Equality Impact Assessment - Safer Kingston Partnership Plan

Skip to main content | Access Keys | Site Map

The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Online Payments

BROWSE

Function being assessed:

Process for determining the priorities for inclusion in the Safer Kingston Partnership Plan

Is this a new function or a review of an existing function?

Review of an existing Function, discharged jointly between the “Responsible Authorities”, with all parties being equally liable for producing Strategic Assessments, the Partnership Plan & Strategy and actions to support the Plan

New Regulations under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 require a Strategy Group of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (Safer Kingston Partnership) to produce a Partnership Plan, which is to include a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder and for combating substance misuse, on behalf of the “Responsible Authorities”.

The “Responsible Authorities” are currently Kingston Council, the Metropolitan Police, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Primary Care Trust London. The Police and Crime Bill contains a proposal that Probation should become a “Responsible Authority” and Probation has been a member of the Kingston Partnership since its inception.

The minimum membership of the Strategy Group is prescribed and must comprise of one or more persons appointed from each “Responsible authority”, one of whom must hold a senior position in that authority. In addition, where an Authority has an elected member responsible for community safety that member must also be a member of the Group. In Kingston the Executive Member for Health and Adult Community Services, Councillor Rolson Davies, holds the ‘Safer Kingston’ brief and serves on the Strategy Group.

Regulations prescribe the Strategy Group’s principal role as:

Preparing strategic assessments; and
Preparing and implementing a Partnership Plan

for its area on behalf of the Responsible Authorities

The Strategy Group is responsible for ensuring that the Partnership Plan takes forward the priorities identified through the strategic assessment, including the community priorities.

What are the aims/purpose of the function?

To establish the priorities for inclusion into the Partnership Plan and to review these annually.
To ensure that the Strategic Lead for each priority area can be provided with detailed data to inform the Action Plan that underpins that area of the Partnership Plan/Strategy.

Is the function designed to meet specific needs such as the needs of minority ethnic groups, older people, disabled people etc?

The Partnership Plan must encompass the whole population, including young and old people; those of different genders (including transgendered people); BME communities; the LGBT community; disabled people; and those of all faiths and none. This also includes those who visit and those who work or who are educated in the Borough.

What information has been gathered on this function? (Indicate the type of information gathered e.g. statistics, consultation, other monitoring information)? Attach a summary or refer to where the evidence can be found.

The Strategic Assessment is undertaken using a systematic scoring system for every crime type or area of concern which is then categorised as 1, 2, 3 or 4 on a scale where 1 represents areas of lowest concern and 4 those of highest concern.

Both quantitative data and qualitative information is used. Qualitative information is derived both from consultation undertaken by other agencies and parts of RBK and by on-going consultation by the Safer Kingston Partnership with community groups representing the various equality strands. The areas considered for each crime type or area of concern are:

Volume (Quantitative)
Performance (Measured against Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership ‘family’)
Trends (Quantitative trend data over time)
Seriousness (Some crimes, by their very nature, will be more serious than others. However this does not detract from the impact on the victim and community priorities are intended to reflect the concerns of local people)
Community Priorities – Assessed through the results of:
General web-based questionnaire which is also made available in hard copy in a wide range of outlets. e.g. Guildhall, libraries, Crown Court Open Day; Cambridge Road Estate Fun Day
Visits to/focus groups held at a number of specific Groups over the course of the 2007 and 2008 Assessments (from which the same priorities emerged) and at which hard copies of the questionnaire were also made available. These included:
Raleigh House Day Centre
Age Concern
The Milaap Centre
Kingston Learning Disabilities Service Users Parliament
Chinese Association
Institute of Tamil Culture – Both adults and young people
Inter Faith Forum
Kingston Centre for Independent Living
Kingston Gujarati School
Kingston Mosque
Kingston Pensioners’ Forum
Milaap Centre
Sikh Gurdwara
Priority in Police Control Strategy/to Partnership
Crime/Fear of Crime Generator (e.g. an example would be alcohol which, as well as being harmful to the individual, can impact on levels of domestic violence, violent crime, anti-social behaviour etc)
Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal & organisational impacts - Examples might include those areas which are a high priority for one of the Government’s Public Service Agreements; crimes traditionally affected by a recession; increased security on the part of manufactures which may make products less attractive to criminals with the result that more vulnerable, and often newer, products (e.g. Sat Navs) are targeted instead; new developments and planning considerations such as Town and District Centre redevelopment, new schools, housing etc.

