Agenda item

The Head of Safer Communities submits a presentation providing an overview of the structure of the combined Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Team (known as CRASBU) and Housing Anti-Social Behaviour Team (Known as HASBO) within the Community Safety Service and illustrating the performance of the team and it focus areas.

The Head of Safer Communities submits a presentation providing an overview of the structure of the combined Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Team (known as CRASBU) and Housing Anti-Social Behaviour Team (Known as HASBO) within the Community Safety Service and illustrating the performance of the team and it focus areas.

The Deputy City Mayor for Social Care, Health and Community Safety introduced the item and noted that:

• Wider Community Safety issues could be brought to a later meeting of the Commission.
• The team were thanked for their work on the response.
• The service was trauma informed and solution focused, understanding that victims and perpetrators could interchange.
• It was considered as to how complex cases could move forward.

The Service Manager for Community Safety presented the report using the slides attached with the agenda. Additional points highlighted included:

• The data had been broken down to track requests for service coming into both CRASBU and HASBO it analyse their nature and to monitor disparities between the services.
• The highest number of calls in the last Quarter were for the Housing Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team.
• It was explained that the 212 cases managed by the HASBO team were at the lower end of the scale, but the 55 managed but CRASBU were more complex and high-risk.
• A significant disparity between the service was noise complaints, making up 19% of HASBO’s cases and 9% for CRASBU.  These had been time consuming, and there were limited ways for Community Safety to address these cases.
• Similarly, there was a disparity in parking cases dealt with (2% for HASBO and 4% for CRASBU) and again Community Safety were limited in their ways to address this.
• Advice remained the most consistent disposal and the most widely used.
• Both teams dealt with ASB, but HASBO’s cases were more on the lower-level non-legal side and CRASBU were generally more complex high-risk side.  However, the sanctions used were largely similar, and whilst the work was different, the symptoms were broadly similar.
• ASB Case Reviews (Community Triggers) When an application was received, it was reviewed.  If the threshold was then met it was followed up.  Every investigative stage of the case was looked at.
• In terms of next steps:
  • There was a dedicated duty officer managing the ‘front door’ and signposting to most appropriate service and offering support.  This looked to signpost at the earliest opportunity.
  • There had been implementation of Cuckooing Protocol to ensure early identification of vulnerable tenants to aid support and deter perpetrators.  This would be launched across the city and would be shared across Leicestershire and Rutland.  This fed into Adult Social Care, especially in the case of tenants.  If there was a suspected Cuckooing case, it could be dealt with from a place of vulnerability rather than enforcement.
  • A trauma informed and solution focused approach to all our work that is of benefit to all involved and reduces demand on other services was being considered.
  • It was aimed to be more present within communities to ensure effective communication and pathways of advice and guidance for self-support where appropriate.

The Commission was invited to ask questions and make comments and the officers and the Deputy City Mayor for Social Care, Health and Community Safety to respond. Key points included:

• In response to a query about the timeframe for dealing with nuisance neighbours, whenever a case was referred, they were triaged on the same working day.  Red flags were then picked out if issues such as vulnerability or mental health featured.  If the case was medium-to-low risk, the response would come within five-to-ten working days (examples given of such cases were loud music or cannabis use). However, if cases were taken forward and more was found out (i.e. though a diary booklet), the case could then be triaged.  Every contact was referred to victim first for confidential support and advice.
• In response to a point made about Cuckooing, it was aimed to get to a stage in which vulnerable tenants were not being moved.  As well as being difficult for the victim, it was difficult to find suitable housing in such cases.  Therefore, it was necessary to address the issue head-on, however, much of the work being done on the issue was not disclosable.  The police were working with the issue and the services were doing their best to solve it.
• In response to a point made about cases being moved between services, it was highlighted that this illustrated the need to get a protocol in place as services and staff needed to be on the same page and processes needed to be embedded.
• The issue of perpetrators and whether the courts had an impact on individuals and communities was beyond the purview of the service.  This could be picked up through other channels such as the Joint Action Group.
• Issues were raised surrounding dangerous motorcyclists, beggars, delivery riders causing nuisance, shoplifting and other crime.  This was beyond the scope of this presentation, but the team were looking at the issues and reports on them could be considered at a future meeting of the Commission.
• In response to a point made about the recent riots around the country, it was noted that there had not been any in Leicester.  There had been one protest, and the police and partners had managed this well.

AGREED:

1)    That the update be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That further reports regarding Community Safety be brought to future meetings of the Commission.