Cllr. Ray Nottage is a Councillor for the Ancient Borough of Christchurch (Purewell and Stanpit Ward) and port folio holder of A Safe and Healthy Community (Christchurch) and Chair of The Dorset Community Safety Partnership.
This is my evidence to the Home affairs Committee which I can now publish as the deadline for submissal is passed.
Gaining support from the public.
Essential to this task will be the recreation of community values and an understanding that these communities have just as much responsibility to strive for a reduction of crime and disorder as any other partner charged with the task. The thrust of the last administration was to emphasise again and again the rights of individuals and in doing allowed communities to retreat away from community responsibility and only see themselves as recipients rather than contributors.
This also applied to elected Councillors, elected representatives of communities, where top down dogma made their role impotent in the process of communicating and dealing with local front door crime and anti social behaviour concerns.
This polarisation has to be changed and structures made which enable communities to be part of priority making based on local evidence and objectives from a local problem solving processes.
Engage with the community and strive to gain partnership with it at all levels. Communities have responsibilities too. Support local democracy.
A structure already exists and should not be bypassed as by empowering elected councillors in respect of section 17 of the Crime and Disorder act to show clear responsibility for enabling partners to deliver safe communities and making them understand their roles as key partners in delivering improved well being at local level, the link between communities and partnerships can be improved.
Support existing democratic representation by empowering Councillors to take responsibility of their wards in respect of Crime and Disorder and direct them to work in partnership with Police and partners as a priority activity.
Whilst accountability of the Police is essential so should be the understanding the in the ‘Big Society’ communities at all levels should be given clear guidelines in respect of their ‘responsibilities’ to set standards for improving levels of crime and disorder in their areas and to work to achieve those local goals set in terms of anti-social activities and developing community pride.
The Challenge is to bring transparency and inclusion at local level.
Initially the drive for more democratic overseeing must not result in sending partners particularly Police back into silos. Partnership working at all levels has been proven to work and in the area I represent, to deliver results.
This partnership has to include the community and this is where the importance of the SNT is paramount. This partnership starts at street level with high visibility teams including PCSO’s as community ears and eyes and being community leaders. Pact (Beat) meetings should be directed towards community problem solving rather than problem gathering for Police to deal with and residents encouraged to understand where they can contribute. Exposure and visibility in areas of concern by kerbside conferences used to engage and intervene at early stages.
By engaging with and defining the responsibilities of elected Councillors in the task of improving troubled areas (being part of SNT’s). This resource provides the basis for a nationwide structure which already exists and is fundamental to the task of making policing link seamlessly and work in partnership with the democratic process.
Support and build on existing democracy.
Local partnerships including all delivery partners and community representatives, should determine priorities based on community priorities and be able to develop policies from strategies set. The connection to Police tasking is essential as is feedback from action executed.
Empowering communities to set standards by highlighting the benefits of voluntary groups (Homewatch, Residents Assns.etc.) and assisting with the raising of community standards and highlighting the importance of contribution designed to see the elimination of scepticism from the public.
Exposing to the public the importance of the connection with LA community safety officers and Anti-social behaviour officers and ensuring LA’s have operational policies in both areas. At local level partnership working and Police tasking and performance should be scrutinised by a LA specific C&ASB scrutiny committee of elected councillors.
This will not require another layer of protocol as scrutiny committees already exist.
Use existing scrutiny committees at local level but make them specific to crime and disorder.
Strategic (CSP) level.
The role of Community Safety Partnerships should reflect Police structure area and be organised to foster partnership working at strategic level with all community safety and agencies operating in the field. In essence the role should not change should elected Commissioners oversee the Police.
CSP should concentrate on developing deliverables designed to reduce crime and disorder in the regions,
I do not see that a monitoring role by CSP’s is relevant they are there to respond to front door evidence, and make plans to deliver improvements and measure those improvements.
CSP performance can again be subject to scrutiny by specific scrutiny committee at County level again this structure is in place and would not benefit from the introduction of another panel which I see as duplication.
Dorset CSP has an excellent record in partnership, evidence based plan making, and plan reassessment leading to real improvements in targeted issues. Innovation will not come from prescriptive top down controls. Repeal them.
Use County scrutiny panels to link overseeing of CSP with the democratic process. There is no need for further levels of management.
Build on the progress made in crime mapping and continue to provide statistics which can be interrogated to determine direction of travel of specific targeted issues.
CSP chairs should be included in regular ‘National Force’ briefings. This designed to ensure cross border partnership and continuity of management objectives.
Use existing management structures rather than creating new layers of protocol.
The management challenge
The partnership of executive agencies and elected representation commensurate with Police boundaries is in my opinion proven and is delivering improvements in crime and disorder.
So, the creation of elected commissioners to oversee and monitor Police objectives and performance would be an extension of this process and supports the principle of democratic involvement. The public would have the opportunity to relate to issues of police operation through this method rather than the current system of PA which is remote from public scrutiny.
Police and Police commissioners can be overseen using existing but strengthened scrutiny structures. Introduction of unelected independent contributors weakens the link and authority of the democratic process.
Clarification is needed as to how the Commissioner’s management team would be structured. Paramount would be the improvement of communications with the public and a heightened awareness of the need to link closely with the judiciary.
In summary the role of an elected Commissioner should be determined by priorities determined from front door evidence within his/her geographic area of control and be seamlessly linked to those priorities established by the Police and the CSP. These shared priorities must be directed at improving public perception and be revisited so that the public are made aware of programs laid down and achievements made in the task of making communities safer.
All front line agencies should be working to the same agenda. (Community safety plans to be the same as objective set in the Strategic Assessments from the Police and Police Commissioners)
Funding Community Safety Partnerships will require special scrutiny, this in light of macro public spending cuts, this is causing great concern especially with our record of significant reductions in all levels of Crime and Disorder in Dorset by CSP prudently applying the existing funding mechanism. We should be cognisant of the savings to the public purse from these reductions but aware of the work being done at front door level by a number of valued organisations all working to our early intervention policy in areas of drug, alcohol, domestic violence and reoffending issues whose continued working rely on funds distributed by CSP.
The relationship between the CJS and CSP should be subject to considerable scrutiny as one of the key issues in terms of public perception is the apparently random way sentencing is decided with little or no justification process. This is a problem in respect of public confidence.
Finally the process at all levels and agencies appears to foster duplication in decision making, these results in an unacceptable cost to the public purse.
Cllr Ray Nottage
No comments:
Post a Comment