MINUTES of the meeting of the CRIME AND DISORDER TOPIC GROUP held on MONDAY 1 MARCH 2010 AT COUNTY HALL, HERTFORD
and THURSDAY 4 MARCH 2010 AT THE BUTTERWICK DAY CENTRE,
ST ALBANS
ATTENDANCE
Members of the Topic Group
D Andrews, R F Cheswright, D S Drury (Vice-Chairman), S M P Newton
E T Roach (Chairman)
Witnesses
T Bridges, Butterwick Day Service Manager
Cllr T Cowley, North Herts District Council
T Cox, Broxbourne Community Safety Manager
M Ferrari, Anti-Social Behaviour Officer
D Gatta, Neighbourhood PCSO
V Gomez-Dean, Borehamwood Day Service Manager
A Godman, NHDC Head of Housing and Environmental Health
P Gregory, John Warner School, Hoddesdon
Insp. M Hanson, St Albans
V Kane, Community Safety Officer, Hertsmere
N Kieran, Communities Neighbourhood Manager, St Albans
D Lockerman, Housing Services Manager, Broxbourne Housing Assoc.
C Miller, Assistant Chief Constable
Insp. N Morehen, Hertsmere
Cllr J Pearce, Broxbourne Borough Council
A Phelps, Youth and Schools PCSO
Cllr P Seeby, Broxbourne Borough Council
J Whelan, Fearnhill Head Teacher, Letchworth
Sgt. R Wilmot, Community Safety Team for North Herts and Stevenage
Officers in attendance
E Gibson, Democratic Services Officer (4.3.2010)
P Packham, Partnership Manager, Crime and Drugs Unit
N Rotherham, Scrutiny Officer
E Shell, Assistant Head of Member Services (1.3.2010)
1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN
1.1 The Topic Group noted and endorsed the appointment of E T Roach as Chairman.
2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
2.1 The Topic Group noted and endorsed the appointment of D S Drury as Vice-Chairman.
3. WORK OF A TOPIC GROUP
3.1 The paper summarising the way in which work conducted by Overview & Scrutiny Committee Topic Groups was undertaken was noted.
4. REMIT OF THE TOPIC GROUP
4.1 The scoping document, setting out the remit for the scrutiny of the effectiveness of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), was noted.
5. SCRUTINY OF CRIME AND DISORDER: Police Community Support Officers
5.1 Chairman’s Welcome
The Chairman welcomed members, officers and witnesses to the first day of the Group’s two day scrutiny of the effectiveness of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs).
5.2 Introduction To The Work Of PCSO’s: Paul Packham
5.2.1 Paul Packham, service lead officer for the scrutiny, provided Members with background information on the establishment, role and funding of PCSOs in Hertfordshire. This information was contained in full in his report (at item 5(ii) of the agenda). Key points noted by Members included:-
Establishment And Role
· PCSOs were uniformed civilian support officers and were introduced by the Government in 2003.
· The main purpose/role of a PCSO was “To be a visible foot patrolling representative of law and order, providing public reassurance and building confidence. To assist with the prevention of crime and disorder within the community, complementing the work of police officers by focussing on lower level crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour”. (The job description is set out in full in Appendix A of item 5 (ii)).
· In order to achieve a high level of ‘visibility’ in public, 80% of a PCSO’s day was spent in their designated community (i.e. on the streets) rather than at a desk or in an office.
· There were 2 ‘types’ of PCSO; ‘Neighbourhood’ PCSOs; and ‘Youth & Schools’ PCSOs (YSPCSOs). YSPCSOs were introduced in 2007.
· The precise role, duties, responsibilities and powers of PCSOs varied across the Country.
· A service level agreement (SLA) (Appendix B of item 5 (ii) refers) was agreed in May 2009 between the County Council and the Hertfordshire Police Authority setting out the areas of work both Neighbourhood PCSOs and YSPCSOs would be engaged in.
· All police authorities had an agreement with the Home Office to maintain an agreed level of PCSO provision. Hertfordshire’s minimum requirement was 252. If the provision was to fall below the minimum agreed level, heavy penalties would be incurred; currently this equated to £20,000 per post. There were currently 261 PCSOs in Hertfordshire.
Funding
· All PCSOs were funded by the Home Office, the Hertfordshire Constabulary and local partners, including the County Council:-
- 156 Neighbourhood PCSOs (funded through the Constabulary, Home Office, and Hertfordshire County Council)
- 38 YSPCSOs, one for each of the extended schools consortiums in the County (funded by the County Council and one locally funded school by Broxbourne Council)
- 67 PCSOs (funded jointly by twenty-seven different partnerships across the County (see Appendix D of item 5 (ii) for further details).
