(a)

DaCCWA were of the view that there hadn’t been a decline regionally and schemes and membership were in fact increasing.  Indeed, recent Home Office research had revealed that –

·         NHW was a trusted and well-known brand

·         90% of membership believed NHW reduced crime

·         94% believed membership increased community interaction amongst residents

·         NHW schemes reduced crime by between 16 and 26%

·         across Devon and Cornwall membership was wide and diverse with 2,276 active co-ordinators currently supporting the 74,939 registered households;

·         in Plymouth there were currently 145 confirmed active schemes with a further 55 coming through the system

·         across Devon and Cornwall 21 new schemes had come on board within the last month and a total of 192 schemes had been gained over the last 2¹/₂ years

·         in terms of value, based on the 2,276 co-ordinators, it was estimated that NHW schemes contribute £15m of savings annually to preventing crime in Devon and Cornwall

(b)

NHW was very different to how it had been 10 years ago when it came under the umbrella of the Police where individual Crime Prevention Officers had responsibility for managing schemes and maintaining databases with membership numbers etc.  DaCCWA was now the independent body responsible for NHW, and a number of other ‘Watches’, and was supported by the Police in a variety of ways;

(c)

in terms of the level of support provided by the Police, this was now much broader and revolved around provision of watch offices within the police estate (of which there were 14 within Devon and Cornwall) and which enabled access to and use of office space and resources, supported by volunteers.  Their aim was that those ‘Watch’ offices became the focal point and hub for activities across force area to enable the schemes’ continued development and could adapt to accommodate the changing focus of NHW in particular from crime to wellbeing as a whole through the Neighbourhood Healthwatch Movement which is supported by GPs and has now been formalized through DaCCWA.  This move was welcomed and supported by the Police who believed this was the right direction to be taking and they had no concerns about the future of NHW;

(d)

there were concerns that the problem was down to communication and access to information by volunteers.  If information was sent out from Head Office to a watch office which then could only be accessed by a volunteer on certain days of the week and under restricted hours of operation, it was then dependent upon the skills of that volunteer on how and in what form the information was disseminated to each co-ordinator.  Volunteers/Co-ordinators must be computer literate and able to communicate via e-mail in order to ensure information was cascaded as quickly as possible.  In Newquay where the office had been closed for a number of months the Inspector had developed his own neighbourhood communication system called ‘Streetnet’ where his beat officers had been encouraged to go out and talk to their communities and establish community ‘post boxes’ from which information could be shared in both directions;

(e)

the Executive Committee of Neighbourhood Watch Plymouth Forum believed that the decline in Plymouth had been as a result of the lack of support from the Police.  Previous to 2010, the sustained high number of NHW co-ordinators was down to the care, attention and support of the Neighbourhood Watch office at Charles Cross Police Station which had been manned by a paid civilian worker 5-days a week and supported by four volunteers.  The team had actively communicated with all co-ordinators, arranged social and education events and provided a support group for new ‘watchers’.  After 2010, the system changed, the paid civilian worker retired and the system which replaced it effectively deleted the central role of the hub office.  As a result, co-ordinators had been left feeling isolated and their numbers had started to decline;

(f)

having said that, the Executive Committee also believed that in the last 12 months a lot of work had been done by the Citizens in Policing Officer to consolidate and strengthen the work of Plymouth Neighbourhood Watch, namely –

·         making personal contact with each co-ordinator;

·         identification of ‘Our Watch’ website as an effective mechanism through which co-ordinators could communicate with each other and find new members;

·         more efficient and streamlined processing of new ‘watchers’, police checks, enquiries and information gathering at Devonport Police Neighbourhood Watch Office;

·         commencement of an effective mechanism for recruitment using NHW stands at major events in Plymouth;

·         greater dialogue between DaCCWA and NHW with aim of increasing number of co-ordinators in Plymouth

It was also of the opinion that, with better advertising and the establishment of the hub at the Neighbourhood Watch office at Devonport Police Station, there would be a rise in co-ordinator numbers;

(g)

Our Watch was a national body to whom DaCCWA reported and through which they could use the brand.  The figures quoted by DaCCWA would be on their new website shortly, they would also be on the Devon and Cornwall Police website;

(h)

DaCCWA was self-funded through sale of neighbourhood watch signs and other merchandise.  There was no need for significant operating funds as staff were volunteers and operated out of shared police accommodation with use of shared resources, however, a contribution towards the cost of leaflet production would be helpful;

(i)

there had been issues with the Bodmin based scheme as a result of loss of the shared accommodation, with no alternative being offered, and loss of the watch database.  However, the situation had now been resolved with a new office being up and running and co-ordinators were in the process of being contacted;

(j)

use of community messaging systems should be broadened.  The more agencies that engaged, the wider the network and the greater the ability to share data and spread costs.  Neighbourhood Alert, a national communication system, was one such example;

(k)

there were concerns that with further closures of police offices pending, any premises which shared accommodation with ‘watch’ schemes would be identified to ensure appropriate arrangements were made to move the ‘watch’ office with them to the new accommodation and maintain the network, or that alternative arrangements could be made;

(l)

within the Plymouth NHW scheme up to 65% of the co-ordinators had computers and were able to use one.  However, they were at the point of considering being more ruthless so as to ensure all future co-ordinators were computer literate;

(m)

it wasn’t essential that co-ordinators had their own computers but that they had access to one.  Many public libraries provide free internet access and staff there can provide support or assistance if required.  There were also many organisations out there that provided basic computer training for free;

(n)

priorities within individual NHW schemes were determined by the co-ordinators and their communities as they were the ones who were aware of their neighbourhood’s concerns.

(o)

the Commissioner was of the view that the public very much had a part to play in community safety and his role was to champion and support them in that role in any way he could.  Through the Chief Constable he could ensure that the resources were there to support watch schemes and community messaging;

(p)

the Citizens in Policing pilot had been successful in Plymouth and the Chief Constable would be approached about rolling the scheme out elsewhere;

(q)

it was acknowledged that there were some weaknesses where schemes had floundered due to lack of Police support.  This often occurred where Police had recruited from the PCSO role resulting in a gap in the community.  It was an ongoing concern between the PCC and the Chief Constable and was part of his package of questions to the Chief Constable relating to neighbourhood policing, what it meant, what could be put on partners and what ultimately would not be done;

(r)

IT in policing was not where it should be and a new system was being brought forward to address the situation.  Each force area was being asked to contribute £25,000 to help in its development;

(s)

there was no direct link between NHW and Victim Care and the connection between NHW and Community Safety Partnerships (CSP) was variable;

(t)

the PCC did not have any figures to show how crime differentiated between watch and non-watch areas as this was an operational area for which the Chief Constable was responsible. The PCC would take the question away and come back to the panel with a response.