·         John Ward

·         Georgia Webb (CRC)

·         Caroline Marr / Richard Grant (Agenda Item 3)

·         Mabel Edge (Agenda Item 5)

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and asked for a vote of thanks to be recorded for Mark Benden who, due to recent changes to the Probation Service, would no longer be attending meetings.  Mark had worked with the partnership for many years, and had been committed to its ongoing development, chairing the Reducing Reoffending Delivery Group.  The Board thanked Mark for his contributions and wished him well in his new role.  In light of the many new faces around the table, the Chair then asked everyone to introduce themselves.

Notes from meeting held on 8 May 2014

As the notes of the previous meeting had only just been tabled, it was agreed that they would be submitted to the next meeting.

The Board heard about One Plymouth, a group comprising the key partnership leads in the City whose purpose was to ensure there is a strategic and holistic approach to delivering services, helping inward investment and maintaining development of the City to ensure it provides a sustainable environment, economy and services fit for the future of its citizens. 

Members welcomed Richard Grant and Caroline Marr from Plymouth City Council who were in attendance to provide a briefing on the Plymouth Plan.  The Plan will be a single strategic plan for the city, looking ahead to 2031 and beyond and will bring together all the city’s long term strategic plans into one place and will deliver a full review of the current Local Development Framework Core Strategy.  This coordinated approach will allow the city to have a single voice on its strategic priorities and help all key partners to pull together in the same direction.

The Board heard that a large consultation event ‘Plymouth Conversation’ had taken place over a six- month period last year using a sofa to encourage people to sit and talk to officers expressing their views on what the Plan should say and what they thought the city would be like at the end of the Plan in 2031.  This culminated in the Plymouth Plan convention in the City Centre Shop, which had been themed around the topics identified in the consultation, and generated over 4,000 separate comments.

An evidence base, underpinned by solid facts, had now been established and the next phase of consultations ‘Plymouth Plan Connections’ had commenced and would continue over the summer.  The timeline for bringing the Plan into effect was as follows –

·         Plymouth Plan Connections – Summer 2014 (area assessments, evidence base and topic papers published summer 2014 and running until 24 October 2014)

·         Plymouth Plan (Part One – Strategies) Consultation Draft presented to Cabinet in December 2014

·         Plymouth Plan (allocations and designations) – 2015

·         Single Plymouth Plan – pre-submission consultation – by January 2016

·         Plymouth Plan submitted to Government – by April 2016

The Chair thanked the officers for the briefing and suggested members give thought to what the Safer Plymouth Partnership would like to see in the Plan, bearing in mind the community safety thread.

It was highlighted that the students at Plymouth University formed a large part of the city’s demographic and had a number of student forums where the consultation could be fed in.  It was suggested that a useful engagement exercise could involve bringing the Plymouth sofa to the student’s union. 

Similarly, the representatives from Neighbourhood Watch and the Octopus Project (ZEBRA) offered to act as direct links to their organisations for the purposes of widening engagement in the consultation process.

Sarah Hopkins reinforced the Chair’s comment and suggested that, as community safety did not have its own specific topic paper, members ought to give thought to whether one was required.

Caroline Marr responded that it would be worth looking at the consultation paper to determine whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Verbal Update on process and any implications for Safer Plymouth Partnership

The Partnership heard of the recent changes to the former Devon and Cornwall Probation Trust which had come about as a result of the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation Programme, namely that the service had been split in two as follows –

• One National Probation Service managing high risk offenders; and
• 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) delivering services to lower risk offenders; one of which will cover Dorset, Devon and Cornwall.

The CRC element would be contracted out and two providers had submitted bids for the Dorset, Devon and Cornwall contract package area – Sentinel and Working Links.  The preferred bidder would be announced at the end of October, following which there would be a period of mobilisation prior to the start of the contract in April 2015.

Areas of concern highlighted in respect of these changes were –

• payment by results (PbR);
• the Probation Service had always been publicly owned and the management of risk had never before been commercially driven;
• the turn-around time between awarding the contract and the contract commencing was short;
• less resilience amongst the service to manage business risk in terms of staff leave, sickness, secondments etc.
• risks around data-sharing and lack of co-operation by the Police, particularly in regard to domestic abuse referrals – how could this be addressed as a key priority if there isn’t any co-operation.