· County Council funding for PCSOs in 2009/10 was £800,000. This placed Hertfordshire in the top quartile for PSCO funding compared with other county councils around the Country. The County Council had committed a further £800,000 for 2010/11. Together the 27 partners provided £983,000 of funding for 2009/10.
· Home Office funding towards the cost of PCSOs was only guaranteed until March 2011. The Hertfordshire Constabulary had frozen the cost of PCSOs for 2010/11 at the current cost of £28,500 per post.
5.3 Youth And Schools PCSOs: Witness Evidence
Evidence From Jed Whelan (Head Teacher, Fearnhill School, Letchworth)
5.3.1 Jed Whelan, Head Teacher of Fearnhill (Secondary Community) School, Letchworth provided the Topic Group with his evidence on YSPCSOs. It was his view that YSPCSOs had been a very positive contributor towards the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda in schools. Some of the evidence provided to support this view included:-
· Transition from year 6 to year 7: YSPCSOs had played a crucial part in assisting pupils make the transition from primary to secondary schools; the relationship they developed with students in their primary setting was reassuring for pupils in a secondary setting, providing pupils with a familiar and friendly face. PCSOs were also a useful conduit for the passing of information between the primary and secondary settings. Fearnhill School’s evaluation of this process indicated that parents appreciated their presence in a secondary setting and the reassurance of the safety it provided for them and their children.
· Behaviour: YSPCSOs undertook conflict resolution work with identified pupils. They were also a useful conduit for gaining information or insight into activities or problems within or between families outside of the school setting. This assisted schools in identifying potential ‘hot spots’ and enabled early intervention to reduce or avoid disruption in school; preventing external pressures affecting the level of pupil engagement in schools was vital for the academic and personal success of students.
· Citizenship: A compulsory part of the school curriculum, YSPCSOs assisted in the running of workshops and break-out sessions for students. Topics included relationships, bullying, internet safety, and alcohol, smoking and drug awareness.
· Transport: YSPCSOs had been proactive in setting up a pilot scheme in Hitchin focussing on improving student behaviour and conduct on buses to and from school. This included developing a travelling protocol and working with bus companies to help train drivers in working with young people.
· Intelligence: Students were aware of the links YSPCSOs had with schools and, largely, felt comfortable talking to them. This might involve child protection issues or concerns relating to activities outside of school hours of potential interest to the Police. YSPCSOs also maintained good liaison with the Extended Services Co-ordinator.
· Dealing with offences: On some occasions schools had to report incidences necessitating the collection of materials from schools. YSPCSOs could perform this task without the need for front-line officers attending. YSPCSOs were also able to provide advice and information to schools on this matter.
· Integrated Practice: YSPCSOs had recently become involved in the CAF process and had attended TAC meetings as part of the intervention strategies used to support young people. They had attended multi-agency meetings (e.g. Letchworth Action for Young People) working with young people and Youth Connexions to identify ‘hot spots’. They were also involved in the ‘Child UK Friday Diversionary Project’, aimed at engaging potentially disaffected young people in constructive activities.
Evidence From Peter Gregory, Children And Young People Support Worker, John Warner (Secondary) School, Hoddesdon
5.3.2 Peter Gregory, Children and Young People Support Worker, John Warner (Secondary) School, Hoddesdon spoke to the Topic Group about his experience of YSPCSOs. He endorsed all of the views expressed by Jed Whelan and recorded in paragraph 5.3.1 above. In addition, the following points were noted:-
· YSPCSOs had helped build relationships and ‘break down barriers’ between the community and the Police; seeing a police car in a school car park was now regarded as normal rather than being interpreted by the public as indicating that the school had a problem with crime.
· YSPCSOs should have specific training in working with children and young people.
· YSPCSOs provided students with a good role model.
Evidence From Amy Phelps, YSPCSO
5.3.3 Amy Phelps, YSPCSO in Bishop's Stortford and Sawbridgeworth, talked to Members about her role and some of the projects and initiatives she was involved in. In particular Members noted:-
· YSPCSOs worked a shift pattern covering Monday – Friday, between 7.00am – 10.00pm. They were paid slightly less than ‘Neighbourhood’ PCSOs whose shifts included weekends.
· Both Neighbourhood PCSOs and YSPCSOs underwent a generic five week training programme.
