Agenda and minutes

As the Chairman had been called to an urgent meeting the Vice- Chairman took the chair for the start of the meeting.

The notes of the meeting held on 17 October 2013 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.  Actions from the meeting were noted.

(1)       Stuart Beaumont (KCC) introduced a report which provided a brief update on the work associated with the delivery of two of the agreed project outcomes around Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) that were included within the Kent Community Safety Agreement Delivery Plan.

(2)       Jim Parris (KCC) clarified the role of Districts and Borough Council’s in relation to the evaluation of the “Themis” ASB Case Management System prior to the second phase of its roll out to Districts and Borough Council’s which was anticipated to take place in April 2014. 

(3)       Andy Raby (Kent Police) acknowledged the importance of the partners finding the system useful to them and fit for purpose, this was the key focus of the evaluation of “Themis” system. The aim of partners using the same system was to avoid silo working.

(4)       The KCSP noted the current progress in relation to the implementation of a partnership ASB Case Management system (Themis) and the proposals for future roll-out and supported the proposal for extending the current partnership led review of the ASB Strategy, including accommodating the new legislative ASB changes and proposals for a community trigger.

(1)       Diane Wright (KCC) gave a verbal update on “Legal Highs” now known as New Psychoactive substances.  She emphasised that these substances were not safe and young people often thought that it was alright to take these substances as they were called “legal” highs.  She stated that suppliers of these substances got around the issues with selling them by for example stated that the substances were “not for human consumption.”  Diane stated that data for 2013/14 was being collected regarding those presenting for treatment and indicating New Psychoactive substances as their substance of choice.   From the data so far only 8 people had said that it was their substance of first substance of choice it may be the case that for a greater number it was a secondary substance of choice. All of the figures for 2013/14 would be available by May 2014.  KCA were carrying out work trying to identify young people who were presenting due to taking “legal highs”, as these substances sometimes had some positive effects so it was a challenge to get the message across to young people that these substances were not good. KCA were becoming recognised for their training and for producing age appropriate leaflets and treatment.  It was not easy to find appropriate treatment for those using “legal highs”. 

(2)       Mark Rolfe (KCC trading standards) referred to the enforcement strategy and stated that the law in the area of “legal highs” was confused.  When tested by the Home Office 18% of “legal highs” contained controlled drugs and in some cases contained dangerous chemicals. Trading Standards were looking at innovative ways that they could use consumer legislation to prevent the sale of “legal highs” in High Street shops.

(3)       It was explained that there were 17 shops in Kent selling “legal highs” and the police had attended them to give advice, trading standards had tested some of the substances and found some controlled substances and some substances which were different to those described on the label.  Legislation was not as helpful as it could be, the Crime Prevention Minster was due to start a nation review of this issue which was due to report back in spring 2015. 

(4)       Mark stated that a joint enforcement strategy was being developed to protect the people who used these substances, this was currently being checked by legal services 

(5)       Jess Mookherjee.(KCC – Public Health) stated that Public Health were looking at the links between “legal highs” and unintentional injury and self-harm.  They were looking at hospital admission rates for “poison”.  One of the key factors was the lack of data around this issue.   There was a lot of mis-information around “legal highs”  some young people claim to be taking a “legal high” when in fact it is oregano, therefore these was a need for a degree of caution around the data for degree of harm.

(6)       The Partners discussed this issue and asked a number of questions which included the following:

·         It was confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

(1)       Jess Mookherjee introduced a report which provided an overview of alcohol misuse in Kent and a plan for implementing the Alcohol Pathway in Kent. She stated that the previous alcohol strategy did a good job but was not fully developed in relation to health pathways.  There was a need to co-ordinate treatment pathways between the CCG’s and GP’s, it was about communication, engagement and awareness.  Also there was the issue of whether there was enough treatment provision. Providers needed to be aware of the issue and be flexible in order to meet demand.   

(2)       Jess stated that there was work starting on 1 April 2014 which would focus on the two areas of greatest need i.e. Kent Coastal and Thanet.  If successful it was intended to roll this out to Swale and Gravesham.  There was a need to make sure that in there was a year’s worth of back data regarding screening, advice and admissions to hospital which should be available for 2014/15. It was hoped that what would be seen in future years was fewer people presenting with a higher level of need. She estimated that there was a £0.5m underfund for treatment services.

(3)       Diane explained that she had been in discussion with treatment providers.  They were finding that the numbers presenting with alcohol issues outnumber drug clients.  It was essential to ensure that treatment services were set up to provide a proper and appropriate service for alcohol users. 

(4)       The issue was raise of the role of the private sector and especially retailers and discussions with supermarkets in relation to banning orders for individuals.  It was not just an issue for the individual it affected the whole family and there was a lack of support for them.

(5)       Jess confirmed that the Alcohol Strategy was wide ranging, it was also a public health issue and it was appropriate that it came under the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Strategy sat under the public health outcomes framework and there was a link to premature mortality.

(6)       The Partners noted the report.

(1)       Chris Turner (Kent Criminal Justice Board) introduced an update on the Medway IDVA service which included a copy of the combined Kent and Medway third quarter performance report.  Chris confirmed that Dover District Council had yet to confirm their funding arrangement for the service but that Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks District Councils had reached a satisfactory arrangement with an IDVA provider.  He stated that the IDVA caseload was increasing and it might be necessary to approach the private sector for funding.   The end of year report would be available in the third week of April and Chis was aiming to do a press release about the service.

(2)       The Chairman welcomed Tina Alexander she gave a very moving presentation on the IDVA service with examples of support which IDVA’s provided and the positive outcomes that this achieved for individuals. She expressed her gratitude to the Partners for the support which they had given to the service.

