Agenda item

To consider the SRP annual report 2023-24 in line with the requirements of section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 and The Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009, which states that annual scrutiny is required of decisions made and actions taken by responsible authorities in connection with the discharge of crime and disorder functions.

The Chair noted that Sam Barstow, Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene would answer questions on the Safer Rotherham Partnership (SRP) Annual Report 2023-24.

Councillor Tinsley asked if there had been any further discussions regarding restorative justice and it there were plans for this to be reintroduced. It was noted there were some formal aspects in terms of reparations where it related to criminal offences and often those powers were only available to the police. The Council did have a number of options available. The report mentioned community payback, which was where the SRP had invested funding to bring more offenders into the borough to deliver some of that reparation work. Another key area of that work was one the Council had chosen to fund itself as part of the budget setting process for that year. The report referred to hate crime in particular. For many years they had been engaging with victims and those impacted by hate crime and the feedback received indicated they wanted to see more restorative justice approaches in relation to hate crime. Short term funding from the partnership was provided to address this as part of a pilot. Following on from that as part of the budget setting process the Council had been able to provide the funding for that service to continue. It was highlighted that wherever those opportunities presented themselves the Council had sought to exploit those along with the partners in the SRP.

Councillor Tinsley noticed the hate crime element and noted there was a lot of migration across Rotherham along with people moving into Rotherham. It was asked if there was anything that could be done more proactively to engage that cohesion locally.

It was noted that cohesion was like an ecosystem, whereby a breakdown in cohesion could lead to community tensions within communities, tensions could lead to hate crimes and much more significant areas of concern. The community safety partnership took care of the later stages of that, in terms of monitoring tensions in communities. It was noted that this was a relevant point on the back of the disorder in Manvers over the summer. The Assistant Chief Executive explained she was leading on a piece of work with partners and council officers to look at some of the things that could be done together, some of the things that were already being done well but that could have the most meaningful impact, which included youth outreach, working with schools to help educate and look to upscale what was done, which involved working closely with the Children and Young People’s Services.  Another aspect was looking at what could be done with communities and particular groups within communities as well. Community cohesion was at the forefront of the Council to address.

Councillor Marshall queried if safeguards were put in place with outside providers to ensure they were following the same standards and not being people in and exploiting them, regarding modern slavery and human trafficking.

There was a range of actions done in relation to modern slavery. The Council, as an organisation, had an annual statement, which was produced in relation to modern slavery. A big part of the commitments in relation to that charger and the statement produced annually was that the Council ensured any third parties it worked with, contactors, and suppliers had clear, demonstrable, commitments in terms of how they would tackle and address modern slavery.

Councillor McKiernan, under the protecting vulnerable adults and mental health section, he noted that there was a specialist but asked if more that one person was required for this task.

This section of the report was specifically about a mental health clinical lead being embedded directly with the Safe Enable Service, which was a joint team with the Council and Police, where they were dealing with the more significant, severe cases that were escalated through the normal casework reporting arrangements. That clinical lead was there specifically for cases were there was a community safety, criminal justice aspect. More staff would always be welcomed in this particular area because it would allow delivery of much more intensive provisions, but the Community Safety Partnership and the SRP Board continued to monitor the demand to ensure it could respond if that demand outstripped the level of supply. This was not passing comment in terms of the wider mental health issues.

Councillor McKiernan noted that the report mentioned that interventions by the mental and clinical health were reviewed and improved, could further detail be provided. Further detail would be provided in writing to members of OSMB outside of the meeting, but this was about the referral processes and the actual interventions that that officer delivered.

Upon a vote, the following was resolved:

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board noted the progress of the Safer Rotherham Partnership in tackling crime and disorder in 2023-24 against its key priorities and makes recommendations in relation to the current and future work of the partnership.

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene would provide further information to members of OSMB regarding the section of the report that mentioned that interventions by the mental and clinical health were reviewed and improved, to provide further context.