Minutes of the Dorset Community Safety Partnership - 6 October 2021

Attendance

Core Membership 

Attendees

Support

Apologies

• Cllr Byron Quayle (DWFRA)
• David Webb (YOS)
• Andrea Breen (DC)
• David Sidwick (OPCC)

No 1

1. Welcome and introductions 

1.1 Cllr Carr Jones welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that each person introduces themselves as they speak at the meeting.

No 2

2. Minutes of meeting held on 23 June 2021 and matters arising

2.1 (2.3 New Burdens Domestic Abuse Act Funding) Dorset CSP did engage and lobby local MPs regarding the limitations of the funding. This was a useful exercise to raise the issues but it was agreed it would be unlikely to lead to changes. The proposed allocation of this funding is covered on this agenda.

2.2 (4.6 Community Safety Plan) Andy Frost outlined how the profile of the Community Safety Plan is raised within Dorset Council through our committee process. Other organisations have been asked to let Andy Frost know via email how the plan is discussed within their own organisations.

• Action - All

No 3

No 3. Community Safety Partnership development proposals

3.1 Richard Bell introduced the report highlighting a series of proposals regarding the frequency of CSP meetings and Terms of Reference (ToR). The paper followed a discussion at the previous meeting where members agreed that there was not enough time in a quarterly meeting to discuss complex issues.

3.2 It was recognised that CSPs are important in developing both strategic approaches and operational delivery. CSPs are also increasingly taking responsibility for delivery on national issues at a local level. For example the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy and aspects of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

3.3 The group accepted there needed to be more time to discuss critical areas of business, respond to local priorities and develop a collective approach to the national agenda including funding opportunities.

3.4 The Chair and Vice Chair proposed that the formal quarterly CSP meetings with agenda, papers and minutes should be retained but monthly meetings would be held in between, starting from the new calendar year.

3.5 It was agreed the monthly meetings would be less formal, shorter (one hour maximum) and allow partners to consider specific areas of work in more detail, discuss and determine solutions to problems and resolve issues.

3.6 The group agreed the proposal for greater frequency of meetings but commented that the increased frequency may mean different representatives may attend. It was agreed it would be the responsibility of each agency to ensure attendees were fully briefed to allow continuity and accurate decision making. Members also commented that the monthly meetings should focus on specific themes to allow for more detailed discussions.

3.7 Andy Frost outlined that the ToR had been updated to reflect the proposed change in meeting frequency, as well as the change to probation services (the Community Rehabilitation Company has been removed from the core membership) and the minimum number of statutory partners required for a CSP meeting to go ahead had been reduced to two.

Resolved

• The proposal to move to monthly CSP meetings from the new calendar year was agreed.
• The CSP’s revised Terms of Reference were agreed.

No 4

No 4 Progress against strategic priorities 

4.1 Andy Frost introduced the report which detailed progress against strategic priorities. In the last quarter the main focus has been on domestic abuse which continues to dominate the agenda and various activities including:

• preparation in relation to the Domestic Act 2021,
• auditing the High Risk Domestic Abuse work,
• developing a Commissioning Charter for domestic abuse,
• communications work involving posters on council vehicles.

4.2 The group requested that future communication work was co-ordinated with the Safeguarding Boards to ensure consistent messages are given. Ian Grant confirmed that there was regular contact with the Boards and other partners working in this field.

4.3 Andy Frost highlighted the cost of crime in particular the cost of domestic abuse. It was recognised that domestic abuse has an obvious detrimental effect on the victim and their children and this will always be the focus of the partnerships work, however there is also a cost to public services.

4.4 In addition to domestic abuse the strategic group are also looking at links between county lines and sexual assaults, those with drug and alcohol issues accessing domestic abuse services and developing a process to better coordinate funding opportunities across organisations.

4.5 Ian Grant introduced the Commissioning Charter for domestic abuse services which had recently been agreed by the Joint Commissioning Board (Health and Social Care). The Charter sets out a framework which includes a set of principles for commissioning domestic abuse services. It was agreed that future commissioning proposals for domestic abuse services would also be raised at the Joint Commissioning Board to ensure co-ordination and consistency

4.6 Richard Bell highlighted the format of the Action Plan had changed to a consistent approach based on the 4 Ps - Prepare, Protect, Prevent and Pursue.

4.7 Cllr Rennie asked why there has been an increase in domestic abuse incidents but a decrease in crimes. Richard Bell responded stating that the incident is a broad term for what happens within a domestic forum, for example a child arguing with their parent. When a police officer attends they will flag on the system that it was a domestic incident. These incidents are then viewed by the Dorset Police Crime Bureau who look at each incident and determine if they meet the thresholds to be converted to a crime.

4.8 Andy Frost drew attention to other performance issues within the report. In terms of the increase in sexual offences it is important to explore the context of these crimes to understand how to address them. For example, to understand whether a percentage of those sexual assaults happen within a domestic setting and also what impact COVID-19 had on reporting crimes during lockdown.

