Issue - meetings

To consider appropriate conclusions and recommendations for the review.  A paper containing all of the significant evidence received in the course of the review and highlighting what appear to be the key issues for discussion at the meeting is attached.  

To receive evidence from the following:

·        The Children and Young People’s Service on the provision of grant funding for Victim Support

·        The Anti Social Behaviour Team on support provided for victims of anti social behaviour

·        The Youth Offending Service on work to support young victims of crime.

The Panel received evidence from Luciana Frederick from the Children and Young People’s Service (C&YPS) and Mike Bagnall from the Anti Social Behaviour team.

Ms. Frederick reported that the C&YPS provided £38,700 to Victim Support.  This had been provided in six month blocks whilst the grant was being reviewed.  Concerns had been expressed at this by Victim Support due to the affect that this was having on their service.   A review was being commissioned on the work of Victim Support by the Community Safety Service and C&YPS.   This would review the delivery of services to young victims and best value.   Criteria for the new service would then be jointly be developed.  In particular, it would look at how the service could best relate to young people.  A low percentage of young people who had been victims currently reported crime.  A joined up approach across the Youth Offending Service, C&YPS and Victim Support was required.  Members of the Panel indicated that they would endorse a review of what was currently provided.

Mr. Bagnall reported that the Anti Social Behaviour team (ASBAT) had a key role in encouraging victims to report anti social behaviour.  Although the service was widely publicised, some residents were unaware of its existence and how to report incidents.  Work was being undertaken with the Council’s communications service to further publicise it.  The service was proactive and visited areas where they knew that there had been problems but had not received any reports about in order to encourage people to come forward.  The service had a dedicated anti social behaviour telephone line and was one of the first to have one. 

There were significant issues relating to young people.  The team had linked into 33 primary schools and 8 secondary schools so far and had provided training for teachers.  Whilst schools had to have a policy on bullying and harassment, few had procedures to deal with it.  The obligations of schools extended beyond school gates.  ASB reports received from young people and schools were very low in number. The service had introduced texting of reports and the use of live messaging but there had been little take up.

Support was available for schools if requested.  It was noted that some schools were issuing their own acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) but these had no official status.  Ones issues by the ASBAT were recognised officially and monitored.  These had to be witnessed by a Police officer.

There was an issue with the willingness of schools to work with others – all that the service could do was to continue to visit schools.  The Home Office was impressed with the work that had been undertaken with schools but there was no funding for this work and officers had to be taken away form their casework to undertake it.   Members of the Panel felt that there was a potential role for specific governors to act as “champions”.  Another option would be for information about anti social behaviour and reporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24

To receive the views of volunteers from Victim Support.

The Panel welcomed six volunteers who worked locally with victims of crime.  They all either worked for Victim Support or the Witness Service, who provided a service at the courts and were run by Victim Support. 

They had been inspired to become volunteers for a number of reasons.  In some cases, this was after they had become victims of crime themselves.  They stated that liaison between the Police and victims could be improved, although matters had improved since the establishment of the Victim Focus Desk. 

Victims had on occasion complained that, amongst other things, statements and crime reference numbers had not been taken.  It was possible that front line officers were sometimes overwhelmed by the considerable demands that were placed on them and therefore occasionally remiss.  It could also be difficult at times to get hold of relevant officers due to their shift patterns or them being out and about.  Messages could be left for them but officers did not always respond.

The perception amongst some victims was that, whilst crimes were logged by the Police, there was not necessarily an interest in investigating all of them.  In addition, victims occasionally felt that they were treated as if they were themselves criminals.   However, it was acknowledged that the Police Service was a very large organisation with many different staff.  Front line officers were different from community officers.  Volunteers had a very high opinion of community officers, who were always very helpful.  It was noted that a high percentage of front line officers were relatively young and inexperienced.

There could sometimes be language difficulties in dealing in communicating with victims.   Victim support could arrange for interpreters but had to pay for them out of their budget.  Not all interpreters were reliable but unfortunately the pool of interpreters for some languages could be very small.  It was suggested that, in some instances, volunteer interpreters could be used from institutions such as the School of Oriental and African Studies.  It was possible that, in particular, students studying law might be interested in assisting.

