Meeting: Communities Scrutiny Sub-Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 1A - 04/12/2006 09:30:00 AM)
Item: A6 "Who's Afraid of Crime?" - Review of Fear of Crime Scrutiny Project
Scrutiny Sub-Committee for Promoting Strong, Healthy and Safe Communities
4 December 2006 ‘Who’s Afraid of Crime?”: Review Report |
| Report of Head of Overview and Scrutiny |
5. That members of the Sub-Committee consider the progress made against the recommendations and, if satisfied with the outcomes, “sign off” the project accordingly.
| Contact: Tom Bolton Tel: 0191 383 3149 |
| Ref | Recommendation | Current Position | Comments | Lead Responsibility |
| 1. Improved Communications |
| 1.1 | The Crime and Disorder Partnerships (CDRPs) to review their communication strategies and consider how closer working with the media can be achieved to positively communicate success, better manage negative news stories and rebut incorrect or misleading reporting of issues. | The Easington and Durham and Chester-le-Street Partnerships have recently drafted communications strategies. Derwentside and Wear & Tees are revisiting & updating their strategies. Sedgefield are in the process of developing strategies. All partnerships have recently agreed to support offered by Government News Network (GNN) at various levels to improve communications and media work. | All CDRPs will need to ensure Communications Strategies are developed. These should include Media Protocols to better manage press releases. | CDRP Chairs. |
| 1.2 | CDRPs consider whether they have appropriate skilled resources (i.e. press officers) to more pro-actively manage media issues and also whether such resources could be provided on a joint basis. | The CDRP’s do not have dedicated press officers, but all use appropriately skilled or experienced staff to deal with media matters. There are now lead officers within each Co-ordinating Unit to link to GNN. CDRP’s also make use of the Government Office press office and partners own press office. Resources are not available for a dedicated pooled resource but joint working happens where possible and in Durham and Chester-le-Street CSP, press officers have been invited to the Tasking meetings to improve media relations. | The review of Crime and Disorder Partnerships in the County may provide opportunities for this issue to be progressed and a more strategic approach to be taken. | CDRP Chairs. |
| 1.3 | Where they do not already do so, CDRPs consider whether opportunities exist for the inclusion of the media in the work of the Partnerships. | Although close links have been established with local media, there is no media representation at partnership meetings, with the exception of Durham and Chester-le-Street CSP. | CDRPs will need to consider media representation at meetings and develop improved ways of working with the media as part of the Communications Strategies. See comments under previous recommendation. | CDRP Chairs. |
| 1.4 | Consider whether opportunities exist to use the Countywide free newspaper to:
| CDRPs all use local press and their own local authority free newspapers, including Countywide, which are circulated to all households, to publicise work & initiatives regarding crime & disorder issues. Countywide features regular articles on community safety & partnership working. | Countywide to continue to feature regular articles on community safety and partnership working. | Durham County Council Community Safety. |
| 1.5 | The Courts Service consider whether a communications strategy should be developed (perhaps within the over-arching strategy being considered by the Local Criminal Justice Board) and explore how within this, it can more pro-actively communicate the work of the Courts to harder to reach groups such as older teenagers/young adults. | The Courts Service does not have a standalone communications strategy and at present has no plans to develop one. However, it does maintain numerous other initiatives often linked to other agencies and hard to reach groups. The LCJB has a Communications Strategy and supporting delivery plan. | The Courts Service will need to consider links to the LCJB communications strategy. | Local Criminal Justice Board / Courts Service. |
| 1.6 | Although, some initial work has been undertaken in relation to promotional material and the establishment of a website, the Police Authority to consider further how it can better market itself and the work it is undertaking in relation fear of crime issues using the local press. | Considerable work has been done by the Authority in regard to raising its profile with diverse communities in particular in the light of the Disability Discrimation Act requirements. Work is ongoing to develop a more user friendly website and leaflets have been produced which will be circulated via local police stations and Neighbourhood Fora. Particular emphasis is being paid to liaising with partners in the 2007/8 priority setting cycle and work has begun with the Force to support the LAA safer, stronger communities work in relation to fear of crime. | The Police Authority Corporate Improvement Plan recommended exploration of an independent press facility. | Police Authority |
| 2. Increased Understanding - Breaking Down Barriers And Promoting Social Inclusion |
| 2.1 | Cabinet to consider how its existing Equalities and Diversity programme, which is making good progress towards Level 3 of the Equalities Standard, could be further enhanced. | DCC have achieved Level 3 of the Equalities Standard. | Recommendation achieved. | |