The Chair reported that the City Council had not supported the reforms and had agreed that its Chief Executive would again write to MPs, Ministers and the Police and Crime Commissioner with its concerns.

In addition, Ian Ansell commented that Tony Hogg had raised the issue of rehabilitation at the last two Police and Crime Commissioner meetings and Police and Crime Commissioners nationally had put a lot of pressure on the Ministry of Justice on the matter. In particular, he echoed concerns raised about the PbR mechanism which was not conducive to positive outcomes.

The Board noted the update with thanks.

P&CC Project in Plymouth

On behalf of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Ian Ansell provided members with an update on Restorative Justice Services (RJS).  He advised that –

• the new Victims’ Code had been launched in December 2013 and every victim was now entitled to find out about RJS in their area, including how they can take part;
• a pot of money had been provided to the Police and Crime Commissioner by the Ministry of Justice to help develop local capacity to deliver RJS and to contribute to the funding of services over the next two years 14/15 and 15/16.  This money was specifically to support delivery of RJS to the victims of crime;
• due to the link with delivery of the Victims Code entitlements, restorative justice had been included in the joint project established by the Police and the OPCC;
• a number of the statutory partners within the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) also had an interest in the development of restorative justice services and wished to contribute to the development of local delivery arrangements;
• following consultation with community safety partnerships, it was proposed that each would have a sub-group that would include restorative justice within its remit.  The Police and Crime Commissioner would then provide funds to those sub-groups to enable local decisions to be taken about the development of capacity and the monitoring of arrangements.

The group then welcomed Mabel Edge, Manager of the Family Group Conference Service (FGC) at Plymouth City Council, who had been leading on the project in Plymouth, and had been attending the Plymouth Restorative Justice Forum since its formation on 10 April 2014.  Mabel advised that the Forum –

• recognised the value of victims and ex-offenders input and had a young person sharing their views within the forum;
• needed to continue to expand to cover all victims’ services in order to build strong links and partnerships with other key partners across the city;
• subject to the Partnership’s approval, proposed to manage the ring-fenced funding from the OPCC with accountability being held by the FGC Manager – this included employment of a part-time co-ordinator to champion Restorative Justice and the work of the Forum (full details of the proposal are contained within the report attached to the agenda for the meeting). 

An initial £20,000 was available for start-up costs and further funding would be available to draw down once a way forward had been agreed.  However, it was still unclear how the money would be drawn down, possibly through spot purchasing but this was still to be confirmed.  Funding spend would be subject to scrutiny by the Ministry of Justice who were very clear that the money was purely for the purposes of victim support.

The Safer Plymouth Partnership noted the report and agreed the proposal as set out in Appendix 2.

Update from P&CC

On behalf of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Ian Ansell provided members with an update on Victim Services Commissioning.  He advised that –

• with effect from April 2015, the Police and Crime Commissioner would have responsibility for delivery of victim services;
• a victim needs assessment had been completed for the peninsula, highlighting areas where improved service delivery was required;
• a joint project had been established by the Police and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in order to commission a full range of victim services and to achieve full compliance with the revised Victim’s Code.  Delivery of the project would be driven through a Victim Strategic Board and a Project Manager had been appointed to co-ordinate the work involved;
• there would be six priority task groups reporting to the Victim Strategic Board –
  • process mapping
  • development of network and directory
  • victim needs assessments
  • demand and volume
  • compliance with delivery of entitlements with the Victims Code
  • services to victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse

This new regime meant a shift away from use of the sole provider – Victim Support – as there were a significant number of groups who felt they would like to obtain support from alternative providers.  Part of the project would be to identify who those suppliers could be and then develop a network and directory.  Various groups had been encouraged to make submissions and, to date, 40 had been received with a spectrum of characteristics.

There were still many issues to be worked through, including establishing payment mechanisms, and ensuring an equal standard of service was available to those victims who did not want to engage with the Criminal Justice Service.

