Agenda item

To note an update on Community Safety.

The Panel received a cover report and accompanying presentation on crime performance in the 12-months to May 2022 as compared to the preceding 12-month period, as well as compared to the previous 3-year average. The Panel also received a presentation on Community Safety workstreams, which were ongoing across the borough, and which sought to reduce instances of crime and anti-social behaviour as well as to increase feelings of safety. These included a number of projects tackling violence, vulnerability and exploitation, which directly contributed to the wider borough aims and strategies. The report and presentations were introduced by Sandeep Broca, Intelligence Analysis Manager and Joe Benmore, IOM Strategic Lead as set out in the agenda pack at pages 71-96.

The Panel noted that that whilst overall crime has increased by 5% in the past 12- months, Haringey had noted a long-term reduction of 0.2% as compared to the 3-year baseline. Over the 3-year comparison period, most key crime categories had experienced significant reductions.

The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Panel queried what made a successful project and what had worked particularly well in this regard. In response, officers advised that adopting trauma-based approach had been a key approach along with the need for genuine partnership working to tackle the most pressing issues from a multi-agency perspective.
2. The Panel questioned what factors were behind the differential crime performance figures for different wards. In response, officers advised that the differences were not just reflective of socio-economic disparities but also reflected a trend that crime levels were higher in areas with higher footfall as well as higher levels in and around transport hubs.
3. In response to a question, officers advised that a lot of the micro analysis of violence was carried out through the North Area Violence Reduction Unit and factors such as gender, age and links to deprivation were all analysed. Officers acknowledged that increases in crime were not even across different geographic locations and that a lot of work was done to try and unpick this. Officers also set out that victim and offender analysis was also carried out and that, to a large extent this mirrored the model used by police.
4. The Panel sought assurances around location based working groups and queried what other locations were being considered. In response, officers advised that Finsbury Park was also a location where work was being done, largely in response to a public perception of crime in the area. Tottenham Hale was also identified a s high profile location, particularly around schoolboy robberies. Officers advised that a lot of work was also being done with police colleagues in schools. In terms of spill over from particular locations, officers highlighted the role of multi-agency action weeks taking place in problem hotspots.
5. The Panel questioned the extent to which the Domestic Violence figures represented the true prevalence of this crime type and sought assurances from officers about if they were confident in the veracity of these figures. In response, officers acknowledged that there was likely to be significant under reporting of this crime type, particularly as it was often reported to third parties rather than the police. Officers acknowledged that more work had to be done to better understand the prevalence of DV and how partners could respond to crime in the home, rather than on the streets.
6. The Chair noted concerns with the impact of the Covid pandemic on DV and also questioned the police’s response to instances of DV suggesting that, in some cases, the police response was less than helpful. The Chair expressed a desire for the police to look at how they managed the process after a DV incident was reported and how the police liaised with third parties. Officers suggested that DI Sebastian Adje should be invited to a future meeting, as the police lead on DV.
7. In response to a question, officers advised that the police published sanction detection rates and that these were around 7.5% in Haringey. This meant that 7.5% of crimes resulted in someone being found to have committed a crime and for that person to then receive a sanction. The Panel requested more granular detail on the crime figures, particularly so that there was a breakdown of ward-level data going forwards. (Officers to note).
8. The Panel sought assurances about how local crime priorities for Haringey were agreed. In response, officers advised that the local priorities were set by MOPAC in conjunction with officers and the Community Safety Partnership and that these decisions were based on data and analysis. Hence non-domestic violence with injury and robbery were two of the key priorities selected for Haringey. The process of setting priorities was done with each borough every year.
9. In response to a question, officers acknowledged the roll of grass roots organisations and the fact that officers were not best placed to run projects themselves. One role for the Council in this was supporting grass roots organisations and providing training and up-skilling opportunities for them.
10. In relation to engaging with young people, officers highlighted the work of Haringey Community Gold and in particular the role of the outreach workers in providing that link with young people. Officers acknowledged that the organisation could always do better on social media in terms of monitoring community tensions.
11. In response to a further question, officers acknowledged that some people were too scared to report crime and that they key to overcoming this was to ensure that the Council and partners had a high profile visible presence in the community in order to build trust.
12. In response to a question around at what ages children were engaged with through the community safety projects outlined, officers advised that they worked with children as young as eight.    

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the content of the Crime Performance Overview pack, which highlights the changes to crime performance in the past 12-months and 3-years.