| 2.2 | Cabinet to consider whether the corporate equalities and diversity team needs to be strengthened. | An additional Equalities Co-ordinator Post has been secured, increasing the Equalities and Diversity Team to five staff. | Recommendation achieved. | |
| 2.3 | Cabinet and CDRPs consider whether opportunities exist to develop the intergenerational work, which has been undertaken by Age Concern County Durham in specific areas of the County. We would positively encourage the development of a working relationship between the Education in the Community Service, the Youth Engagement Service and Community Development Team with Age Concern to consider whether any opportunities exist for joint working in the future. | Durham Constabulary currently has membership of Age Concern’s Intergenerational Steering Group. This enables the Force to influence initiatives decided upon by the group. | ||
| 2.4 | The Police Authority to consider with the Chief Constable how examples of best practice (such as the police-led young people’s peer education programme in Wear Valley about hate crime) are disseminated within the Force. | Still under consideration. Best practice is shared at a 6 weekly meeting of North and South Area CJ Ch/Insp and HQ Community Safety Ch/Insp. | Police Authority will need to consider this area with Chief Constable. There may be a need for CDRPs to consider publication of best practice. | Head of Community Justice Department |
| 2.5 | The Cabinet should continue to maintain the support it provides to agencies such as the Darlington and Durham Race Equality Council and Gay Advice, Darlington which provide support to members of their communities who have been the victims of hate crime. | Durham County Council continues to support the REC and GAD financially through Service Level Agreements and in-kind through support. |
| 3. Increased Assessment Of Performance And Evaluation Of Outcomes |
| 3.1 | CDRPs consider how more rigorous mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives to reduce fear of crime can be developed. | Easington, Sedgefield, Wear Valley and Teesdale Partnerships have developed performance mechanisms regarding evaluation of action plans, initiatives, business plans etc. Chester-le-Street and Durham have commissioned Crime Concern to evaluate some key projects funded by the Partnership. Derwentside has no mechanisms and no formal evaluation takes place at CDRP level. This is general evaluation, there is very little academic evidence of effective initiatives to reduce the ‘fear’ of crime. | Two Research and Information Officers have been recruited into the DCC Community Safety Team. Evaluation has been included as part of the job description. Durham Constabulary Evaluation Officer has carried out an evaluation of the Force StreetSafe Strategy. Work is underway through the Local Area Agreement Stretch Target Working Group to develop a multi-agency action plan to improve public reassurance and perceptions of anti-social behaviour. This will incorporate best practice from evaluated initiatives. | DCC Community Safety / Chief Superintendent - Corporate Development |
| 3.2 | The Police Authority may wish to consider whether opportunities exist to develop additional indicators against which the effectiveness of StreetSafe in relation to input by local communities to identify problems and develop solutions to crime and disorder issues can be measured. There may be opportunities for the StreetSafe Co-ordinator, yet to be appointed, to undertake some work in this area. | Police Authority considers there are currently sufficient performance indicators. Streetsafe has been evaluated by Force Evaluation officer and reported to Police Authority’s Best Value Panel. With roll out of neighbourhood policing by 2008, the public should be able to engage more easily with Police. It will be the Police Authority duty to oversee CDRP and neighbourhood body relationship to ensure citizen involvement. | Head of Community Justice Department |
| 3.3 | CDYES should undertake research to evaluate the effectiveness of the restorative justice programme locally. | Evaluations are carried out locally at the end of each programme with the victim(s) of crime, service providers, person’s subject of the programme and staff involved, to assess effectiveness. |
| 4. More Engagement Of Young People |
| 4.1 | Carry out research into how closer working can be achieved between DCC’s Youth Services and other agencies in relation to leisure and recreational activities for young people. The research should also examine the problems of recruiting and retaining youth workers and sustaining the provision of schemes. | Research not undertaken as closer working is being actioned via Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership. Regarding sustaining provision - growth bids to support continuation of schemes were unsuccessful. | ||
| 4.2 | Cabinet explore with its partners whether opportunities exist for the development of a community based mentoring scheme similar to that operating in Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council under the Divert and Bridges to Inclusion Programmes. This might also provide opportunities for training of local people who could potentially progress to paid employment in the youth work field. | Education in the Community Service not aware of any actions. |
| 4.3 | When developing or considering provision of community based services for young people Cabinet should bear the following principles in mind:
| All youth workers are appointed to work some unsocial hours as required by the JNC agreement. Youth Service User Satisfaction Survey carried out and a young person led report produced to consider staffing issues. | ||
