Agenda item

To invite comments from the Panel on the priorities for the borough's Community Safety Partnership and current Community Safety issues. To receive an update on domestic violence and hate crime, and what was being done to tackle under-reporting of these crime types.

*Clerks Note- The meeting was adjourned for a short while following a disturbance by a member of the public who had been present in the Westbury room observing the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 19:41 and re-adjourned at 19:50.*

The Committee received a presentation and accompanying cover report which provided an overview of Haringey’s crime performance and the local priorities for the Community Safety Partnership. The Panel were invited to provide comments on these priorities as well as current community safety issues in general. The update also included information relating to domestic violence and hate crime, which Panel members had requested at a previous meeting.  The presentation was provided jointly by officers from the Community Safety team and also by the North Area BCU Commander, Detective Chief Superintendent Caroline Haines (Police). The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

a.    The Panel raised concern about a perceived lack of visibility for local Safer Neighbourhood Team officers and were keen that that a visible local police presence at a ward level was maintained. The Panel also commented on the importance of tackling drug-related crime to local residents. In response, the Borough Commander acknowledged that there was a feeling in the community of police not being visible enough. The Borough Commander set out that there was a commitment to two ward officers and a PSCO per ward (as part of the Safer Neighbourhood Team), however it was acknowdged that resources were also stretched across the frontline. As a result, police officers could be called away centrally to undertake other policing duties, which were referred to as ‘abstractions’. The Borough Commander acknowdged the influence of drugs on the proliferation of crime and advised that the police were working closely with the Council to provide weeks of action, which would increase visibility within a targeted location for that week.

b.    The Panel raised concerns about Stop and Search and the harm that could be done, particularly around disproportionality towards young black men. The Panel questioned how the value of the use of Stop and Search was measured against the harm that it caused to individuals. In response, the Borough Commander advised that her officers did a lot of work across the community and also with new police recruits to make sure they were aware of the disproportional elements of Stop and Search, particularly the impact on young black men. The Borough Commander advised that they regularly reviewed the data around Stop and Search, both in terms of its effectiveness and also in terms of disproportionality. The Panel was advised that the key for police colleagues was to minimise disproportionality where possible. Enhanced training was undertaken with the Haringey Independent Stop and Search Monitoring Group for new recruits, which had also been extended to a pan-London community training initiative to improve trust and confidence in policing.

c.    The Borough Commander also identified that the BCU deployed a number of external resources including TSG and BTCF to tackle violent crime. These officers were specially briefed and trained on Stop and Search. The Borough Commander advised that she held a meeting with key stakeholders in the community monitoring group and the independent advisory group, along with others from trusted partners to get feedback on trust and confidence in policing and the use of Stop and Search.

d.    The Panel sought clarification around evidence for the efficacy of Stop and Search in taking weapons off the street, compared to other types of interventions. In response, the Borough Commander advised that this was difficult to measure as the police did not have an indicator around trust and confidence as a result of a Stop and Search intervention. Instead the data was more qualitative and that this had to be weighed up against data on the fear of crime and the reduction of high harm crimes, such as knife crime.

e.    The Chair questioned how the police worked with the community and which parts of the community it sought to engage with. In response, the Borough Commander advised that times had changed in policing since the 1990s and that the model of the BCU was a much broader geographic area than the old Tottenham division. In terms of how priorities were identified, it was noted that much of this was pulled out from the public attitudes survey as well as what the community advisory groups told the police. The Borough Commander advised that they focused on high harm wards and were also very much driven by the data, as well as feedback from local communities. In relation to resources being spread thin, the Borough Commander advised that she had made herself as visible in the borough as she could.

f.     The Panel noted that the new Commissioner of the Met. Had made a commitment that all burglary incidents would receive a police visit and it was questioned how well Haringey was doing in relation to burglaries and how long before a 100% target might be reached. In response, the Borough Commander acknowdged the impact of burglaries on victims and that she envisaged that Haringey would be adhering to those targets. The Panel were advised that the Borough Commander would provide a written response on this to the Members. (Action: Borough Commander).

g.    In relation to a question on school visits, the Borough Commander advised that visits did take place and that there was a dedicated officer attached to each school. In relation to its success in reducing disproportionality of young black men in prison, the Borough Commander advised that it was a much more complex problem than just engagement with schools and that a much more wider programme of engagement was required.

h.    The Panel sought assurances about whether social services would be involved with a child who was brought into a custody suite. In response, the Panel was advised that the custody worker would identify the most appropriate solution and one of these would be contacting social services. In addition, anytime  a young person had an interaction with police, a Merlin report would be generated which would be processed by the multi-agency hub which also had links into social services.

i.      The Panel questioned the level of effectiveness for judicial orders and how this could potentially be effected by a lack of visibility, particularly in terms of the number of police stations being cut. In response, the Borough Commander advised that it was hard to measure how effective a judicial order was as you would never know the reason why a crime was not committed again, it could be the order, or it could be something else. The Borough Commander advised that where orders where breached, the police prioritised risk and harm and the activity would be tasked into the operations room which ran on a 24/7 basis. Therefore this was not connected to whether a police officer was visible or not, but rather based on a phone call to 999 or 111.

j.      The Panel requested a further breakdown on the hate crime data, so that it showed different segments within hate crime including racially motivated hate crime, homophobic hate crime and antisemitism, for example. The Borough Commander agreed to share this data with members. (Action: Borough Commander).

k.    The Panel queried how the statistics had been complied in the presentation in relation to the ward boundary changes, given that the new ward boundaries had not been changed on the police IT systems. In response, officers advised that the data in the pack was based on the old ward boundaries and that future reports would reflect the new ward boundaries, future reports would also backdate the data to May when the changes came into effect. It was acknowledged that the ward level figures may change following this, but that the total number of crimes would stay the same.

l.      In relation to whether this would impact how long this might impact the ability to undertake comparisons on a ward level basis, officers advised that they were exploring ways to see how a like for like comparison could be done going forwards.

The Chair thanked the Borough Commander and officers for their time.

RESOLVED

That the Haringey Crime Performance and Priorities Overview was noted.