Agenda item

8.1

Simon Mitchell, Safer Neighbourhood Manager, gave a presentation on the Anti-Social Behaviour Review, focussing on the establishment of the Partner Resource Allocation Meeting (PRAM) which, it was hoped, would provide a more co-ordinated way of dealing with ASB.

8.2

Mr Mitchell referred to the present levels, and the public perceptions, of anti-social behaviour (ASB) together with the good examples of partnership working, but reported on a number of important gaps in terms of how vulnerable people were dealt with, how intelligence was dealt with, issues regarding leadership and accountability, and the gaps in terms of strategy and delivery.  He reported on the aims and objectives of the PRAM, together with the potential impact it would have in terms of how the relevant partners dealt with ASB in the City. 

8.3

Members of the Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee raised a number of questions and the following responses were provided:-

·               Whilst it was accepted that the Neighbourhood Action Groups (NAGs) operated differently, with some being more effective than others, it was not the intention that the PRAM would replace the NAGs.  It would be the responsibility of each Safer Neighbourhood Officer to devise a procedure for dealing with the priorities as identified by the PRAM.

·               It was expected that the PRAM would identify any priorities that had not been picked up by the NAGs.  One of the failures of the NAGs was that there was no formal record of any minutes/actions following meetings, therefore it had been identified that there was a need for a system to identify where there were collective risks.  It was hoped that the PRAM would be the relevant body to identify such risks and request the relevant bodies to resolve such problems.

·               Elected Members were requested to get involved in the PRAM process through their local Safer Neighbourhood Officer.  The PRAM would task such Officers and it was expected that the Officers would devise the most effective way of keeping any relevant partners together and sharing information.

·               Elected Members would still be encouraged to contact their local Safer Neighbourhood Officer or Area Inspector to report problems of ASB under the PRAM process.

·               The NAGs would continue to deal with issues in their respective Community Assembly areas, whereas the PRAM would be looking at City-wide issues.  Agencies would still be expected to deal with issues first, but if they were not able to for any reason, they would refer them to the relevant NAG.

·               Issues relating to noise nuisance were part of the Integrated Services and there was a need for a clear steer as to how the Police could use its resources in terms of dealing with noise nuisance and other forms of ASB.  Plans were being made to equip front-line officers in the City to be able to deal with issues such as noise nuisance, but there was a need to ensure that the PRAM was established first.  A pilot scheme had been planned in terms of how the Police and other agencies would deal with noise nuisance and dog fouling.

·               As part of the PRAM process, there would be efforts to strengthen links with the Multi Agency Support Teams (MASTs).  It was hoped that the PRAM would be able to identify specific problems in terms of ASB in schools.

·               It was planned that reports of anti-social behaviour would be sent to relevant Ward Councillors.

·               Whilst it had been a slow process in terms of engaging the Registered Social Landlords due to the high numbers, the South Yorkshire Housing Association had expressed an interest to become part of the PRAM process and it was hoped that other such landlords would also engage in the process within time.

8.4

RESOLVED:  That the Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee:-

(a)

notes the information reported as part of the presentation, together with the responses provided to the questions raised;

(b)

expresses its thanks to Simon Mitchell and Inspector Paul McCurry for the presentation now made; and

(c)

requests that a report on the progress of the Partner Resource Allocation Meeting be submitted to a meeting of the Committee in six months’ time.