| 4.4 | The Police Authority and Chief Constable consider the feasibility of a Safer Schools Partnership initiative (perhaps on a pilot basis) in County Durham. | Not yet considered by the Police Authority and the Chief Constable. | Consideration to be given to a Safe Schools Partnership Initiative. Consideration be given to other initiatives such as SIESIP to tackle the issues rather than adopting a Safer Schools Partnership. | Head of Community Justice Department / DCC Head of Access and Inclusion |
| 4.5 | Cabinet consider how it can better promote and celebrate the achievements of young people in our local communities, including a high profile Award Scheme. | There are a number of schemes which recognise the achievements of children (i.e. in the Looked After System and Children in Need). There is an award scheme Countywide for young people (Shrievalty Awards). |
| 4.6 | Consultation with young people identified bullying on school transport, and intimidation by former pupils who often hang around the entrances to schools, as issues. As these matters are not currently identified in the Council’s School Bullying Policy (which is currently being updated) we suggest that Cabinet consider whether they should be added and the Education Service consider what practical measures need to be taken to address these issues. (We did hear from members of the School Transport Scrutiny Working Group that allocated seats on school transport and the provision of named teachers in some schools to deal with these issues had helped in this regard). | The County Council Behaviour on Transport Policy is underpinned by a number of key principles to include school staff, pupils, parents, operators, drivers & escorts, governors & the local authority. It recognises that all pupils who have a right to school transport should be able to travel in a safe, secure & non-oppressive environment. In addition to literature highlighting roles & responsibilities of each stakeholder, the School Transport & Monitoring Team works in close partnership with stakeholders to address issues of inappropriate behaviour, including bullying. | ||
| 4.7 | Cabinet should support, in appropriate circumstances, the provision of Community Youth Shelters on the basis that they provide opportunities for young people who do not want to engage in organised activities to congregate in venues which are safe and may be lit, although it is recognised that the location of shelters can be a sensitive issue for residents in our communities & proper consultation is undertaken before facilities are provided. | No applications for support for Youth Shelters have been submitted to Cabinet since the publication of the report. The Youth Opportunity Fund could finance youth shelters. However, no bids for shelters received to date. | ||
| 4.8 | The Scrutiny Working Group to meet with the young people who participated in the CDYES and EiC consultation regarding the report. | It was not possible to arrange a meeting following the production of the report, given the length of time which had elapsed. A number of the young people involved have moved on into further education or employment. | The issue of feedback to young people and timescales will need to be given closer attention when future consultation/engagement exercises are carried out with young people as part of scrutiny investigations. | Head of Overview and Scrutiny |
| 5. Supporting Initiatives To Tackle Anti-Social Behaviour |
| 5.1 | Cabinet explore whether any links between crime and anti-social behaviour and areas of poor street lighting can be identified using the NERISS system for community safety data and, if necessary, take action to improve lighting in those areas. | The NERISS GIS system has not been made live. The service provided by the Sub-Regional Agencies (including the County Durham Observatory) will replace the NERISS projects. An additional £100,000 is being allocated to improving street lighting. | Complaints regarding faulty or poor street lighting would not be geo-coded to analyse using a GIS system therefore it is not possible to further progress this action. The implementation of the CRM system in 2007 will provide local authority information in relation to anti-social behaviour and damage to street lighting. | CDRPs / e-Government Partnership |
| 5.2 | District Councils and County Council consider whether scope exists for improving the existing arrangements for reporting environmental issues such as broken windows, graffiti, litter, fly-tipping and defective street lighting, to allow such issues to be remedied more speedily. This might also include consideration of performance targets for tackling these issues (where none already exists). | All Community Safety Partnerships, in collaboration with the e-government project team, are developing a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to ensure a more comprehensive and customer centred service in relation to reported incidents of anti-social behaviour and related issues. | System will be implemented and rolled out in 2007. | CDRPs / e-Government Partnership |
| 5.3 | Cabinet consider whether the existing mechanisms for tracking Section 17 issues are fit for purpose and can be strengthened given that the inclusion of community safety within the CPA regime from 2005 onwards makes it all the more important that the Council’s Section 17 responsibilities are fully embedded within the organisation. | Section 17 reports are tracked by Community Safety, the Tracking Form has just been revised and improved. Community Safety are reviewing DCC approach to Section 17 with a view to strengthening it and in respect of how we measure success prior to CPA assessment. Community safety training is currently being developed which will include S17 and will be rolled out in February 2007. | DCC Community Safety will continue to progress DCC approach to Section 17 and provide annual reports to CMT and Cabinet. | DCC Community Safety. |
