Agenda item

1.            Mr Beaumont gave an overview of the development process for the Community Safety Agreement (CSA), explaining that it is a three year agreement updated annually.  The involvement of the Police and Crime Commissioner is now considered in relation to a due duty for the agreement and the Commissioner’s Policing Plan to have due regard of each other.  The District level CSAs all contribute to the central one and updates relating to performance against the CSA are reported to the Kent Community Safety Partnership.

2.            Mr Beaumont explained that the CSA had recently been considered by the Crime & Disorder Committee (a specific incarnation of KCC’s Scrutiny Committee for considering community safety and crime issues).  The Committee had provided positive feedback and were generally supportive of the work undertaken by the partner agencies involved.  Performance data was provided the Committee members for their information and the Community Safety Unit was pleased with the level of interest shown by elected Members and the support shown to the cross-cutting themes identified in the CSA.

3.            Mr Parris provided and overview of recent developments, noting that the CSA represents a piece of ongoing work that is periodically refreshed.  The priorities had not substantially changed since the last CSA.  The strategic assessments conducted at county and district level are ongoing and any additional issues identified will be considered at a later date.  The main change has been the heightened focus and increased consideration of Child Sexual Exploitation as a serious concern.  This has meant that consideration of CSE must now be made throughout the core priorities.  MARACs and Domestic Abuse referrals have increased though it was hoped that this was due to improved reporting processes and increased confidence from victims.  A national increase in road ‘killed or seriously injured’ (KSI) figures has been observed in Kent.  In response to questions from the Committee regarding the increase in domestic abuse cases, it was explained that examination of earlier reporting levels indicates that the increase represents an increase in the level of reporting rather than an increase in the number of incidents.  T/Supt Russell advised the Committee that more educational activity was ongoing to encourage reporting and to improve understanding of domestic abuse amongst young people, partly in response to evidence that younger and younger victims and perpetrators are being identified.

4.            The Committee discussed whether it would be advisable to consider CSE as its own independent priority rather than as a feature of the others.  Some national guidance from the Prime Minister and relevant government departments had suggested that dedicated focus on the issue would be beneficial to efforts to tackle the issue.  Officers explained that Partnership agreement was pending on exactly how CSE would be progressed and what specific work streams would be initiated.  Members noted partner agency work that may be relevant that could be missed without CSE being made a main priority in of itself, licensing and taxi regulation given as examples.  The Members commented that all relevant actions needed to be recorded properly to ensure that no victims or issues were lost in the gaps between organisations.

5.            Cynthia Allen from Kent, Surrey & Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company, advised the Committee that Kent’s Reducing Re-offending plan was due to expire later in 2015 so there would be an opportunity to address future priorities in the new plan.

6.            Mr Hill agreed that consideration of CSE as a stand-alone priority was advisable, commenting that it would be important to plan how best to add value to existing processes rather than unnecessarily re-invent currently successful systems.

RESOLVED that the committee note the update and request that consideration is given by the Community Safety Team to amending the Agreement to include CSE as a stand-alone priority.