Minutes of the Meeting

Attendance 

Apologies

• Temporary Chief Superintendent, Richard Bell (Dorset Police)
• Joe Ennis (Probation Service)
• John Newcombe (Dorset Council)
• Ian Grant (Dorset Council)
• Emma Pleece (Dorset Council)
• Andrea Breen (Dorset Council)
• Stewart Dipple (Dorset Police)
• Paul Dempsey (Dorset Council)
• Lisa Reid (Dorset Council)

Item 

No 1

Minutes of Meeting held on 19 October and Matters Arising

1.1 It was confirmed Kelvin Connolly from Children’s Services, Dorset Council, would be invited to a future meeting to help explore prevention education within schools.

1.2 All other actions were complete.

No 2

Serious Violence Duty 

2.1 Members of the group received an update on the forthcoming new serious violence duty for partners under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022

2.1 The new duty requires partners to produce an evidence-based analysis of serious violence and develop and implement a strategy in response. Statutory guidance would be published mid-December and the new Duty would come into effect on 31st January 2023. It was anticipated that partners will need to publish their serious violence strategy by 31st January 2024.

2.3 At their meeting in August, partners agreed to lead their response to meeting the new duty through the Community Safety Partnership, building on existing needs assessments and plans (in line with the provisions set out in draft guidance).

2.4 The Home Office was providing partners with funding in relation to the new duty. The funding will be channelled through Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) locally, even though PCCs are not statutory partners in relation to serious violence.

2.5 Funding for the Dorset Police Force area (covering both the Dorset and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Community Safety Partnerships) will be:

• 22/23 labour Costs: £30,000, non-labour costs: £0
• 23/24 labour costs: £180,000, non-labour costs: £112,301.57
• 24/25 labour costs: £38,520.85, non-labour costs: £315,547.47

2.6 The Home Office had awarded a contract to Crest Advisory to deliver the national implementation support offer in relation to the new duty. Lewis Gool from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) explained that Crest intended to meet with each statutory partner to discuss preparedness for the new duty. He asked partners to provide him with a single point of contact for their agency to pass to Crest.

Action  - All partners

2.7 Lewis explained the intention, in relation to the funding, was to draw it down then work out how to allocate it across the two Community Safety Partnerships in the Dorset Force area. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner will then describe to the Home Office how funding has been allocated locally.

2.8 He explained that although the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner will receive the funding, Police and Crime Commissioners are not specified authorities under the new duty and cannot determine how it should be spent. Given that, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner felt it was for the specified authorities to determine how the funding should be spent through the two Community Safety Partnerships.

2.9 Cllr Rennie emphasised the importance of ensuring a focus remained on domestic abuse and sexual violence. Andy reassured the group that the new duty should add to rather than take away from existing priorities and work.

2.10 Cllr Carr-Jones stressed the importance of coming up with an arrangement between the two CSPs which is equitable and reflected the needs and issues in each area.

2.11 David Webb felt it was important to ensure proposals reflected the fact some agencies and activities took place across the pan Dorset area.

2.12 Members of the group discussed initial thoughts about the allocation of funding and felt, given the duty applied equally to both areas, that labour costs should be split 50/50 between Dorset and Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole.  Funding for implementation could be dictated through the development of area specific delivery plans with Dorset and Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole working to identify shared work and initiatives across both areas.

Resolved 

1. the latest developments relating to the new serious violence duty were noted.

2. it was confirmed that in Dorset, partners would lead their response to fulfilling the new Duty through the CSP.

No 3 

Update on Local Priorities 

3.1 Steve Yeoman updated the group on work to tackle the Community Safety Partnerships local priorities which include Anti-Social Behaviour, Violent Crime and Rural Crime.

3.1 The Local Priority Delivery Group is developing overarching operating plans using the SARA model. SARA plans were already being used successfully to tackle neighbourhood issues at an operational level.

3.3 Key themes coming out of Partnership Coordinating Groups (PCGs) across the area included:

• work to tackle Youth ASB (Anti-Social Behaviour) and alcohol related issues in the Weymouth and Portland area remain ongoing given the specific nature of the area.
• good multi-agency work is happening across all areas to tackle particular issues i.e. safeguarding, enforcement, Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), criminal damage, illegal selling of vapes.
• problems associated with young people vaping, particularly around young people drinking vape juice to increase the nicotine effect.
• improved relationship with Magna who are working with local partners to tackle several complex cases.
• localised reports of young people carrying knifes in Weymouth and Dorchester. Dorset Police and partner agencies (including schools) are working together to address issues.

3.4 Steve highlighted challenges with the visibility of policing. Dean O’Connor explained that the Force is working smarter when deploying its resources including pooling resources from across all areas to target specific issues when they arise. This approach had resulted in tangible results as detailed in the performance update.

3.5 Members of the group felt it was important to ensure such approaches and results were communicated to members of the public and stakeholders such as Town and Parish Councils.

3.6 It was agreed to ask the Leader and Chief Executive of Dorset Council about using their regular meetings with the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils (DAPTC) to communicate work and progress. Andy would also speak with the Dorset Council communications team about issuing regular updates on work being done by the Community Safety Partnership.

Action - Andy Frost / Chair

3.7 David Webb explained a new initiative ‘Turnaround’ which is being funded through the Ministry of Justice and being made accessible to all local areas throughout the youth justice system. David gave an overview of the programme and criteria emphasising it was good news resources had been put in for early help to support young people who are on the cusp of entering the criminal justice system.

3.8 Steve raised that the Rural Crime Partnership Coordinating Group had asked the Community Safety Partnership for support to develop a needs assessment to help build their understanding of rural, heritage and wildlife crime. It was agreed this should be picked up as part of general needs assessment work once the analyst post in the Council’s team had been filled.

