Agenda item

To consider a presentation showing Haringey’s performance against the Mayor’s (MOPAC) Police and Crime Plan (PCP) key priorities, including knife crime and firearms discharges

Clerk notes – to assist Officers, this Item was held after Item 5 and before Item 6.

Jennifer Sergeant and Eubert Malcolm outlined this report and presentation which detailed the knife crime situation in Haringey and set out certain initiatives and strategic actions in place to address the issue. Officers confirmed the statistics contained within the report were a year-on-year comparison from the two previous years.

Officers highlighted the following:

• There had been an increase in moped-enabled crime within the borough which the Council was monitoring.
• Community knife sweep had been a successful initiative in working with residents to remove knives off the streets of Haringey.
• Street doctors (who educated young people to change their attitude towards violence) had been successful in deterring young people from carrying weapons. Officers confirmed this initiative was a group led programme where young people were shown the impact of knife crime, which involved graphic material of real life knife injuries. They were also given the skills on how to treat injuries caused by weapons.
• Where a school approached the Council to raise concern about a particular issue they faced, the Council arranged for a team to go to that school to help tackle that issue.
• A Young People at Risk Strategy was being led by the Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety and Engagement, which focussed on earlier intervention to reduce knife crime. The strategy involved listening directly to young people and incorporating their ideas.
• There was an Integrated Gang Unit which had gang workers operating within communities.
• A project in place involved staff across the service working with young people at HM Prison Pentonville to identify issues such as how best to help them reintegrate in the community or how to prevent them from reoffending once released.
• A Godwin Lawson Foundation report had been significant in capturing the viewpoints of young people in the borough on the issue of knife crime.

With regard to addressing particular crimes in the borough, the Committee queried who set the local priorities, namely robbery and Non-domestic Violence with Injury. Officers confirmed the local priorities were issues that the borough statistically had struggled to address and became priorities as a result. 

With regard to the ‘Knife Crime by LAC Status’ table on page 30, Officers clarified that those 10 children who were listed as looked-after children, were already looked-after. Officers would confirm whether those children were perpetrators or victims. (Action: Jennifer Sergeant)

The Chair questioned Officers on what measures were in place to assist those looked-after children involved with crime or at risk of becoming involved. Officers informed social workers and youth justice workers worked in collaboration where a child was identified as being looked-after child. Where a child was remanded to Youth Detention Accommodation (YDA), they were encouraged to contact their youth justice worker at any time via telephone, mobile or email, about any issue or concern they had. The Council checked up to ensure they had been provided with that opportunity by the YDA. Officers also encouraged a separation between the statutory LAC review and a young person’s individual visit. This allowed the looked-after child to discuss matters with their social worker outside of a formal environment. Officers were monitoring that the meetings were being separated by requesting times be recorded for both.

Officers noted that certain looked-after children may feel reluctant to talk to professionals about their problems and concerns. Mentors had been discussed as an effective intermediary but resources and the availability of mentors meant this was not a practical or viable solution. Officers suggested looking at trusted adults for those young people, who would be available for them when the services were not.

The Committee queried how voices of young people were being listened to. Officers informed an application called MOMO had been set up which collected feedback from young people that was to be implemented within the youth justice service. For HMIP purposes, the Council had set up a feedback system whereby young people were asked to confidentially provide their experiences of the youth justice service. Young people were encouraged on the importance of their feedback and sharing of their experiences. 

The Committee noted an increasing number of press reports that young girls were being coerced into involvement with knife crime. They queried whether there were any statistics for young girls in Haringey that demonstrated this. Officers confirmed that the number of young women in Haringey’s youth justice system was less than 100. Officers acknowledged that young girls carrying weapons was an increasing issue which the Council was monitoring. Officers noted that the Council’s indicators were heavily focussed on police flagging and unless individuals were flagged, the Council would be uninformed and unable to intervene or assist. Officers also highlighted the role of the Exploitation Panel which met monthly to discuss issues of exploitation. There was also a Gang Action Group that covered girls in gangs.

The Committee queried whether any difference had been observed in the treatment of looked-after children to non-looked after children within the youth justice system. Officers informed a study was being conducted by the youth court which was investigating sentencing behaviours of magistrates, using those at Highbury Court for the study. Officers would update the Committee on the outcome of that work and the reoffending statistics of looked-after children at a future meeting. (Action: Jennifer Sergeant /Eubert Malcolm)

The Committee requested a report with a specific focus on looked-after children in Haringey affected by the issues raised above. The Committee sought to be assured that looked-after children who came into the Council’s care had their needs met. The report should contain:

·         general background information;

·         anonymised case studies;

·         actual figures expressed as a comparison of total looked-after children population to enable the Committee to observe the scale of the issue; and

·         what the proportion was for looked-after children involved with the youth justice service in comparison to non-looked-after children involved with the youth justice service. (Action: Jennifer Sergeant / Eubert Malcolm)