
| | • | serious violent crime was down by 50% and burglaries down by 29%;
|
| | • | feedback to communities included the "You said, we did" campaign;
|
| | • | that various further work was required, particularly around public perception of community safety issues;
|
| | • | that future plans included broader work across the Local Strategic; Partnership (LSP) agenda, particularly with health colleagues, for example working with dysfunctional families where the children were at risk of developing a criminal lifestyle.
|
| The Committee thanked the Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership for his presentation and asked questions, including the following:
|
| | • | Could the Community Safety Partnership identify areas of good practice, or concern, with regard to PACTs (Partners and Communities Together) as the Committee was soon to commence an in-depth review into their effectiveness and future role?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP responded that this was a very timely review but reminded Members that PACTs were only one part of police engagement with local communities. The issues raised via PACT meetings had to be considered in conjunction with issues raised via other methods of public engagement in each area.
|
| | • | Information was requested on the operation of the SOS bus (which provided a safe haven for people suffering the effects of drugs or alcohol, offering first aid and advice).
|
| Officers responded that the SOS bus was based mainly in Rochester, as this was the hub of the night time economy. During the daytime it was taken to schools and retail outlets or hired out. An anonymous survey was kept of the people who used it which had shown that it had already saved two people's lives. Members were also advised of a new project called 'HOUSE' which had been extremely successful elsewhere. It would be a place for young people to visit and would enable the partnership to offer services, such as sexual health assessments and pregnancy services, etc. A previous scheme in another local authority had seen 150,000 young people use the facility in the first few months.
|
| | • | Who decided the partnership's priorities and who was involved?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP responded that an annual strategic assessment was carried out which identified keys areas of risk. The partnership also consulted with local communities and used survey data. There was also the Kent Crime and Victimisation Survey which surveyed 4,000 people on a quarterly basis each year.
|
| | • | What new technologies did the police use to enable police officers to spend more time on the street, rather than behind a desk?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP replied that the use of mobile technology was having an impact on reducing the time spent by police officers in the police station. Various community based locations were currently being identified for officers to report to, rather than using the police station and also officers were expected to be visible and engaging with the public across Medway but particularly in areas with particular problems.
|
| | • | Is the gap between the public's perception of the impact of tackling anti-social behaviour and crime typical at a national level for the single confidence measure.
|
| The partnership believed there was a lack of public understanding about roles and responsibilities (ie community safety teams, Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), police and neighbourhood wardens, etc). The CSP was developing an action plan to tackle this. The Chairman of the CSP advised this may take some time to address.
|
| | • | Members advised that they were aware of reports of recent assaults on students. Given that the four major areas with high crime rates in Medway were also areas where large communities of students lived, could the CSP, with the use of the council's CCTV cameras, provide 'safe highways' home for students, as it must be possible to pro-actively monitor their routes?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP said that he would take the suggestion of 'safe routes' forward for consideration and come back to the Committee on this issue.
|
| | • | The presentation highlighted the council's and police's involvement in the CSP but what about other partners - was it an equal partnership and did all partners meet the expectations the partnership required?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP advised that the size of the various organisations might differ but the size of the commitment from each partner was significant. Much of the partnership's work was thematic, so different partners were consulted and contributed on each subject matter. It was difficult to quantify this but as Chairman he thought that the commitment from each partner was at a suitable level.
|
| | • | Paragraph 2.5 of the report gave information on the partnership's Priority 2 - tackling anti-social behaviour, including criminal damage, and described 24 hour targeted operations. What value could be given for an operation that only lasted for 24 hours?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP advised that 10 areas had been identified as locations where levels of anti-social behaviour and criminal damage were highest. The 24 hour operations were heavily resourced initiatives to tackle particular issues but these only worked if long-term strategies were also put in place following the operation. He advised that it was a very useful and successful tactic.
|
| | • | Were there problems in Medway with regard to disabled people being the target of 'hate' crimes, as seen nationally?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP responded that the CSP was actively addressing the issue of diversity and highlighted the level of reported crime particularly affecting disabled people and racially motivated incidents. There had been eight reports of 'hate' crime of which 75% had been detected and 110 race-related crimes of which 62-63% had been detected. A range of initiatives were underway. It was acknowledged this was an important area of focus for the partnership.
|
| | • | How successful had the 'Safety in Action' scheme been? This had involved working with students in schools to reduce levels of litter, graffiti and flytipping.
|
| The feedback from this scheme was that it had generated a positive response from young people.
|
| | • | The police had initiated specific days for public contact (surgeries) in shopping centres and at specific locations within communities. Did the partnership have feedback on whether contact with the public was more successful when at these locations rather than at the Council's Contact Points?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP promised to report back. His initial response was that wherever police surgeries were held at alternative locations, there was always positive feedback.
|
| | • | As the Committee now had the power to scrutinise the Community Safety Partnership, could the other partners be present at the scrutiny meeting in the future?
|
| The Chairman advised that this was a matter for the Committee to decide for future meetings.
|
| | • | Other police forces had use of 'drones' (small helicopters with cameras), would Medway have any of these in the future once their use had been legalised?
|
| Officers advised that 'drones' were already legal and good for crowd control issues but they were not sure that they were readily available for use in Kent.
|
| | • | If, as had been stated earlier in the meeting, 25% of total crime in Medway took place in Luton and Wayfield, Chatham Central and Gillingham North wards, why was this so high and was there a strategy to reduce it?
|
| The Chairman of the CSP advised that the three wards where the partnership was focussing its attention across a range of issues were Luton and Wayfield, Chatham Central and Gillingham North. Demographics showed the issues that needed to be addressed in these areas. "Project Superwards" had been devised to do more work in certain locations in these wards, as the partnership had to be business minded and, as discovered, if three wards equated to 25% of the business, it was entirely laudable to focus more work in those locations.
|
| The Committee thanked the Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership and police senior management team for attending the meeting, the presentation and the comprehensive answers to the questions. |