Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area

1.1. The development of the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder and apportionment of the Safe and Strong Communities Budget.

2) Issues Covered in Report

2.1. The development of the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder.

2.2. The direction regarding service reviews and commissioning arrangements.

2.3. Ratification of partnership recommendations regarding the Safe and Strong Communities Budget.

3) Recommendations

3.1. To note the progress of the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder.

3.2. To ratify the apportionment of the Safe and Strong Communities Budget.

3.3. To authorise the Deputy Leader as Chair of the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder to allocate the commissioning budget according to the decisions of the partnership..

MAIN REPORT

1) Contextual Information

1.1. The Area Based Grant element of the County Council's funding includes a sum for the Safe and Strong Communities. In the past this was paid direct to district councils on behalf of district crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs). This amounts to £1,427,372. These local partnerships still retain the same statutory responsibilities without any other further direct source of funding.

2) Key Issues

2.1. During the last year, the County Council has been working through the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder (CSG) to:

· establish evidence-based common community safety priorities for Hampshire, reflected in the Local Area Agreement targets and the Community Safety Agreement

· develop a programme of performance monitoring against these targets

· instigate a strategic review of community safety activity and services, including sources of funding

· develop consensus amongst partners on some key areas for review of activity which might be more effectively co-ordinated on a county-wide basis

· commissioned the agreed reviews.

2.2. The outcomes of some of the reviews will be presented to the CSG in September and form the basis of a county-wide community safety Development Plan. In some cases this will be expected to deliver efficiency savings but may also reveal issues relating to consistency and effectiveness of interventions and delivery which might lead to choices for partners around activity requiring funding which should extend to partners' mainstream budgets. All partners will therefore be asked to consider the resources implications of the Development Plan.

2.3. The range of reviews identified prior to and during the consultation include:

· Domestic abuse services

· Prolific and priority offender schemes

· Drug and alcohol intervention programmes

· Community safety analytical services

· Commissioning capacity

· 13 - 18 year old prevention]

· public confidence

· Safeguarding (adults

· Commissioning, management and outcome monitoring arrangements

· Anti-social behaviour

· Support to victims.

2.4. Whilst this approach was being developed, an agreement was reached with district CDRPs on a package of continued local funding for 2009/10 which should be used in support of LAA targets. This agreement releases an additional 15% of the SSC budget on top of the range of existing joint-funded county-wide initiatives (£ 319,129), thus enabling county-wide capacity and commissioning arrangements to develop and the pump-priming of service developments falling out of the reviews. It is intended that the central commissioning fund from the SSC budget will increase in 2010/11 and beyond to support the delivery of the Development Plan. Opportunities will also be taken to develop joint commissioning arrangements where appropriate with for example the Health and Wellbeing Partnership, including the Supporting People Programme and the Drug and Alcohol Action Team. The additional corporate capacity in PBRS to provide additional capacity on the Council's community safety leadership role will be covered by these arrangements.

2.5. The proposed distribution of the available SSC is therefore set out as follows:

a) Grants to district councils, totalling £953,898, on behalf of district CDRPs for 2009/10.

Basingstoke and Deane CDRP: 99,167

East Hants CDRP 78,252

Eastleigh CDRP 92,141

Fareham CDRP 83,342

Gosport CDRP 85,379

Hart CDRP 73,020

Havant CDRP 99,537

New Forest CDRP 107,765

Rushmoor CDRP 77,651

Test Valley CDRP 78,935

Winchester CDRP 78,709

b) Contribution to PBRS to operate CADDIE project for 2009/10: £ 36,656

c) Contribution to Adult Services Department for Drug Intervention Programme for 2009/10: £ 79,423

d) Contribution to Adult Services for Alcohol Co-ordinator Post for 2009/10: £ 43,050

e) Contribution to the Wessex Youth Offending Team for the Youth Inclusion Support programme: £ 99,000

f) Grant funding of £18,000 for continued service provision by the Bobby Trust subject to service review of effectiveness and strategic relevance until March 2010 and with the expectation that wider sources of income be sought.

g) Funding of the domestic abuse co-ordinator (to be employed by HCC Adult Services from May 2009) of £ 32,000 on the basis of continued contributions from partner agencies, until March 2010 pending outcome of domestic abuse review

h) Grant funding of £ 11,000 for continuation of domestic abuse perpetrator self referral scheme until March 2010 pending outcome of domestic abuse review for 2009/10.

i) Commissioning budget to implement proposals arising from reviews and to respond to specific issues relating to LAA performance for 2009/10 - £ 154,345.

2.6. The direction of travel of this partnership is recognised positively by the Audit Commission and the further development of the commissioning process is supported.

3) Outline of Options

3.1. Option 1

a) To ratify the apportionment of the Safe and Strong Communities Budget and to authorise the Deputy Leader as Chair of the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder to allocate the commissioning budget according to the decisions of the partnership.

3.2. Option 2

a) Not to ratify the apportionment of the Safe and Strong Communities Budget and not allow the Deputy Leader as Chair of the County Strategy Group for Crime and Disorder to allocate the commissioning budget according to the decisions of the partnership.

4) Option Analysis / Comparison:

4.1. This option would support the direction of travel agreed between partners and the process of reviews leading to increasingly co-ordinated and evidence based resource allocation.

4.2. This option would be to undermine the partner consensus on the direction of travel to ensure co-ordinated and evidence based resource allocation.

5) Recommendations

Please see Executive Summary for recommendations.

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

1. Equalities Impact Assessment:

a) The individual reviews outlined will address equalities impacts and access to services

2. Impact on Crime and Disorder:

a) Central to co-ordinated action across Hampshire to address crime and disorder priorities

3. Climate Change:

a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint / energy consumption?

· No significant impact

b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

· No significant impact