There were generally a good relationship between the Witness Service and the Police and, as far as was known, there had not been any complaints.  The service from the Witness Care Unit (WCU) was variable.   One particular issue was that the WCU did not always provide the information that Witness Service volunteers required, leaving them with little or no information on victims and witnesses that were attending the magistrates court and whether they were vulnerable or intimidated.  The service received the list of witnesses to attend court (LWAC) documentation but this did not provide all the necessary details such as the charge.   Sometimes the Witness Service was not informed by the Police when cases were dropped.  Such occurrences could cause embarrassment and de-motivate volunteers.  If the Witness Service was made aware of all the necessary information in good time, they could contact witnesses in advance.  It was noted that the same problems did not exist  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

To receive the views of representatives from following services:

·              The Police Service

·              Crown Proseuction Service

·              Haringey and Enfield Magistrates Courts

The Panel received evidence from the following:

·        Pete Dickson from the Police Service

·        Hywel Ebsworth fro the Crown Prosecution Service;

·        Stephen Carroll from the Courts Service.

Mr Dickson reported that, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, he led an integrated prosecution team.  This was based in Lymington Avenue, Wood Green.  A range of support was provided. This included crime prevention advice, specialist assistance and support from Victim Support.  Support could also be co-ordinated by specialist teams for victims of particular crimes such as sex offences.  It was available right through the criminal justice process and could continue afterwards. 

The Victims Charter had set time limits for keeping people informed of progress with cases and the service strived to comply with these.  Victims were informed within 24 hours if an arrest was made.  There were also particular timescales for informing victims if an individual was charged or pleaded guilty.  Efforts were made to arrange court dates that were convenient to victims and witnesses, who were informed as soon as a date was set. 

There were strong links with the CPS, with whom they jointly ran the Witness Care Unit (WCU).  They aimed to develop an ongoing relationship with victims and witnesses.  One particular purpose of this was to determine whether witnesses were getting more nervous.  In such circumstances, they could put them in touch with the Witness Service.  Special measures could be applied for if the witness was vulnerable or intimidated.  This was done by application to the court.  The Witness Service could arrange a pre trial visit to the court so that witnesses could familiarise themselves with the surroundings.   Whilst it was possible for witnesses to bump into defendants, there were separate facilities for them so that the chances of contact could be minimised.  One particular problem was that there was only one entrance to the Crown Court at Wood Green so it was not possible to separate victims and witnesses on their way in.

A wide range of assistance could be provided such as transport to court, taxis, childcare, hotels and even flights.  However, these could constitute a cost pressure on the Police.  Sometimes they did not become aware that a witness was required until a comparatively late stage.  The service had a good record on getting witnesses to court – only two to three were lost, on average, every month.  The service was supported by Victim Support PCSOs would undertook general administration duties.  The prosecution team took over once an individual had been charged.  Before this stage, it was the responsibility of the Detective Inspector to liaise with witnesses.  Merely attending court was a hugely important step as it was a common defence tactic to see if the prosecution were able to get their witnesses to court.  This was especially common in domestic violence cases.  If the defendant saw evidence that the witness had the courage to go to court, they often caved in.  However, they lost the opportunity to gain the maximum discount on their sentence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15

To receive the views of representative from following services:

·              Victim Support Haringey.  Please find attached statistics on referrals received by the service

·              Hearthstone

The Panel received evidence from Penny Rutter, the Heartstone Manager, and Tessa Newton, the Borough Manager from Victim Support. 

Ms. Rutter reported that, whilst there was a Domestic Violence Co-ordinator which was a strategic role, Hearthstone provided the operational side of the service.  Hearthstone was open from nine to five and staffed by a small team of five.  The team comprised of a manager, deputy manager, two support workers and an administrator. The administrator role also included acting as receptionist and Sanctuary Officer, providing enhanced security for victims who were considered to be at risk.  In addition, there was an independent domestic violence advocate who was seconded to work with them.  It aimed to provide a one stop service for victims of domestic violence.  The centre had recently been refurbished and demand had been growing ever since it re-opened.  Hearthstone worked in partnership with a range of agencies, including the police service, probation and the PCT, with eleven partners currently in attendance at the centre.   They catered for males as well as females.  Statistics from victim support suggested that more males were victims of domestic violence then actually came forward.   However, it was difficult to persuade male victims to come forward.  There were currently no male workers at the centre.