The top ‘scorers’ effectively become the Partnership priorities for the next 3 years, with an annual review taking place to ensure that they are still current.

The current priorities are:

Alcohol Misuse
Anti Social Behaviour
Crime by and against Youth People (including robbery)
Domestic Abuse and Hate Crime
Drug misuse
Violence against the person

Once priorities have been established information regarding the profile of victims & offenders for the top six/seven crimes is provided to the Strategic Lead as part of a more detailed analysis. Wherever possible this is broken down by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and sexual orientation.

Where recording systems within the control of the Partnership do not currently include the necessary information, these are flagged to individual members of the Partnership as intelligence gaps for action during the forthcoming year. An example might be how to record data about individuals who refer cases of Anti-Social Behaviour to the Safer Kingston Partnership by phone or email.

There are likely to be some areas where recording systems, centrally imposed on partners, cannot be influenced locally. E.g. Police crime recording is a Metropolitan Police Service recording system which, at present, only allows categorisation as IC1 (White European); IC2 (Dark European); IC3 (Afro-Caribbean); IC4 (Asian); IC5 (Oriental); and IC6 (Arab). However, wherever possible, for example for Stop and Search, self-defined ethnicity using the census categories is used.

Does your analysis of the information show different outcomes for different groups (higher or lower uptake/failure to access/receive a poorer or inferior service)? If yes, indicate which groups and which aspects of the policy or function contribute to inequality?

The consultation takes account of different groups whose priorities are reflected in the Partnership Plan. Partnership funding steams are channelled into those areas which have been prioritised as part of the Partnership Plan and their seriousness.

In general there was little variation in the priorities expressed when analysed by the various equality strands.

There were slight differences in the priorities when they were broken down by ethnicity. Due to the relatively low numbers responding, when examining differences in priorities, the responses were broken down into two groups; White (as defined by the ethnicity categories in the census) and BME (which is the census categories Black or Black British, Chinese or other ethnic group, Mixed, Asian or Asian British which included two local ethnicities Tamil and Korean). There were 83 respondents who stated their ethnicity as being white, whilst a further 63 respondents stated their ethnicity as being from a BME group. Targeted consultation with BME groups account for the fact that the response rate doesn’t mirror their representation in the Borough’s population.

The top three crime, disorder and substance misuse categories for White respondents were Anti-Social Behaviour, Violence against a Person and Youth Crimes, whereas as BME respondents’ top three priorities were Anti-Social Behaviour, Youth Crimes and Hate Crime. Overall there was very little difference between the highest priorities. Hate Crime was proportionately more of a priority for BME respondents (19 in total) compared to 17 White respondents. Over half of White respondents believed violence against a person to be a concern for them whilst less than one fifth of BME respondents highlighted it as a concern for them.

However all these crimes have been prioritised in the Partnership Plan.

During the 2007 consultation respondents from the Learning Disabilities Service User Parliament were more likely to record Anti-Social Behaviour as such - as opposed to Disability hate crime. This is likely to be a reflection of their experience of Anti-Social Behaviour, particularly on the public transport network since the increased emphasis on independent living. The system is now able to record and monitor disability related crime as hate crime.

The age of the respondent appeared to have an effect on the priorities that they selected. Assessing the top three priorities for each of the seven age groups Anti-Social Behaviour was the only priority that was consistent across all groups; indicating the impact ASB has on all residents. Violence against a person is the next most common priority featuring in the top 3 priorities of 4 age groups (25-34, 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64). Hate Crime is a priority for both 17 & under and 18-24 year olds, this is likely to reflect the high numbers of BME respondents in these categories. Sexual offences is one of the top three priorities for 18-24 and 25-35 year olds, also being one of the top five priorities for 34-45 year olds. Youth Crime features as a priority but not consistently across age groups it was highlighted as a top three priority by the following groups; 17 & under, 35-44 and 65& over. The number of respondents highlighting alcohol misuse as a priority increases with age, being a top three priority for 45-54 year olds and those 65 &over. This suggests a disproportionate level of concern for these age groups. Burglary shows a similar trend to alcohol misuse with the level of concern increasing with age, reflecting the increased numbers of individuals owning/renting, burglary only appeared as a top three priority for 55-64 year olds.