(3)       Tina and Chris responded to a number of questions which included the following:

·         In relation to interventions for perpetrators Cynthia Allen (Kent Probation Service) explained that there was a programme for perpetrators that was delivered through the Courts.  It was a 9 month programme which relied on the offender having sufficient motivation.  The Probation Service were concerned about the gap in provision of  lower level interventions.  The current programme was very resource intensive and could not be extended to all perpetrators.

·         In response to a question on what Borough Councils and the Partners could do to help, Tina stated that there was a need for more perpetrator programmes otherwise they were just in a vicious circle.  IDVA’s were really only able to support those at high risk, there was a need for more support for those at low risk.  There was an educational need, through schools to raise children’s awareness of the unacceptability of domestic abuse in all its forms

·         In relation to the private IDVA provider for Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells Chris explained that the Kent and Medway IDVA service already worked in in partnership with them.

·         Jess pointed out that domestic abuse was the highest cause of mortality in women of reproductive age and therefore it was important to raise awareness amongst healthcare professionals.

·         Stuart Beaumont (previous Chairman of the Kent and Medway Domestic Abuse Strategy Group) commended the Partnership for their response to the request for funding for an IDVA service.  It demonstrated that this partnership had a positive impact, nearly £0.76m had been provided in year 1 for the Kent and Medway ISCA service which funded 18 IDVA’s across the County. He stated that there should be greater publicity for the success of this service.

(4)       The Partners thanked Tina for her presentation and noted the update. 

The Chairman assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meetings.

(1)       Sean Bone-Knell (Kent Fire and Rescue service) introduced an information report which briefly described the applications for funding made to the Kent Community Safety Partnership which had been reviewed and supported by the Kent Community Safety Team and submitted for approval by the Chairman of the Kent Community Safety Partnership.

(2)       The Kent Community Safety Partnership noted the distribution of the Police and Crime Commissioners grant funding during the 2013/14 financial year.

(3)       The Partners recorded their thanks to the Police and Crime Commissioner for her grant of £45k which was being used to support countywide community safety initiatives

(4)       Claire Gatward (PCC office) informed the Partners that the Police and Crime Plan refresh would include allocation.  There would be a review of grants and how they linked to the Police and Crime Plan.  She would be writing to Community Safety Partnerships in the next few weeks to confirm to confirm next year’s allocation. 

(5)       In relation to the ASB school tours, Andy Rabey undertook to provide information to District Council colleagues in order to avoid duplication.

Action: Andy Rabey

(1)       Stuart Beaumont (KCC) introduced a report which outlined the development of the next Kent Community Safety Agreement for 2014 – 17 and reviewed progress in relation to the current Community Safety Agreement for 2011 – 2014.

(2)       Jim Parris (KCC – Community Safety) explained that the action plan would support the Partnership over the next 4 years, there was an issue around the agreement process for different partners and the timings there was a need to re-visit this.  In relation to Part B - the performance update -  some of the targets set 4 years ago were no longer particularly relevant.

(3)       Partners discussed the report and asked a number of questions which included the following;

·         In relation to the figures on violence and burglary, Rob Price (Kent Police) explained that the increase was largely due to the way in which the figures were reported and the carry over from the end of the year. The increase in theft especially retail theft was a reflection of the down turn in the economy. There had also been an increase in reporting of domestic violence. He confirmed that Kent had the best crime reporting system. 

·         In relation to the road safety building and the capital and revenue costs, Sean Bone-Knell undertook to provide Mr Kite with an overview of that cost. Sean confirmed that building would start on the Rochester Airport site in late 2014.

Action Sean Bone-Knell

(4)       The KCSP noted the progress with regard to the draft Kent Community Safety Agreement 2014-17 and the proposal that the final version of the Agreement would be circulated to KCSP members for final approval once complete.

(5)       The KCSP also noted progress with regard to the current Kent Community Safety Agreement for 2011 -14.

(1)       Andy Rabey introduced a report which proposed a stocktake, audit and review of community safety services across Kent.

(2)       Each Partner is requested to indicate whether or not they were willing to participate in the stocktaking audit and review exercise described in paragraph 2 of the report to the timescale set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report.

·         Action : Mike Campbell

(3)       Reference was made by Partners to the role of the Health and Wellbeing Board in relation to cross cutting community safety issues such as the IDVA service and “legal highs” and the ensure that the Board had an awareness of community safety issues.

·         Action: Mr Hill to speak to Mr Gough (Chairman of Health and Wellbeing Board).

(4)       The need to ensure that local Community Safety Partnership objectives were aligned to the objectives of the Partnership was mentioned.  Andy Rabey agreed with the need to identify local targets that had an impact across the Partnership and to identify where the overlaps occur in order to identify countywide issues.

Jim Parris informed the Partners that there had been an event organised by Kent Police to look at funding options for this service.  There would be a report to the July meeting of the Partnership.

Action: Jim Parris

The Partnership considered the following items in private session.

(1)       Stuart Beaumont and Alison Gilmore introduced a paper which provided an update on the status of all of the Kent and Medway DHR cases.

(2)       The KCSP noted the progress of the current DHR cases and it was agreed that the key agencies contribute £5,000 a year towards DHRs to ensure sustainability of this statutory requirement and the Chairman would write to the Partners regarding funding following this meeting.

(1)       Stuart Beaumont and Alison Gilmore introduced a report which provided a summary of the seven key lessons identified locally and nationally from competed Domestic Homicide Reviews and explained how these would be cascaded to practitioners across Kent and Medway.

(2)       The Chairman encouraged all Partners to attend the briefing sessions which were held for each DHR and facilitated by the Independent Chair as these provided an opportunity to hear a summary of the case, key findings/themes and the recommendations.