Current usage was in excess of 400 people for the quarter and 1600-1900 for the year.  The number of clients had almost tripled since the service had moved back to the refurbished premises.  The sessions provided were a drop-in in the morning with appointments in the afternoons. An emergency service operated all day. They had been given one additional support worker to help accommodate the additional demand but would benefit from another. 

Services were publicised through a range of activities. Two main publications had been produced.  In addition, a lot of work had been undertaken in building links with hard to reach groups.  Presentations had been given to a wide range of groups including community centres and mosques.  They also held three major events every year including a bus trip around the borough, with leafleting and information on services.  However, the majority of publicity was by word of mouth.  50% of people self referred.  Referrals also came from the police.  Physical violence was the main driver – the bulk of cases had some physical component.  Ms. Rutter agreed to complete a manual pilot of files to determine the exact proportion.  A risk assessment was undertaken on the likelihood of injury or physical harm. 

Front line police officers ought to be aware of Hearthstone and its services.  Recruits regularly visited the office as part of their training.  However, there was a high turn over of police officers and senior police personnel in Haringey. 

There was over representation of people from black and ethnic minority communities amongst clients of the service.  In particular, there was a high number of African Caribbean, Black African, Turkish and, increasingly, white other European clients.  The breakdown was very similar to that of people presenting as homeless.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

To receive a presentation from the Community Safety Manager on the following:

·        A strategic overview of local services and how they are co-ordinated, funded and provided

·        Plans by Haringey LCJB to address such recommendations from the recent joint inspectorate report on support for victims and witnesses that require local action

Claire Kowalska, the Community Safety Manager, provided a strategic overview of local services and how they were co-ordinated, funded and provided. 

The scrutiny review on this issue was both welcome and timely.  It was known that;

·        Many victims missed out on services for a variety of reasons, including under reporting of crime and funding issues

·        Some residents were more likely to become victims than others.   Those living in the east of the Borough, who were also more likely to be from a black and minority ethnic community, were much more likely to become a victim.  Whilst there was a roughly equal split between male and female victims of burglary, men were more likely to be victims of robbery whilst women were more likely to be victims of domestic violence. 

·        Services were not always well co-ordinated despite there being a number of local strategic partnership groups and a board who had a role in this area, e.g. the ASB partnership board and its registered social landlord (RSL) sub group.  However, the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) had overall responsibility for increasing the satisfaction levels of victims and witnesses therefore ought to be the most significant body locally.

Ms Kowlaska outlined the range of current provision.  Victim Support was a national charity and a key local partner that provided a range of services for victims and witnesses.  It received £72,000 per annum from area based grant, including £39,000 from the Children's and Young People's Service.  In addition, it received a certain amount of funding from its central organisation.  However, local funding was vulnerable and uncertain and a review was currently being undertaken by the central organisation.   It was very reliant on volunteers.  The bulk of its referrals came from the police, who were required to refer in all criminal cases.  However, there was currently no duty to do in sub criminal cases of anti social behaviour.  It was noted that the government had now stated its intention to address this issue. 

The Hearthstone Centre was currently seeing 1600 per year with demand expected to increase to 2,000 by the end of the year.  Most clients were female but there was an increasing number of male victims who tended to go to Victim Support instead. The service received funding from a wide range of sources including £50,000 from Supporting People plus contributions from the Council, GoL and Ministry of Justice.   There was now a specialist domestic violence court session with specially trained magistrates.

The Police were jointly responsible, with the CPS, for the witness care unit (WCU).  In addition, they also had a victim focus desk and provided support via the Youth Offending Service (YOS).  It was noted that there was a key national performance indicator relating to the satisfaction levels of local people with local efforts to deal with anti social behaviour.  In addition, there Police now had a single national performance target, which was increasing public confidence by 15% by 2012.  

The Anti Social Behaviour Action Team (ASBAT) dealt with persistent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5