| 5.4 | Whilst supporting the approach adopted by the CDRPs in County Durham that Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are a final measure, the Partnerships be asked to consider:
| The ASB Publicity Policy has been approved and is in place to inform local communities of individuals made subject to an ASBO. The protocol has been adopted on a case by case basis. Magistrates training is taking place across parts of the County, i.e. from the ASB Co-ordinator in Wear & Tees, to explain how much work goes into getting ASBOs in the first place and consequences of breaches. | - | CDRPs |
| 5.5 | The Police Authority and Chief Constable consider whether opportunities exist to further develop CCTV provision in line with the suggestion made by the Deputy Chief Constable. (CCTV can help to reassure local people but there are funding issues in relation to static CCTV provision as centrally provided funding was no longer available This was an issue which perhaps the Police and Police Authority needed to discuss further. The initiative in relation to mobile CCTV units had contributed to enhanced public reassurance, but these were not as resilient as static units.) | The Police Authority view extension of CCTV provision as largely an operational matter. This issue is often discussed by CDRP’s, and if considered appropriate to enhance community safety, funds may be applied. The Police Authority is represented on all CDRP’s and is party to any decision regarding CCTV. Bids are in place to enhance fixed CCTV in Darlington and Spennymoor. The provision of CCTV in rural area of Derwentside is being discussed. CCTV is to be extended across Chester-le-Street from 2006-2009 part funded by the CDRP and Chester-le-Street District Council. CCTV has been enhanced to improve the digital quality in Durham City during 2005/06 funded by the CDRP. | No further actions required. | n/a |
| 6. Work To Enhance Community Engagement, Capacity Building And Raise Confidence |
| 6.1 | Cabinet consider whether the Council should develop specific policies in relation to Social Cohesion and Social Inclusion, as suggested by the Head of Community Support. | Social and Community Cohesion is a theme that is being addressed within the DCC Corporate Equalities and Diversity Steering group. | Director of Adult and Community Services will be progressing policy. | DCC Director Adults and Community. |
| 6.2 | Cabinet consider whether the suggestion from the Head of Community Support that staff delivering services to communities should be based in the localities they serve should be investigated in relation to its Community Development and Community Safety Teams and explore whether any opportunities exist for co-location of staff with those from other agencies (along the lines of the Health and Social Care model or the CDYES multi-disciplinary model) already operating in local communities. | A presentation has been made to CMT on 'Localism' and the issue of how we achieve joined up local delivery of services will be addressed via the Embracing Change 2 programme (including the access to services initiative) and the Local Area Agreement. | The Local Government White Paper makes a number of recommendations about greater community involvement in services (community call for action) and the member role at local level. Officer support will need to be structured to support this. | |
| 6.3 | Cabinet consider whether some form of Awards scheme can be developed County-wide to reward or recognise individuals or community groups who tackle crime and fear of crime (perhaps jointly with the Award scheme we are recommending for young people). | Nationally the Home Office and Crime Concern sponsor the ‘Taking a Stand’ Awards which reward people who have stood up to unacceptable behaviour and also provide an incentive to others to take action too. In addition Durham Constabulary hold annual Street Safe Awards ceremonies. | It will be for CDRPs to consider nominating those who could be put forward for the Taking a Stand Awards and Street Safe Awards. | CDRP Chairs. |
| 6.4 | The Police Authority consider whether the Chief Constable should be asked to report on operation of the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme from time to time, given that the re-vitalisation and development of Neighbourhood Watch is an important element of the prevention and reassurance strategies. | The Police Authority has a Community Safety and Engagement Panel, which considers issues such as Neighbourhood Watch Schemes. The Authority has undertaken a Best Value Review of Community Engagement and Volunteering, which will include various ‘watch’ schemes within its terms of reference. | Head of Community Justice Department | |
| 6.5 | The Courts Service consider the suggestion from the Clerk to the Justices that an annual or bi-annual whole County meeting of Magistrates to discuss issues of local public concern in relation to crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime and the approaches the Courts take to these be held. We would support this suggestion. The Courts Service may also wish to consider whether there would be benefits in representatives from the CDRPs and other relevant agencies being present at such events. | Following a report from DCC Community Safety to CDRPs, Magistrate representatives are now represented at all CDRP meetings in County Durham and Darlington, so that issues can be fed in and feedback provided to the bench. | No further action required. | |