4.9 Richard Bell also stated that it is important to look at the four year trend regarding the strategic priorities as this puts performance in perspective. The group agreed that a clear communications message should be prepared which addresses the increases and gives clarity to the issues.

4.10 Cllr Carr-Jones asked if there are any priorities where the group needed to take further action in the near future and/or whether there is the right balance between intervention and prevention. Andy Frost commented that domestic abuse currently dominates the agenda, partly due to the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act, leaving less time for some other priorities. In terms of prevention, amending the action plan to focus on the 4 P’s has highlighted the need for more preventative activity.

4.11 Richard Bell asked if the group should re-visit the strategic priorities to ensure they aligned with partners’ capacity to tackle them. It was confirmed community safety issues would be assessed as part of the annual Partnership Strategic Assessment. This will allow the group to set priorities and plan activities to address them.

4.12 Liz Plastow committed to reviewing the CCGs work to see how the organisation contributes to the community safety agenda and what else could be done to support.

4.13 In addition, it was agreed as part of the monthly meetings the group should look at how we organise our approach to our strategic priorities, the resources needed and how we can mainstream community safety work within our organisations.

• Action - Andy Frost

Resolved

• The group considered and commented on progress against strategic priorities through the work of the Strategic Priority Delivery Group.
• The Domestic Abuse Commissioning Charter (Appendix 2) was agreed.

No 5

No 5. Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs)

5.1 Kay Wilson White introduced the paper on DHRs.

5.2 As agreed at the last meeting the CSP Chair has written and received a response from the Home Office in relation to the statutory guidance for DHRs involving ‘suspected suicides.’ A copy of both letters will be forwarded to partners following the meeting.

• Action - Kay Wilson White

5.3 The Home Office response was disappointing as despite the ongoing concerns regarding the appropriateness of statutory guidance for these cases, it is not going to be amended in the near future. Their response did however give greater clarity for not publishing a DHR including safeguarding children, legal ramifications or if publishing was against the wishes of the family.

5.4 In their response, the Home Office had requested the CSP look at each DHR on a case by case basis regarding publication and the Home Office informed in each case of the reason for non-publication. The group agreed with this approach.

5.5 Since the last meeting, discussions have been ongoing with the Senior Coroner. At the previous CSP meeting the group agreed that in cases of ‘suspected suicide’ the DHR should be pended until an inquest is held and the Coroner determines the deceased took their own life. Only then can the CSP be sure that the death meets the criteria for a DHR.  

5.6 Rachel Griffin, the Senior Coroner agreed this approach makes sense but requested the CSP and Coroners Office look at this on a case by case basis. The group agreed this was a pragmatic way forward.

5.7 The group noted the updates regarding the current DHRs and the recommendations regarding the outstanding DHRs were agreed.

5.8 In addition to the recommendations in the report the group also agreed that

• The changes made for DHR D8 following the comments from the Home Office QA panel would be sent to the CSP for information only prior to re-submitting the final documents.
• DHR D12 would be pended until the outcome of the Pre Inquest Review. It was agreed that, if all parties present at the inquest were in agreement, the DHR would continue prior to the full inquest.

5.9 Kay Wilson-White confirmed the family and friends of the deceased are involved once the DHR formally starts, for example after a trial or an inquest. Friends and family can be supported to take part by specialist voluntary sector agencies and it was agreed they play an important role in the DHR, providing vital information to inform the review.

5.10 The group noted it would be useful to focus on the outcomes from DHRs and what has changed since DHRs have been completed. A focus will be given on DHR outcomes at one of the monthly meetings. It was confirmed that outcomes are fed into the Safeguarding Children and Adults Boards to ensure all three partnership bodies have a joined up, consistent approach.

5.11 The group noted the evaluation of the High Risk Domestic Abuse model (HRDA). The HRDA meeting was introduced in direct response to several DHRs.

5.12 The evaluation demonstrated there has been a faster, coordinated and collaborative response to the whole family affected by domestic abuse including perpetrators and children since the introduction of the HRDA. The case analysis demonstrated the complexity of the HRDA cases and demonstrated that there was a reduction in the severity of abuse experienced by the majority of victims reported to Dorset Police.

5.13 Kay Wilson-White highlighted one of the recommendations focused on ensuring partner’s attendance and commitment to the HRDA. The group acknowledged the HRDA cases were the highest risk cases that all agencies need to prioritise as part of the ongoing commitment to safeguard adults and children at risk. Liz Plastow gave an update on how health are sharing information with the HRDA.

5.14 Vanessa Read confirmed her role as a critical friend during the evaluation process. She stressed the need to develop some key performance indictors (KPIs) following the evaluation and also ensure future evaluations include the voice of the victim.

5.15 A question was asked regarding the focus on domestic abuse offenders within the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) programme. Toni Shephard confirmed that although the IOM is being reviewed the National Probation Service anticipate domestic abuse offenders will still be managed under the programme.