3.9 Steve made members of the group aware of reports of people mixing cocaine and ketamine (street name CK) and overdoses due to combining these drugs during summer events. It was agreed to feed this information into the combating drugs group, along with the issue of young people drinking vape liquid.

Action - Andy Frost

3.10 Cllr Carr-Jones was pleased to hear about the improved relations between Partnership Coordinating Groups and housing providers. Given his role at Dorset Council as Portfolio Holder for Housing & Community Safety, he asked to be given updates on any work undertaken with local housing providers.  

Action - John Newcombe (Local Priority Delivery Group)

No 4

Update on Strategic Priorities

4.1 Community Safety Partnership priorities being tackled by the Strategic Priority Delivery Group included Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Sexual Offences. Cross cutting themes included Mental Health, Substance Misuse, Complex Cases, and Violence Against Women and Girls.

4.2 Andy provided an update on activity since the last meeting (set out in his report). Members of the group recognised that much of the work taking place had become business as usual which was important to understand as part of the overall effort to tackle community safety issues.

4.3 In terms of performance (first six months of 2022/23 compared to first six months of 2021/22), both domestic abuse crimes and incidents continued to reduce but serious sexual offences had increased.

4.4 Dean O-Connor explained partners’ work to raise awareness had likely resulted in more people coming forward to report sexual violence issues and that numbers were returning to pre-covid levels.

4.5 Ian Denness explained the work he was doing to understand the effectiveness of the local domestic abuse offer including identifying which groups were using services (and which weren’t) and what barriers people face (particularly those with protective characteristics) when accessing services. The work will support future commissioning and service design activity. Members of the group recognised the importance of making the most of this work.

4.6 Cllr Molly Rennie explained how the Dorset Domestic Abuse Forum could support Ian’s work, particularly around obtaining information and insights from local providers.

4.7 Ian explained the work would develop over time and would report to the Community Safety Partnership for a steer as it evolves.

No 5

Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) – Update and Decisions

5.1 Members of the group considered work on Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs). 

5.2 Di Evans updated the Partnership on the current status of those referrals that had not resulted in a full Domestic Homicide Review  but where learning was still identified. In each case, the learning was being captured for dissemination.

5.3 Confirmation had been received from the Home Office Domestic Homicide Review Quality Assurance (QA) Panel regarding those referrals where the criteria for a review had not been met. The QA Panel had questioned one decision. Having reviewed the case, it was felt the original decision to not conduct a review should be maintained.

5.4 Di provided detailed updates on ongoing Domestic Homicide Reviews as set out in her report.

5.5 Following discussions at previous meetings, Di confirmed that the working relationship with the Coroner and Coroner’s Office was positive and that the review of statutory guidance for Domestic Homicide Reviews should be published by the Home Office for consultation in February.

5.6 The Domestic Homicide Review Action Plan Review Group had drafted a Learning and Improvement Framework. The framework outlined Dorset’s commitment to learn from Domestic Homicide Reviews, using that learning to inform the improvement and development of services. It also provided commitments in respect of how partners work, and the values and principles underpinning their work. Partners welcomed this approach and agreed to adopt the framework.

Resolved

• the recommendations, as set out in the report, were agreed.

No 6

Partnership Strategic Assessment (PSA) and Community Safety Plan

6.1 Andy explained the process for writing the latest Partnership Strategic Assessment and new three year Community Safety Plan.

6.2 It was felt important to look at tackling community safety issues over a longer time period, not just annually. Taking this approach had allowed partners to build their understanding of issues and look at longer term activity.

6.3 Following discussion, it was agreed partners should continue to focus on current priorities and cross cutting issues next year.

6.4 Members of the group recognised that old (but current) and new legislation caused conflicts for the Community Safety Partnership when determining its priorities as old legislation required the Community Safety Partnership to determine its own priorities through needs assessments, whilst new legislation dictated specific priority issues that partners must tackle.

6.5 Members of the group discussed the priority of Fraud and agreed, given the work already in train through existing local partnerships and national work, the focus should be on vulnerable people linking in with the adult safeguarding board.

6.6 Dorset Council was required to formally adopted the new plan. It was agreed Andy would liaise with partners and find out how they made visible the plan within their organisations.

Action - Andy Frost 

6.7 Andy informed the group of the government’s intention to review legislation and arrangements relating to Community Safety Partnerships. The timescales and scope were not currently clear, however it was understood the Government were keen to explore the relationship between Community Safety Partnerships and Police and Crime Commissioners.

6.8 The completed Partnership Strategic Assessment and Community Safety Plan would be presented for sign off at the Community Safety Partnership meeting in March 2023.

Resolved

• the approach to writing the annual Partnership Strategic Assessment and next community safety plan was agreed.

No 7

Annual Scrutiny Report

7.1 Andy explained the scrutiny arrangements for Community Safety Partnerships set out in legislation and that the partnership was required to report annually to the Council’s People & Health Scrutiny Committee on progress against statutory functions.

7.2 The annual scrutiny report was an opportunity for members of the group to highlight any initiatives, achievements or challenges they felt should be brought to attention. Cllr Molly Rennie explained, in her capacity as Vice Chair of the scrutiny committee, the value of having all partners’ involvement in compiling the report.

7.3 Cllr Carr-Jones requested that partners send thoughts on successes, areas of improvement and areas to focus on to Andy to include in the report which would be signed off by himself and the Vice Chair before going to committee.

Action - All Partners

Resolved

• it was agreed the scrutiny report would be developed in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Community Safety Partnership who would sign it off on behalf of the Partnership.

No 8 

Forward Plan

8.1 Members of the Community Safety Partnership agreed the Forward Plan.

No 9 

Any other business

9.1 There was no other business.

Future meeting dates:

• 10am, 15 March 2023

Dates for 2023/24 to be set.