Agenda item

Report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships.

The Overview and Scrutiny Officer introduced the Community Safety Group Manager, County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service (CDDFRS), Steve Wharton and the Public Health Portfolio Lead, Tim Wright who were in attendance to give an update on progress with recommendations following the Overview and Scrutiny Review of Home Safety - Safe and Wellbeing Visits (SWVs) (for copy see file of minutes).

The Community Safety Group Manager thanked the Committee for their support in relation to the issue and the value that was added.  He also noted thanks to former Councillor T Nearney who had chaired the review, his hard work being very much appreciated.

Members were referred to recommendation one, in relation to reviewing the framework document, and it was explained that the evaluation undertaken by Teesside University was due to be completed by March 2018, however, it was explained that no major issues were emerging.  In terms of recommendation two, Members noted that partners, including Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), would need to look at the data collected from the SWVs in order to help focus resources where there was need.  It was added an example had been the NHS Falls Team being able to look for hotspot and target, though again further progress would follow the evaluation by Teesside University.

The Community Safety Group Manager noted recommendation three had looked for the SWV scheme to be monitored through regular reporting to the SDP Board and Health and Wellbeing Board. 

Members noted that the reporting would look at successes, challenges and risks, and whether partners had the ability to be able to cope with increased demand for their services.  It was added that Fire Crews had been able to see the positive impact of their work and this was important to help Crews see the value they were adding.

The Community Safety Group Manager explained that recommendation four had been in relation to quality assurance in terms of the activities on outcomes of the SWVs with partner agencies, to ensure consistency.  It was noted that feedback from Crews had helped in improving the forms used for the SWVS.  Members noted that telephone feedback from those who had received SWVs was collated and that in terms of wider quality assurance, the evaluation from Teesside University would look to provide feedback on this.

The Public Health Portfolio Lead noted recommendation five had referred to a seminar to be held to deliver information for Members in terms of SWVs and for the scheme be promoted locally with Town and Parish Councils and AAPs.  It was noted that a seminar was planned, to be delivered by Public Health and CDDFRS and that AAPs had provided input in terms of SWVs from Members of the Service that attended each AAP.  It was added that the CDDFRS was in the process of writing out to all Town and Parish Councils in terms of information and to offer attendance at a convenient meeting if required.

Members noted that recommendation six was that the SDP Board looked at the opportunities in terms of issues of cybercrime and fraud to the included within the Safer Homes project.  It was explained that this was something that would be considered as part of the evaluation, though the Community Safety Group Manager noted that there was a need to understand that there could not be an endless expansion, and that what works should not be diluted.  The Chief Fire Officer added that a caveat to recommendation 6 was that SWVs were as part of a National Joint Council trial and that with ongoing Fire Brigade Union issues it was important to continue to link the activities within SWVs to core fire activities.

The Public Health Portfolio Lead noted that in terms of recommendation four, it was a very complex agenda and that the challenge was on behavior change, and to be able to have incremental change to build, and therefore expectations should be set realistically in terms of the evaluation.  He added that the scale that CDDFRS had been able to engage was impressive and in “making every contact count” their work had been of very good credit to them.

The Chairman thanked the Officers for their update and noted that it was good that Overview and Scrutiny feedback had been taken on board and thanked the CDDFRS and Public Health for their hard work.

Councillor L Kennedy noted feedback was provided once a week and asked if this was prioritised in certain cases.  The Community Safety Group Manager noted that in issues of safeguarding, information would be fed back immediately, however it was noted that to allow partners to focus then once a week was found to be preferable.

Councillor H Liddle noted that in providing information to Town and Parish Councils, this may impact upon demand.  The Community Safety Group Manager noted the target was for 18,000 SWVs and that while some visits may last two hours, some may only be a few minutes.  He added that capacity was looked at, with caseloads being monitored.

The Chairman asked how we would know that the SWVs were not duplicating work, for example where the other organisations, such as the County Durham Housing Group (CDHG), were visiting residents.

The Community Safety Group Manager noted that there were Memorandum of Understanding with Livin and the CDHG, and reminded Members that the main focus from the CDDFRS was in terms of preventing fire harm and reducing those risks, with SWVs targeting the most vulnerable specifically.

Resolved:

  (i)          That the report be noted.

 (ii)          That a further update on the progress with recommendations on the Overview and Scrutiny Review of Home Safety - Safe and Wellbeing Visits be received by the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee in May 2018.