Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the notes of the meeting held on 13 October were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chairman. 

1.    The Head of Communtiy Safety, KCC updated Members of the Partnership on the Kent Community Safety Agreement (CSA).  It was considered that the CSA had achieved a significant amount, it had established a domestic abuse support services website, a domestic homicide review (DHR) process, community safety conferences and shared local profiles to develop an understanding of serious organised crime issues across Kent and Medway.  

2.    This had previously been a 3 year strategic document however there was no longer a requirement to produce a plan covering a 3 year period, and at the suggestion of the partnership at the March 2016 meeting the CSA had been developed into a rolling plan.

3.    The multi-agency Kent Community Safety Team were working with colleagues nationally as well as district/borough colleagues on a pilot of the MoRiLE (management of risk in law enforcement) matrix  to inform identification of community safety priorities.

4.    Ms Brinson, explained that the team sourced data sets from partner agencies for use within the CSA as well as by district/borough colleagues as part of their local  strategic assessment process. .

5.    The CSA, focussed on vulnerability and victims, the Team facilitated a pilot with six district/borough community safety units in Kent to trial the use of the MoRiLE (Management of Risk in Law Enforcement) scoring matrix.  Further information on the scoring matrix was available in Appendix B of the draft CSA.

6.    Ms Brinson confirmed that, assuming the KCSP was happy with the proposed rolling document, the current CSA had been designed to update certain chapters annually.  Ms Brinson requested feedback from group by end of march, and subject to the feedback the draft refreshed plan should be available by early April and published mid to late April.

7.    The Chairman commented that this was a partnership document, if any partners had input please put forward as soon as possible.

8.    A Partnership Member commended the broad plan with different themes which captured key elements.  There was a thought that Kent criminal justice plan needed to be referenced.  Another Member from Kent Police confirmed that Kent Police were content with the document. 

9.    There was a thought that there should be more links with the Kent Health and Wellbeing Board and links with joint commissioning. 

10. Cllr Gulvin, Medway Council explained that the CSA was not a dissimilar document to Medway’s Community Safety Plan, he agreed that links with the health and wellbeing board were key.

11. Mr Rivers, KALC asked whether Medway’s document could be circulated to the Partnership, this is available here. 

12. In response to a question about the cross-cutting theme relating to Community Resilience the officer confirmed that the CSA might touch on elements of resilience in response to emergencies i.e. flooding but the main focus would be around issues such as social isolation and improving wellbeing. 

13. One Member commented that in relation to reducing reoffending, the priorities were accommodation and employment and she sought reassurance that this was captured in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

1.    Ian Thomson, Chair of the KCSP (Kent Community Safety Partnership) Working Group updated Members on the key activities and projects being managed on behalf of the KCSP by the working group. 

2.    Planning was underway for the next community safety conference to be held in November 2017, with the theme of “vulnerabilities; impact of gangs”.  One meeting had taken place so far and partners were invited to share issues or contribute to the community safety conference.  

3.    Workshops and awareness sessions had been held for community safety partners including antisocial behaviour tools and powers.  There had also been four e-safety awareness sessions, (40-80 attendees at each events) and two community safety information sessions.  The KCST looked at information sharing with CSPs and developing the Safer Communities Portal further to share good practice, guidance and templates. 

4.    The Head of Communtiy Safety, KCC, offered thanks to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for project funding this financial year and next financial year.  Projects covered the whole county, invitations for bids would be opened shortly and this would be communicated to partners.  Localised projects should be referred to the local CSPs.  Details of the funding were included in the report but a couple of the projects highlighted were the scam victims, support and raising awareness, and the part funded research into S136 mental health issues, to help inform practice going forward. 

5.    Adrian Harper, Chief of Staff, OPCC explained the fantastic impact of the “Is It Worth It” campaign.  This had a simple key message and was clear to understand, the OPCC would support similar events in future.  Another Member also commented that this was run by a local Kent business.   The Commissioner had met with the CEO to look at other value for money projects, with a low cost per head to get such key educational messages across. 

6.    In response to a query about digital scams the Head of Community Safety confirmed that there was an intelligence team within public protection which was working with police to look at such issues.  There was a strong emphasis on cyber crime issues and links with police.  The Chairman confirmed that he had recently visited the intelligence team and he had asked for a paper to be submitted to Cabinet Committee and it was suggested that the KCSP also receive the paper

7.    A Member commented on the Dark Web and that work on that should be  incorporated. 

8.    Following a query about the previous conference on dementia a Partnership Member asked for a follow up/feedback session.  The Head of Community Safety confirmed that following the conference delegates went away as signed up dementia friends, dementia friendly cafes were set up.

9.    The Head of Community Safety updated Members following the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee which took place in December 2016.  Members were given an overview of the work of the Kent Community Safety Team, and focussed on 3 of the priorities, road safety, substance misuse and serious  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

1.    Mr Harper, Chief of Staff, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) confirmed that the final version of the Safer in Kent: the Community Safety and Criminal Justice Plan – April 2017 – March 2021 was published on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC’s) website here.  The PCC was required in law to produce a community safety plan.  The PCC had included on page 1, a plan on a page with the remainder of the plan articulating the themes behind it.  Mental health was a key theme, and it was essential to recognise the vulnerablility of people suffering mental ill health.  The plan set out clear priorities and demonstrated how the Commissioner was holding the Chief Constable to account to deliver priorities.   Both Safer in Kent fund and Mental Health and Policing Fund were open for bids. 