| 6.6 | The development of Compacts with local communities and agencies such as those at Ushaw Moor and Brandon should be strongly supported. Developing and sustaining the ability within our communities to identify and address issues locally and be supported in this role by voluntary and other agencies is paramount. | A Compact (Estate Agreement) has been progressed in the Chester-le - Street area. Compacts are also being explored in the South Area | Compacts to be further progressed. | DCC Community Development |
| 6.7 | The Police Authority consider whether there is any merit in exploring how the Police Community Consultative Groups can be re-invigorated. There may be scope for considering whether opportunities exist for joint consultation meetings with other agencies, which would engage with a broader cross-section of the public. | The Police Authority has a Community Safety and Engagement Panel. The PCCG’s are to be included in the Best Value Review of Community Engagement and Volunteering. The Police Authority recognises the relationship with its partners is crucial and the need to co-ordinate various consultation strands is critical to prevent duplication of effort. | Await recommendations of BVR of Community Engagement and Volunteering. | Police Authority |
| 6.8 | Community Centres continue to play an important role at the heart of our communities, including provision for young people’s activities. The County Council should continue to maintain its existing financial support for Community Centres who engage with young people as part of their activities. | The County Council currently provide some support to Centres. | ||
| 6.9 | CDRPs, if they do not already have strategies for supporting victims and witnesses, consider whether strategies should be developed. | CDRP’s do not have specific strategies but incorporate initiatives into action plans to support victims and witnesses. CDRPs are also linking into the work of the LCJB in raising confidence levels of victims and witnesses in reporting crimes. This is being progressed through the 3 C’s Group (Communication, Confidence and Community Engagement). DCC Community Safety have led on raising the issue of support to victims and witnesses of anti-social behaviour, a paper currently with CDRPs being actioned. Easington and Durham and Chester-le-Street Partnerships fund a victim support worker to contact all victims, and also an outreach worker to support victims of domestic violence. | CDRPs will need to consider the recommendations in DCC paper in relation to - best practice; Protocols for joined up delivery of victim/witness care; implementing performance measurement into policies/procedures & clear lines of accountability; development of ASB victim/witness care; ensuring take up of ‘special measures’ (special court provision/video links etc.) for vulnerable & intimidated witnesses; mechanisms to ensure witness experiences impact on future service delivery; new standards for recording ASB; mechanisms for capturing, tracking and mapping incidents and case progression. | CDRP Chairs |
| 7. An Enhanced Role For Members As Reassurance Ambassadors |
| 7.1 | Cabinet consider whether information and guidance about community safety issues should form part of the training and development process for newly appointed members. There may be opportunities for the current Section 17 officer training programme to be developed to meet this need. | A training session run by DCC Community Safety for Elected Members was held on 8 th March 2006. 27 Elected Members attended. | Provision of training will continue to be offered when Elected Members are newly appointed. | DCC Community Safety. |
| 8. More Joined Up Working |
| 8.1 | The CDRPs may wish to consider, if they have not already done so, whether opportunities exist for groups such as Crimestoppers, Neighbourhood Watch, Farmwatch, transport operators and indeed the Magistracy where appropriate, to play a role within the Partnerships where they do not already do so. | All the groups (with exception of transport operators) are incorporated into Partnerships at some level. Of these, only the Magistracy attend full CDRP meetings. | CDRP’s need to consider inclusion and expansion of the role of transport operators in the Partnerships. | CDRP Chairs |
| 9. Other Policing Issues (raised for information only of Police Authority and Chief Constable) |
| 9.1 | Accessibility and “approachability” of police and police community support officers in local communities (both day-to-day and contact details). | Considered as part of Best Value Review of Community Engagement and Volunteering. | North & South Area Commanders | |
| 9.2 | Police response times to calls. | Considered as part of Best Value Review of Call Management. | Head of Communications | |
| 9.3 | Explanations to those reporting incidents of how the incident will be graded for response. | Considered as part of Best Value Review of Call Management. | Head of Communications | |
| 9.4 | Local knowledge of communications staff. | Considered as part of Best Value Review of Call Management. | Head of Communications | |
| 9.5 | Feedback to the public about actions taken and outcomes following reports of incidents. | Considered as part of Best Value Review of Call Management. | Head of Communications |
Fear of crime review report 4dec2006.pdf;
Fear of Crime Review Matrix2 4dec2006.pdf