The Chair advised that in Plymouth part of the grant received from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner was used to fund anti-social behaviour victim support services and in the first three months half of the target had been achieved along with 96 per cent positive feedback on the service received.

In addition, the Chair reported that Victim Services were today celebrating their 40^th anniversary and the occasion was being marked by a parliamentary reception.  He took the opportunity to offer them his congratulations.

The Board noted the update with thanks.

·         Delivering the Plan – next steps / taking it forward

·         Next steps for Safer Plymouth Partnership Development

Members welcomed John Ward who had been facilitating discussions on how to take the partnership forward based on the systems leadership concept.  John had been invited to work with the group as a result of his involvement in developing the Health and Wellbeing Board, which was now well established.

Discussion took place on the systems leadership approach which accepted that sometimes things could not be fixed and instead focussed on change and making change where change could be effective.  An example used in this regard, and `one of the major challenges for the city, was alcohol and dealing with the effects of alcohol which was the focus of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

Relationships were an important element of any partnership, with some being more complex than others.  It was therefore necessary to take some time to look at each of them in order to gain a better understanding of the relationships and explore issues such as communication, sharing resources and how challenges were met.  It was suggested that it would be useful to know each partner’s core purpose and how this linked in with the others so that the group could start to build relations and work towards achieving a common goal.

Whilst members welcomed the idea of a fresh approach, concern was expressed at the level of understanding of the systems leadership approach.  The targeted campaign on tackling alcohol by the Health and Wellbeing Board was in its infancy and would take time to work through, however, members were interested in hearing about how the approach was being adopted and what people thought about how it was working.  Other examples discussed included –

• the ‘Get Up’ Movement in Australia;
• Bloomberg, New York (of which Plymouth was to become a similar pilot);
• the Obama election campaign;
• NHS change day.

In addition, the Board heard of a Plymouth City Council multi-leadership programme where PCC, Health and Fire services had linked up to look at whether resources or finances could be given/shared in order to deliver customer outcomes.  This approach was welcomed across the piece as it was recognised that small joint actions could ultimately achieve big results. 

It was also acknowledged that having an issue of focus to learn through would be helpful.  Therefore, as incidents of hate crime were increasing in the city, it was suggested that this could be the Board’s driver for change in a similar vein as alcohol was being to the Health and Wellbeing Board. 

The Chair endorsed this proposal and added in hidden harm as both issues jointly formed the Partnership’s fifth top priority.  Hidden harm had also been identified as an area that the Fairness Commission had struggled to get underneath.  John Ward and Sarah Hopkins offered to work up a proposal to bring back to the Partnership and it was suggested that it would be useful for the group to have an away-day dedicated to the systems leadership model and how the Board can move forward focussing on hate and hidden crime.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Top Priorities

Continuing discussions which had taken place at the previous meeting, members supported the proposal that it would be useful ensure that the Board’s action plan was aligned to assist with delivery of its priorities and performance measures.  It was therefore agreed that -

(Discussion on this item took place alongside agenda items 7 and 10a).

The performance report was noted.

As agreed at the last meeting, the Chair and Sarah Hopkins had prepared a response on behalf of the Board to the Fairness Commission and a copy of that response and the final report had been included in the agenda pack for members’ information.  As previously, discussed under agenda items 7 and 8, the immediate focus of the group would be hate crime and hidden harm.  In addition, addressing the gap in crime between the worst affected and other areas of the city was also identified.

Agreed the Board’s response to Dame Suzi Leather’s letter.

(Discussion on this item also took place alongside agenda items 7 and 8).

Further to discussion at the last meeting, the Board considered the proposal put forward by Charlie Green to lead a project looking at CCTV provision in the city to support the review currently being undertaken by the Council.  The project would require some research being undertaken, in order to gain a much clearer and holistic understanding of where CCTV was currently sited, and then consultation with key stakeholders and communities.  The findings of the consultation would be reported back to the Safer Plymouth Partnership early in 2015 and then fed into the CCTV review.

Agreed that –

·         16 October 2014

·         23 January 2015

·         16 April 2015

All meetings will commence at 10 am.

Venues to be confirmed.

·         16 October 2014

·         23 January 2015

·         16 April 2015