Agenda item

Workshop Item

The Partnership received a report for noting which set out a long term strategic approach to reducing and preventing youth violence based on a public health model, as well as the strategic priorities identified for the following four years. The report included a copy of the Young People at Risk Action Plan. The report was introduced by Hugh Smith, Policy and Equalities Officer as set out in the agenda pack at pages 17-32. The following arose from the discussion of the report:

a.    In response to a question around signposting and information relating to where young people could get help, officers responded that this was a priority and that funding had been secured for Haringey Community Gold. The programme involved the placement of detached youth workers within the community. It was suggested that this would be a key resource, particularly in terms of signposting how to access wider services. In response to a follow up question around information available online, officers acknowledged the need to start mapping this information on to the Council’s website but cautioned that this would likely take some time. The Partnership noted that there was a young person’s crimestoppers website called Fearless which also provided some of this information.

b.    In response to a request for clarification on what aspects would be different, the Partnership was advised that one of the key aims was to improve partnership working and to ensure a strategic joined up approach across the Partnership. It was also suggested that there would be a much greater provision of youth services across the Borough going forward.

c.    The Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety and Engagement acknowledged that there was a need to bridge the disconnect between the different agencies. The Partnership noted that the BRT were organising a youth summit on 12^th March with the PRU attending along with  a number of local schools.

d.    In response to a question around the evaluation process, officers advised that a series of key indicators were being developed as part of a performance dashboard to monitor performance of the strategy and its related activities.

e.    The Partnership noted the implementation timeline of April 2019 for Haringey Community  Gold and sought reassurance as to whether this was achievable. In response, officers advised that the Haringey Community Gold involve £1.5m funding over a three year period and the aim was for 2000 young people to go through the different interventions available over that three year period. The Partnership was advised that work was  already on the ground and that there were a number of different reporting mechanisms in place to support this. The Chair emphasised that the key link for the CSP going forward would be with the Executive Sub-Board.

The Partnership undertook a workshop exercise and were allocated around 15minutes to give some thought and provide feedback on the following questions:

1.    What were the roles of community safety partners in achieving the outcomes and priorities outlined in the strategy?

2.    How could the CSP support the delivery of the strategy?

3.    What role did the CSP wish to play in the governance of the strategy?

4.    Were current partnership arrangements sufficient for successful delivery of the strategy?

The following key points were noted in response to the feedback from the workshop exercise:

a.    The role of the VRU in achieving some of the outcomes and priorities identified would be around sharing intelligence and sharing information about successful initiatives, especially at a pan-London level. The VRU also had a role in terms of convening partners.

b.    The Selby Centre held a key role in relation to early identification and intervention. The Council had a key role around community based early intervention.

c.    The CSP was an important forum for partnership working and a space for different agencies to work creatively. The need for representation of young people on the CSP was discussed as well as the capacity to develop leadership roles for young people.

d.    Should the CSP adopt a ‘hub and spoke’ model or should it adopt an approach of continuous improvement where the different constituent parts worked independently but came together often to learn lessons and ensure continuity.

e.    Public Health were undertaking a range of activities through schools around VAWG. There was also work being undertaken around drugs and alcohol as well as the Anchor project.

f.     Neighbourhood Watch also had a key role in terms of getting the messaging out.

g.    There was a need to develop a directory of key services and ways for the community to get involved in this.

h.    There was also a need to ensure that the strategy was a live document and regularly updated and refreshed to ensure that it met the needs of the community.

i.      Victim Support had a number of projects already up and running around children and violence within the home and had developed links with other organisations around early interventions.

j.      The importance of the voluntary sector’s role was discussed, as well as the need for their input at an executive level, in order to ensure community based delivery of priorities and outcomes.

k.    The need for a whole systems approach was discussed but feedback from partners was that there were some concerns about information sharing and that clarity was needed on what this would entail.

In response to a question around the future governance arrangements, the Director of Children’s Services advised that she would be chairing the Executive Sub-Board. The Partnership noted that, within the governance arrangements, there was a small group which would be responsible for looking at the ongoing governance process and there would also be a wider group involving key partners. Some further thought was required around the make-up of the wider reporting arrangements and whether the Sub-Board could perhaps report up to the CSP.