(a)

update on domestic violence (DV) recording changes and issues and any impact on service and support to victims – there had previously been a delay in the recording of DV incidents, however this timescale had now reduced to 6-8 hours overnight and 2-3 hours during the day.   Any incidents were referred to the Plymouth Domestic Abuse Service (PDAS).  It was recognised that some reported incidents were not actually DV, resulting in the unnecessary completion of paperwork.  Steps had been taken to ensure call handlers received relevant training, and despatched the relevant resources to deal with any reported incidents.  It was possible that there would be an increase in domestic crime figures but a reduction in domestic abuse;

(b)

CSE – promotion of organised crime profile and local action plan within organisations and alignment with PCSB work – the organised crime profile had previously been circulated to members.  The Chair stressed the importance of the information it contained being circulated to organisations that members worked with;

(c)

update on students, University campus and North Hill community safety concerns – the University planned to produce a report on these issues.  Violent incidents were occurring in the Student Union and it was thought these were drink related.  Drugs were a big concern on the campus and steps were taken if they were found in halls of residence.  It was a concern that students were unaware of the danger of drugs.  The ‘Know the Line’ campaign would continue throughout the year and work would be undertaken with the new Welfare Office on the issue of consent.  The new Students Union President would start in post in June and would be invited to future meetings.

(a)

·         to review the existing arrangements for the Partnership and decide on a focus and a clear way ahead;

·         to look at important issues and deal with them accordingly;

·         to focus on key issues and vision;

·         to engage partners;

A lengthy discussion followed regarding the future of the Safer Plymouth Partnership Board.  Points of discussion and issues raised included -

(b)

·         there needed to be clearer communication between community groups and the board.  Safer Plymouth were not aware of everything that was happening in the city; 

·         the board needed to be realistic about what they were doing and put plans in place;

·         there needed to be a robust audit trail of any work the board undertook;

·         the board needed to focus on what they wanted to achieve – it would be helpful to have SMART objectives with clear outcomes;

·         the ‘Don’t walk by’ initiative had been successful,  and people had taken responsibility for reporting issues;

·         People need to do something and report back to the meeting;

·         there was no parent board to this board.  Safer Plymouth is a statutory board although there is some flexibility on how things are run;

·         accountability -  Relationship between this board and scrutiny – twice a year and webcast.  Relationship with the PCC.  None of them have particularly added anything.  One Plymouth is not a formally constituted group.  Need to determine what we need to be looking at and we need to build relationships.   These relationships are really important;

·         some members viewed attendance at meetings as a ‘tick box’ exercise;

·         have to have LSCB at the moment.  Board has a QA role but also it’s own objectives and drives work from sub groups.  Need to make sure work is aligned.  We are accountable but partners not in a relationship where they are bound to be directed to the board.  Could be some confusion.  Who is delivering work?  Who is driving work? 

·         communication is key - need to decide where is the best place to discuss things and position things.  There are a lot of things happening, and conversations are taking place.  Communication is vital and we need to focus on this – need to get information out to the community.  We need to get people to do the work for us, to spend more time talking, doing and thinking and spend less time on papers and plans; 

·         some members think sub groups are irrelevant, and this needs to be sorted out;

·         need to tell groups what we are doing;

·         what are we trying to achieve?  We need to come up with a joint view and people need to go away and do the work.  We need to measure progress and offer additional help where needed.  We need to establish what help people need;

·         if the board has the right level of networking things will progress and people will know of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.