Minutes:
· Every three years the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Board are required by legislation to develop an overarching Community Safety Partnership Plan.
· The plan provides an overview of the work and priority areas that fall under the responsibility of the CSP which is informed by the Crime and Disorder Strategic Assessment which shapes and sets out activities to address local and MOPAC priorities for reducing crime and disorder.
· The plan is published on the council website to keep the residents of the borough informed on the progress of the CSP.
CSP Plan Timeline:
Key Findings from the Crime and Disorder Strategic Assessment:
· In Barking and Dagenham in 2021/22, all major crime types had exceeded pre covid 19 levels except for the following offence types: burglary, robbery, theft, and vehicle.
· In 2021/22 there was a total of 20,560 offences recorded by the Police - an increase of 1,931 offences (+10.4%) from the previous year.
Recommendations from the Crime and Disorder Strategic Assessment 2022:
Ø Based on this year’s assessment of offence volume, cost, and estimated harm the existing priority crime and disorder types should remain priorities in 2022/23.
This includes:
Community Safety Partnership Plan Workshop feedback:
o Group 1 – Andy
- Burglary: This crime is down within the borough and across wider London though this continues a priority set by the Met’s Police Crime Commissioner. Is this both residential and non-residential burglary?
- Knife Crime: Reducing serious violence Is a key priority for MOPAC’s Police and Crime Plan.
- Safety of young people online:
Ø Access to fraudulent crime due to financial vulnerability and the cost-of-living crisis through social media apps.
Ø Social media apps such as Tik Tok and Snapchat are being used to sell and promote the drug market and are also being used to exploit young people into county lines and gang-related activity.
Ø Social media makes young people more exposed to being victims of anonymised hate crimes as well as increasing the likelihood of people becoming perpetrators of hate crimes.
o Group 2 – Chris
- Disconnect between the strategic CSP board and the operational work: There needs to be a stronger link between the CSP and the operational enforcement plan.
- Priority 2 -‘Tackling Crimes that affect people the most’: There is a need to increase the visibility of the council and the services within our community – this is a shared power amongst CSP partners.
- Cost of living: Crimes stemming from the cost-of-living crisis such as selling counterfeit goods, theft, and petty crime need to be captured accurately. There was also a consensus that these types of petty crimes will lead to an increase in large-scale crime and ASB within the borough. How will the CSP message into wider corporate discussions within the local authority? Is there a group within the council dedicated to having conversations about the cost-of-living crisis, how can the CSP have an input into this?
- Tackling organised crime: Romanian street begging issue within the borough where there is an organised crime element that sits behind it such as deploying people to certain areas and also filters down to lower-level crime.
2. Are the cross-cutting themes covered sufficiently, and how are they best delivered – VAWG, cost of living, perceptions/engagement, drugs? Where should the responsibility sit?
o Group 1 – Andy:
- Delivery groups need to be fit for purpose and need some amendment to ensure that remits are clear. For the sub-groups who do not have a delivery plan, it would be useful to have one that outlines priorities, actions, outcomes, accountable leads, and timelines.
- Priority 2 of the CSP plan - ‘Tackling Crimes that affect people the most' is vague in its description and there is no sub-group that tackles that specific priority. This priority may need to be re-named into a priority that tackles safety in the neighbourhoods/community such as anti-social behaviour.
o Group 2 – Chris:
- VAWG area is well covered with the launch of the strategic board.
- Cost- of- living crisis - How can the CSP message be brought into wider corporate discussions within the local authority? Is there a group within the council dedicated to having conversations about the cost-of-living crisis, how can the CSP have an input into this from a safety perspective?
3. Does the CSP feel as though it has sufficient oversight of delivery against the plan? Could future meetings be organised differently?
o Group 1 – Andy:
- For there to be sufficient oversight of the CSP, all sub-group chairs need to provide updates on a regular basis so that all partners are updated each quarter on the work that is being carried out to tackle crime and disorder.
o Group 2 – Chris
- It was agreed that there was a disconnect between the strategic CSP board and the operational work being carried out on the ground. There needs to be a stronger link between the CSP and the operational enforcement plan.
- Data is paramount in understanding the crime and disorder trends – though is this actually reflective of what is happening on the ground? Other technology needs to be used to accurately capture different types of crime that can produce a holistic and accurate picture of crime in the borough and its effects on residents.
- There should be a ‘deep dive’ of different items, such as Women’s Safety, Serious violence etc on rotation at the CSP so that partners gain sufficient understanding of the work and outcomes when tackling crime.
4. Are we doing enough engagement? Should we be asking for more feedback on priorities, suggestions for delivery etc
o Group 1 – Andy:
- Engagement has been high e.g.: The Women’s Safety Survey, Annual Residents Survey, Youth Safety Summit, Public Perception of Police survey and the Mets ZEN City App that engages with young people and collects data on their perception of crime through pop-up surveys.
- A simple survey to consult residents on the draft CSP Plan 2023-2026 priorities could be carried out through LBBD’s One Borough Voice Platform and through partner networks. Due to the timeline of the CSP Plan being published, there would not be enough time to run an in-depth consultation with residents.
- ACTION: Sub-group chairs that could not attend December’s 2022 CSP are required to give feedback on the current CSP Plan 2023-2026 priorities.
o Group 2 – Chris
- Residents are not keen on sharing any crime they have witnessed or have been the victim of as the report becomes ‘just another statistic’. Increased engagement with residents will ensure that crimes occurring on the ground are recorded more accurately.
- There needs to be an increase in engagement with our communities, businesses, and grassroots facilities such as youth zones to facilitate engagement.
- There is a wide range of support networks we can reach out to like, safer neighbourhood teams, British transport police and security services. How are we going to link all these partners up strategically and deliver an effective operational plan on the ground?
- Residents should be engaged through different forums such as events and digital consultation to engage with a variety of different cohorts.
- There needs to be more visibility of CSP partners, police and the voluntary sector within the borough, as well as having a stronger online presence. What does visibility actually look like from the CSP?
- Involve developers like BeFirst, Housing and Community Solutions to collate data which will be useful for the police/council.
5. Do the CSP sub-groups pick up all of the priorities for delivery? Is the governance structure right? What could be done differently that would improve delivery/outcomes?
o Group 1 – Andy:
- There is good practice of delivery plans in some areas such as EGYV and Serious Violence and Barking Town Centre action plans. This practice should be extended so that all sub-groups have a delivery action plan.
- The CSP Plan should highlight case studies of how the CSP and its sub-groups have met the priorities over the last three years.
o Group 2 – Chris
- There should be an increase of joint patrolling between the police and the councils Operational ASB team.
- The local authority should increase their support of grassroots organisations to carry out work that tackles crime.
- The actions and focus of the CSP sub-groups are correct, however, thereis a lack of resources within the council, the police service and partners – how are we going to tackle this through operational delivery?
- ACTION: Reach out to sub-group chairs and ask them to review the plan and priorities and how this aligns with the work of their sub-groups to inform the next draft in January.
- ACTION: Stuart Bell to share data acquired through the Zen City app with the CSP.