Agenda item

To consider a series of presentations regarding reducing re-offending.

Mr Joe Benmore, Mr Russell Symons, Mr Paris Michael, Mr David Charlotte and Mr Jason Brown introduced the item.

The meeting heard that:

·      In relation to reoffending, the Youth Justice Service had seen a reduction and a key to this included addressing disproportionality and tailoring interventions and responses. Work had been done with men regarding employment, training and aspirations. This had a positive impact.

·      One established strength was how the borough approached some of the issues in a partnership way including working with more vulnerable individuals that may have alcohol dependencies or may be homeless without criminalising the cohort.

·      There were some exemptions around certain offence types. The criteria for being released early was if a person could be managed safely in the community ten days or 20 days earlier than the offender was going to be released anyway, so staff would be preparing for the earlier release in advance of the release date. Individuals were only released if there was a robust risk management plan that could manage the risk. If a position was taken that the risk could not be managed then the individual would not be released.

·      Statistics were being collected regarding how many people re-offended.

·      The VAWG Operational Forum had informed that perpetrators (for domestic abuse) were being released early, but victims were not being informed about it. Relevant Council officers could be informed so that services could be appropriately made aware. The biggest challenge was usually accommodation, mental health and substance misuse.

·      A presentation keynote on Probation Reset would be circulated to the Partnership.

·      There was some work in progress with Pan London regarding the IOM scheme. Haringey had explored the use of youth IOM and consideration had been made to implement it across London. Based on data, IOM approaches appeared to work with offenders. It was challenging for the professionals working with those offenders, but it did make a difference in communities.

·      Efforts were being made to ensure that the number of people being released early from prison without much notice and sometimes no notice at all was working in conjunction with ensuring that the individual was given accommodation.

·      In response to a strategic approach aligning different services, the meeting heard that various services putting together a sub-group could be put together and a discussion could be held between all parties to consider this. 

·      A successful IOM scheme would have a steering group that reports to the CPS. The IOM team would do the day-to-day work and the cases, but a steering group needed to deliver community safety. The steering group would look at what partners were needed around and getting the correct cohort in addition to looking at if people were getting treatment quick enough.

·      In relation to the probation reset, when people were released on licence, if there were licence conditions for them to do an accredited program or to be electronically monitored, then this would not end when supervision contact was suspended. The work done by Probation would continue, but the activity under supervision aspect of the licence was being suspended. Other work would be ongoing and if there was any enforcement or reactive management activity, this would still be actioned.

·      A visit could be arranged to the HM Prison Service for colleagues that wished to see what the service did.

·      There were ongoing challenges with links in criminal justice. This was because there were multiple prisoners and timely communication was not always forthcoming. This was important so that the right treatment could be provided. If anybody was on say methadone or opioid replacement therapy in prison, then they could be at risk of not being able to get access to treatment and this needed to be considered.

·      When an individual was released, they may need to have different appointments to arrange for housing and other needs. This was an area that needed consistent focus.

·      Project Adder was a new initiative from the Police and it had a good approach around treating and rehabilitate people who used drugs.

·      Under legislation, it had to be determined that someone who was homeless was eligible for emergency accommodation. The AFEO scheme filled that gap for those who could not be given emergency accommodation.

RESOLVED:

That the presentation be noted.