· PCSOs were advised on completion of their training whether they would be serving as a Neighbourhood PCSO or as a YSPCSO. Additional training modules were available, some of which were mandatory, others, such as those on ‘domestic violence’, were self- selecting. No additional salary was payable to those who undertook additional non-mandatory training.
· YSPCSOs worked contracted hours. However, whilst some chose to be more flexible and were happy to be involved in more projects/initiatives, including school extra curricular activities, there was no financial reward or incentive for doing so.
· There was no PCSO hierarchy so there were no promotional opportunities.
· There was an annual performance appraisal programme for PCSOs but performance was not reflected in the salary awarded; a mediocre PCSO would be paid the same salary as an excellent one.
· The average service for a PCSO was 3.3 years. 64 PCSOs (in total, not specifically YSPCSOs) had left in the past two years, 19 of which had left to join the regular police service. 91 of the PCSOs currently working in the County had less than 2 years service. The longer the term of service of a PCSO the more benefit; relationships take time to build. The experience of those not retained was largely ‘lost’.
· In addition to the work outlined above, YSPCSOs were also involved in projects such as ‘Community Pride’ (where young people volunteered to undertake environmental work, such as picking up litter and cleaning up graffiti, for which they were rewarded with a barbeque and a small gift) and reminding parents/carers about appropriate parking around schools.
Evidence From Sgt. Richard Wilmot, Community Safety Team For North Hertfordshire And Stevenage, Hertfordshire Constabulary
5.3.4 Sgt. Richard Wilmot, Community Safety Team for North Hertfordshire and Stevenage, Hertfordshire Constabulary addressed the Topic Group. Points noted by Members not already recorded above included:-
· YSPCSOs in North Herts were responsible for organising and co-ordinating the ‘Crucial Crew’ project (for Year 6 pupils transferring into Year 7 (secondary school)) for approximately 1400 North Herts students. This involved sourcing venues, funding, and speakers for a variety of topics, and organising workshops, role plays etc. The feedback received had been ‘fantastic’.
· Other projects and initiatives undertaken by YSPCSOs included:-
- the ‘Respect’ project
- Halloween and Firework talks in local schools
- the ‘Good Neighbour’ project, which resulted in a noticeable reduction in anti-social behaviour on one particular estate in Hitchin
- A ‘CSI’ project, where pupils had conducted a mock murder enquiry. The project had been run by YSPCSOs in North Herts during the last school summer holiday
- Diversionary projects, such as lunchtime surgeries
- truancy patrols
- work undertaken with young people subject to ABCs (acceptable behaviour contracts)
- restorative justice initiatives, such as prison visits
· YSPCSOs had also been instrumental in evidence gathering used by local police officers. Anecdotal evidence included a YSPCSO being able to identify immediately youths wanted by the British Transport Police for a serious offence.
· Feedback on the impact PCSOs/YSPCSOs had in the community was received orally; there was no measurable, objective data or records kept to indicate to what extent either Neighbourhood PCSO and/or YSPCSO activity had assisted in the detection of crime or in its reduction.
Evidence From Broxbourne Borough Council
5.3.5 Broxbourne Borough Councillors Jeremy Pearce and Paul Seeby attended the meeting with Tony Cox, Community Safety Manager, to present the Council’s views of PCSOs and to advise the Topic Group of the results of the Council’s own scrutiny into the effectiveness of its investment in PCSOs. In summary:-
· The Borough Council had funded the provision of PCSOs since 2005/6, initially providing £66,000 pa. This provision was increased to £85,500 pa in April 2008 and will be increased further to £114,000 with effect from 1 April 2010.
· The Council conducted a scrutiny of the effectiveness of its investment in PCSOs in February 2008. The conclusions reached as a result of its scrutiny included:-
- Some members of the community felt safer for seeing PCSOs on the streets; this was to be welcomed. However, public perception of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the Borough had deteriorated in the last 3 years. [Members noted, however, that, with the exception of Watford, this perception was not reflected elsewhere in the County where the opposite had been found to be the case].
- The development of location based team working between PCSOs and the Police Service was supported; the working relationship between PCSOs and local police officers was very good.
- PCSOs should be given additional authority and powers (e.g. the power to arrest) to increase their effectiveness; it was considered that the wider the range of targeted duties they were able to undertake, the more effective they would be. There was room for improvement in their deployment.
- PCSO working hours needed to be commensurate with public expectations, for example, evening and weekend working.
- Sharing force-wide indicators on PCSO output and outcomes would be valuable in ‘benchmarking’ local effectiveness.