There would appear to be a higher representation of young people from BME communities. This reflects the endeavours made to consult through the Community Language Schools and the Sikh Gurdwara and that a separate survey of young people’s views in schools and youth centres was not available for incorporation into the 2008 Assessment.

The Partnership is aware that its consultation may well not be reaching all sections of the LGBT community. This is due to the very small size, and composition, of the Kingston LGBT Forum which currently does not have the capacity to reach out further into that community. The local LGBT Night Club ‘Escape’ attracts its membership from a very wide area, not only Kingston.

During the course of the consultation sessions it became apparent that people from a number of BME groups do not use local authority web-sites (and this is not specific to Kingston) either because they find them hard to use or because of language barriers.

Are these differences justified (e.g. are there legislative or other constraints)? If they are, explain in what way.

As a result of the concerns expressed in the past in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour, the Learning Disabilities Parliament has a place on the regular Public Transport Operators Group held by RBK. This gives people with learning disabilities a voice in a forum where they can make clear to all the public transport providers who service Kingston the impact anti-social behaviour is having on their lives. The Police Safer Transport Teams are also represented at the meeting which informs their work. The Learning Disabilities Parliament is also represented on the Kingston Community and Police Partnership which gives them direct access to the Police Borough Commander, Borough Fire Commander and Safer Kingston Partnership Manager.
The Kingston Community and Police Partnership has commissioned Kingston University to undertake a survey of young people’s views on crime, disorder and substance misuse in Borough Schools and Youth Centres, funded by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and with input from the Safer Kingston Partnership Team. The survey work will build on a London-wide survey of young people’s views undertaken by the MPA in 2007 and the results will inform the 2009 Strategic Assessment
In common with the Racists Incidents and Domestic Abuse Forums, the LGBT Forum reports to a Hate Crime Task Group which is currently being re-established and then into the Safer Kingston Partnership. However the LGBT Forum was initially set up to increase confidence in, and reporting to, the Police. Earlier this year the Safer Kingston Partnership endorsed a proposal by the Forum that, in order to attract a broader membership, increase awareness and deliver the Actions in the Hate Crime Action Plan, it should become a separately constituted group but maintain its current reporting lines into the Partnership. It is hoped that, as the new Forum evolves, it will also provide broader base fro consultation covering all strands of the LGBT community
The issue about web-site usage on the part of BME groups only serves to highlight the importance of Safer Kingston Partnership’s policy of visiting as many groups as possible to obtain face to face feedback on its priorities.

What action needs to be taken as a result of this Equality Impact Assessment to address any detrimental impacts or meet previously unidentified need? Include here any reasonable adjustments for access by disabled people. Include dates by which action will be taken. Attach an action plan if necessary.

Seek to involve all statutory partners in the next EQIA on determination of priorities for the Partnership Plan – On-going during 2009
Deliver a programme of phased consultation to feed into the next Strategic Assessment, focussing on those communities it was not possible to cover in 2008/09 and taking greater account of consultation by other partners e.g. Arabic Community Language Schools, Korean community, Somali community - On-going during 2009
Examine the potential for bringing together a range of Disability Groups for consultation purposes, where appropriate to attach it to another consultation with a view to encompassing all forms of disability. Make contact with KCIL by 31 March 2009 with a view to maximising any opportunities during the remainder of the year
Utilise the ‘Women to Women’ Forum for consultation with women, in particular to address gaps in service provision. March 2009 onwards
Support the LGBT Forum volunteers in moving from a small Forum to a wider organisation, representative of the broader LGBT community, and in taking the steps necessary to make this happen. On-going
Develop arrangements for user satisfaction surveys of victims of Anti-Social Behaviour who report to the Safer Kingston Partnership Team in the light of other reporting arrangements being developed throughout the authority to achieve a consistent approach, this to include monitoring of the equality strands By June 2009
As and when results emerge from the Community Engagement exercise which Kingston University is undertaking on behalf of the Partnership, utilise these to influence future consultation.

When will you evaluate the impact of action taken? Give review dates.

As part of the 2009 Strategic Assessment

When the next consultation phase is due. (Annually).

Assessment completed by:

Marion Todd

Safer Kingston Partnership Manager

9 March 2009

Search the Site