Resolved

1. The group agreed the recommendations in the report and those listed under paragraph 5.8.

No 6

No 6. Domestic Abuse Act

6.1 Andy Frost introduced the report which detailed the requirements of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 which became law in April 2021.

6.2 The Act requires the CSP to establish a Local Partnership Board (LPB) and produce a needs assessment and strategy relating to support for victims of domestic abuse in safe accommodation.

6.3 At the June meeting the group agreed that the CSP will take on the functions and act as the LPB for the Dorset Council area and made comments on a draft Domestic Abuse Strategy.

6.4 As there have been delays to the final regulations coming into effect (regulations and statutory guidance were published on 1st October 2021) the Domestic Abuse Strategy has been developed further reflecting the comments made at the last meeting. These were listed within the report.

6.5 The revised timescales are that local authorities must publish their final strategies by 5 Jan 2022 with draft strategies published 10 weeks prior to that.

6.6 The group noted the main changes to the strategy since the last CSP meeting. The revised strategy was agreed and will be considered by Dorset Council’s Cabinet for approval before being published in draft form. It was agreed Richard Bell would confirm if the data provided by Dorset Police as part of the appendix was cleared for publication with the papers for Cabinet by 20 October.

• Action - Supt. Richard Bell

6.7 The group noted that each upper tier local authority has been awarded new burdens funding from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government  (MHCLG) to help them meet the new duty to provide support to victims and their children in safe accommodation.

6.8 Dorset Council had received £650,000 however the group noted it can only be used on the new duty. The expectation is that the money is spent in the current financial year and no guarantee of funding for future years.

6.9 Although additional funding is welcomed, concerns have been raised with MHCLG and others about the narrow focus of the funding. It was recognised that although support in safe accommodation is important, it is only one aspect of the much wider local service offer.

6.10 Andy Frost outlined that the mechanics of the funding also present difficulties. The expectation to spend the money in the current financial year and the lack of certainty about future funding makes commissioning and procurement difficult.

6.11 Given these challenges, a series of proposals have been developed for spending the Council’s new burdens funding. These were detailed in the report and the group were asked to support the spending proposals.

6.12 The CSP agreed these were sensible suggestions within the funding constraints and supported the proposals.

Resolved

The CSP

• Agreed the refined domestic abuse strategy.
• Supported the proposals for spending Dorset Council’s allocation of the new burdens funding.

No 7

No 7. Progress against local priorities

7.1 John Newcombe introduced the report concerning progress against local priorities.

7.2 He confirmed the local delivery plan had been revamped to include the SARA model (scanning, analysis, response and assessment) and to also take account of the four P’s mentioned earlier in the meeting.

7.3 The Operational Delivery Plan was attached as an appendix to the report and was marked as OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE. The document includes tabs on the current performance indicators for the Community Safety Team in addition to the specific priorities as identified by each of the Neighbourhood Policing Team’s / Partnership Co-ordinating Groups (PCG’s).

7.4 It was confirmed the Community Safety Team remain busy. There are some positive initiatives this quarter including Operation Luscombe, the Safe Space and ASB patrols in Weymouth. It was also confirmed the CSAS scheme in Weymouth had been extended until 2024

7.5 John Newcombe highlighted the work of the six PCGs. There are issues of engagement of particular agencies at each PCG and there is work to address this with the local Inspector. Cllr Carr-Jones confirmed his support to raise any issues with local housing associations.

7.6 John Newcombe confirmed bids have also gone forward for Safer Streets and Safety for Women at Night funding.

7.7 As discussed earlier it was recognised there is a shortage of analytical support to deliver local priorities and it was agreed this needs to be discussed further.

7.8 The group thanked the work of the PCGs in the delivery of local priorities.

7.9 The Chair asked a question regarding community triggers. John Newcombe confirmed the legislation that introduced community triggers was not well publicised, however there has been an increase in triggers in the last 18 months.

7.10 Andy Frost confirmed how some of the strategic priorities are devolved to the local operational delivery groups to deliver, for example public place violence and anti-social behaviour.  Each area tailors how it delivers against these priorities and each PCG may take on more localised issues raised by the community.

Resolved

The CSP:

• Considered and commented on the Local Priority Delivery Group Operational Plan.
• Considered and commented on the ongoing work of the various PCG’s.

No 8

No 8. Forward plan

8.1 Andy Frost confirmed the forward plan had been updated since the last meeting. The plan will be further updated to include the monthly meetings.

No 9

No 9. Any other business

9.1 The group discussed how the CSP works with other partnership boards to avoid duplication and agree who will lead on overlapping priorities. Andy Frost confirmed he is still arranging a meeting with the Chairs of the Safeguarding Boards to discuss this point although regular meetings are held with the Business Managers on overlapping issues.

9.2 The Chair raised the issue of whether we need in person meetings in the future. The group agreed it would be useful to have an in person meeting once a year however this is currently not possible for some organisations due to COVID-19 restrictions. It was agreed that the monthly meetings would have to be online due to time constraints.