(a)

the Plymouth Domestic Abuse Service (PDAS) delivered early intervention and prevention programmes to city schools.  This was funded by Children in Need and was based on the RESPECT initiative;

(b)

there was a lack of a perpetrator programme in the city for those people not in the Criminal Justice system for their DA offending;

(c)

the Joint Commissioning team were exploring a range of perpetrator programmes and the possibility of holding a task and finish group on this issue;

(d)

the Plymouth Domestic Abuse Partnership (PDAP) had increased in size and was now split in to a strategic and operational group;

(e)

PDAS dealt with all high and medium risk assessed clients and those who wanted to engage with them.  Victims were encouraged to report incidences to the police;

(f)

figures were closely monitored – 82% of people referred to PDAS were willing to work with them.  Re-referrals to the service currently stood at 10%;

(g)

DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based) training was being rolled out to other agencies in the city, over 800 people had received training in the last 2 years.

Following a discussion, members were advised that –

(h)

a budget for the DASH training was available;

(i)

there had been a 6% increase in reported domestic abuse crime in the city and non-crime domestic abuse had fallen, it was acknowledged there could be an issue with the reliability of the data that is recorded, and the police were looking in to this;

(j)

there was the possibility that the recording of DA incidents would change – this would not necessarily affect the figures – it would affect the type of crime recorded;

(k)

it was important that the voluntary and community sector agencies reported their DA cases in order that they could be included in the figures.  It was highlighted that not all victims wanted to accept help;

(l)

Plymouth Community Homes now included a DA clause in their tenancy agreements.

(a)

there was a strong correlation between deprivation and crime in the area;

(b)

the collaborative enforcement pilot – ‘Don’t walk by’ focussed on people who worked in the area (including Council staff, such as refuse collectors and parking attendants) who could pass on pertinent information on issues such as abandoned vehicles;

(c)

1000 houses in the area were ‘door knocked’ in May 2015, and a number of issues were highlighted –

·         parking

·         rubbish

·         drugs

·         drunken/rowdy behaviour

(d)

another ‘door knock’ would take place in the near future to determine whether things had changed in the area – it was thought that the situation had improved, but it was important to get feedback from members of the local community.

Following a discussion, members were advised that –

(e)

the possibility of a ‘hub’ containing a GP surgery, the DWP etc in one location was being investigated;

(f)

the roll out of Universal Credit would impact on the residents of Stonehouse and prove to be a challenge.

(a)

this Board needed to hold the work of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) to account, and there were certain aspects of their CSE work that the Board needed to be aware of;

(b)

a CSE action plan had been agreed by the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board in December 2015; this plan contained 7 priority areas including a focus on therapeutic support and professional training;

(c)

a CSE conference would be held in March to raise the profile of this issue;

(d)

if any members had any questions regarding the work of the LSCB they could pass them to Judith.

(e)

there was little evidence of organised CSE in Plymouth.

Following a discussion, members were advised that –

(f)

therapeutic support was only available for victims;

(g)

the Police needed to focus their attention on perpetrators and potential perpetrators;

(h)

the NSPCC had raised the issue of therapeutic care in a recent report;

(i)

it was important to ensure that that sufficient SARC facilities were available – long term investment was required to provide these facilities;

(j)

the National probation Service (NPS) currently offers programmes for convicted sexual offender perpetrators. In the past, places on the programme was offered to non convicted men who had acknowledged they had perpetrated sexual harm but were not convicted. Because they were not mandated to attend the programme by the Court, their attendance on the programme was difficult to enforce. Some research evidence indicated that it could be more harmful for a sex offender to start a therapeutic programme and not finish it, rather than not do it at all; 

(k)

the NSPCC were working on a scheme involving adults with learning difficulties, and also offered the Shield project, which was a specialist service offering assessment and therapeutic work to children who displayed sexually harmful behaviour;

(l)

it was often difficult to engage perpertrators and attend a course to address their behaviour;

(m)

it was important for children to know the difference between right and wrong;

(n)

there had been a marked increase in peer to peer abuse, and abuse by females;

(o)

it was important for teachers to identify any possible signs of abusive behaviour in children at an early age

(a)

the safety of students was a great concern, and many were unaware of their vulnerability;

(b)

there were a number of factors surrounding this issue, and included the availability of cheap drink offers, late opening hours, poor behaviour of students and binge drinking in halls of residence;

(c)

there had been a marked increase in social media abuse, such as students posting abusive sexual messages about fellow students online;

(d)

Plymouth University had introduced a number of campaigns to ensure the safety of their students;

(e)

the University wanted to work closely with the licensed premises on North Hill and the surrounding area and encourage them to engage in campaigns to ensure the safety of students.  It was important that any concerns about these premises were fed back to the Licensing Department, who could take remedial action if necessary;

(f)

a number of students had taken up the offer to stay in quiet, alcohol-free halls of residence and there had been no issues in those premises;

(g)

the University had good links with the PCSOs for Mutley and Greenbank, who provided a link between the students and the University staff, police, other agencies and the wider community.

(a)

did the Board want to continue allocating resources to Anti Social Behaviour (ASB), and could they afford to do so?  Could the Board afford to continue spending money on this issue?  Should the Board be looking at threat, risk and harm?  It was possible that communities could become involved in dealing with this issue;

(b)

the Board needed to be able to have an input in to, and influence on, the Plymouth Plan;

(c)

the Board needed to discuss the way ahead for the joint delivery of better community safety work locally.  This would prove to be a big challenge, but could not be ignored;

(d)

becoming a sub-group of the Health and Wellbeing Board could help the Board to move forward;

(e)

mental health was an emerging issue (often linked in to ASB), and needed to be a focus for the Board;

(f)

the Board needed to identify what their priorities were and focus on them accordingly.

Agreed that Safer Plymouth –

(1)

adopts a tighter focus on threat, risk and harm, reducing the harm to communities and protecting vulnerable people, across a broad community safety brief;

(2)

the strategic assessment becomes a more focused document, reflecting wider community safety priorities, with better prioritisation, and with more emphasis on outcomes;

(3)

facilitates improved joint delivery by identifying leads amongst organisation and empowering them to work towards defined outcomes through systems leadership – without worrying about what structures they do/do not adopt.