2.    One Member commented that there was only one reference to terrorism within the plan, was there any opportunity to include further reference?  Mr Harper explained that the issue raised was strategic and although he would take feedback back to the PCC it would be from a review perspective rather than altering plan at this stage.  Another Member commented that it was very helpful that the PCC had such a strong focus on mental health within the plan.

RESOLVED that the KCSP note the verbal update on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Safer in Kent: the Community Safety and Criminal Justice Plan – April 2017 – March 2021.

1.    The Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC’s) Chief of Staff gave Members an update on Mental Health.  He explained that within the Mental Health Fund there was £250,000 available to partners.  The Commissioner was the
Deputy portfolio lead on mental health for the national Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and had funded a triaging pilot in Thanet and Medway involving a mental health professional in policing.  Thanet and Medway give most demand, and it was hoped that the mental health professional available would be able to direct vulnerable people to the right health professional.  The pilot went live on 1 April and it was hoped that this would result in a reduction in S136 cases.   

2.    Mr Harper explained that there was a ‘Mind’ professional in the Force Control Centre, who would talk to those in crisis.  The value of this was clear, and the OPCC continued to fund this.  A conference at Canterbury Christ Church University was due to be held on 23 May, with the PCC attending as the mental health lead and there was hope for significant benefits following this. 

3.    The Chairman explained that the KCSP was interested in the outcomes of the work, were other agencies taking over work?  Mr Harper explained that from a police point of view, with the inability to detain children and adults, this would be a challenge, hopefully triaging, Mind councillors and a reduction in the use of S136 hopefully solutions would be found.

4.    Members expressed the view that this was a national problem.  The NHS was reconfiguring through Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STP) and will include a mental health strand.  It was essential to ensure that issues such as homelessness, personality disorders and debt were included within work streams.  There was work in progress but system needed investment.

5.    A Member confirmed that he was pleased to see mental health going up the agenda, he had visited a place elsewhere in the country that acted as a safe haven, manned by volunteers, which enabled a place for professionals to visit, he was looking to provide a similar facility in Medway. 

RESOLVED that the KCSP note the progress on Mental Health and request that this be brought back as a standing item.

1.    The KCSP received a presentation from Colin Thompson on the Kent Drug and Alcohol Strategy.  The presentation is available here. 

2.    Mr Thompson confirmed that following the consultation comments had been generally positive. 

3.    Members raised the significant problem of housing supply and affordability and the many issues on which the partners needed to work together, there were local challenges and national challenges.

4.    Mr Thomspon confirmed that this was just the results of thea consultation, the final strategy would include a needs assessment, and would highlight issues with changing drugs use.

RESOLVED that the KCSP note the Kent Drug and Alcohol Strategy update and request that the strategy is brought back to a future meeting of the KCSP.

1.    The KCSP received a presentation from Mel Anthony on Domestic Abuse Commissioning.  The presentation is available here. 

2.    Ms Anthony explained the new commissioning structure, contracted service providers and aims for the future including the focus on community response to local issues, increasing conversations generally about domestic abuse. 

3.    With regard to training, awareness and education – this was currently being given to groups that the system was currently aware of, not necessarily wider population.  It was necessary to be able to have conversations with different areas of society.

4.    Referring to care and support throughout Kent all organisations were currently making transitional arrangements.  In the immediate term there would be no change because the same members of staff were transferring etc.  disruption was being kept to a minimum and change would be gradual. 

5.    A Member asked about quality control and how this would be managed?  Ms Anthony explained that she expected the first year to include the establishment of base line data, whilst being conscious not to lose working relationships. 

6.    The Chairman asked who would have overarching oversight of the process?  Ms Anthony confirmed that conversations around Governance were being had and that she would report back in due course. 

7.    One Member commended the update commenting that Domestic Abuse services had been fragmented for so long.  She had a query about whether the domestic abuse health visitors were being removed? It was considered that this would create problems and was being raised as a major concern.   The member asked that the KCSP note the concerns raised.   

RESOLVED that the KCSP note the Domestic Abuse Commissioning verbal update. 

The next meeting of the Kent Community Safety Partnership will be held on 19 July 2017, 10am, Darent Room, Sessions House, Maidstone. 

RESOLVED that Members note the date of the next meeting. 

RESOLVED that the Kent Community Safety Partnership note the significant activity taking place in embedding the Prevent Duty across Kent, including the implementation and early findings of the Dovetail Pilot. 

1.    The KCSP received an update on changes to the DHR process following the release of new statutory guidance from the Home Office in December 2016 which introduced new requirements on CSPs including the need to review suicides where there is an element of coercive controlling behaviour.

2.    Due to the statutory changes to the DHR process, funding for the process was revisited and a proposal presented to the members regarding partnership contributions for 2017/18.  Changes were proposed to ensure sufficient funding is available to undertake future reviews and that contributions were equitable and proportionate. 

3.    The KCSP requested a clear pathway from DHR reviews into new Domestic Abuse Commissioning.  Lessons fed into Governance Group who will inform commissioners.   Further reading documents are available here. 

RESOLVED that the KCSP:

·        Notes that the Kent and Medway Protocols are currently being updated to ensure adherence to the new statutory guidance issued by the Home Office.

·        Notes the additional demands being placed upon the partnership and in particular, the KCST in relation to Domestic Homicide Reviews (Appendix 1).

·        Requests funding from the statutory partners for the amounts set out in Appendix 2.

·        And acknowledges the funding requirements could be subject to change in future should the number of reviews significantly increase in light of the additional requirements set out by the new statutory guidance.