Agenda item

Mr Sandeep Broca introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·      London as a whole was challenged by gun crime. Some of that recording was based on a true increase in gun related activity. There had been a reduction in the discharge of firearms, even though there had been an increase in the overall count of firearms. 

·      Violence reduction was a positive trend. Some of the surrounding boroughs had actually seen increases. A lot of this had been driven by robbery. Around 30% of all youth related crime was robbery related, so a lot of the good work had been done to reduce robbery. This impacted positively around the youth work.

·      Gun crime was one of the biggest concerns and one of the biggest risks in terms of increases, particularly because Haringey was an outlier across London. In terms of firearms being discharged, Haringey was lower than Enfield which was driving up the North London BCU total.

·      The ‘98’ figure listed in the report was the figure for all gun crime, the actual lethal barrel discharges was at ‘12’ for the last rolling year. Enfield was at ‘13’.

·      Roughly 50% of all robberies were now knife enabled. This was not to say that a knife was used, but it was in the category where it was either used, seen or intimated, which was significant. Robbery was generally driving a lot of the knife crime so despite the decrease, there was still quite a lot of knife-enabled robbery.

·      Reduction in domestic abuse was positive, but was estimated to be under-reported by about 40%. The British Crime Survey would look at domestic abuse levels differently. 

·      In relation to the confidence in Police overall, the figures related to it would be better taken as a judgment on the whole system rather than exclusively the Police alone.

·      The challenge for the Police was that the data on Police Confidence was not available at a more local level.

·      In relation to domestic abuse data, this was violence with injury. There was a desire to reduce domestic violence as a whole, but the Police did not have a specific aspiration about reduction of volume of domestic abuse due to the under-reporting. The Police wished to reduce the impact and the severity. This was about homicide prevention where violence with injury was a specific element that the Police worked to try and tackle. This included predatory offenders, repeat victimisation and the violent element of domestic abuse. This may translate to what the borough wanted to measure for outputs and outcomes for victims of domestic abuse. This would be observed in MARAC as repeat incidences or repeat perpetration. The Partnership would benefit from having oversight of this. Some of this information was available and could be shared at future meetings. Various similar statistics comparing with other local authorities would also be useful.

·      In relation to partnership funding, it was notable that large chunks of funding was coming in from various organisations and it was unclear how the money could be used in a coherent manner. It would be useful for the Partnership to look at this holistically. In relation to the Youth related service, the initiatives were given scrutiny through the Young People at Risk Strategy. Everything was underpinned by the key performance indicators there and at a future meeting, whether it was a youth related topic or another topic, an impact report for the Young People At Risk Strategy could be presented to provide assurance about the interventions.

·      For young people at risk, there was a Young People At Risk Network. There were about 20 different stakeholders on this network. Some of those directly delivered the projects within the strategy. Some of those were part of the Youth Justice System and they met on a regular basis. Their role was to make sure they delivered against the strategy and objectives within it.

·      In relation to MOPAC funding, there were quarterly review meetings with MOPAC (the funders). There were also quarterly project leads meetings, where the project leads had to come and present their quarterly KPIs to ensure that they were meeting the KPIs. The only gap related to how it was scrutinised at the Partnership meeting.

·      The meeting should report on a periodic basis on partnership funding so it could see highlight reports of what was being done, what might be available in the future and then looking at intelligence and risk. The Partnership could then get involved properly in terms of informing those decisions about what to bid for and not to bid for and where the funding got allocated. This could be presented to the meeting possibly on a six-monthly basis, possibly for an update alongside performance.Alternatively, a separate group could look at the funding and a highlight report could be presented to the Partnership instead due to the timings of different discussions.  

·      A youth voice was needed within the Partnership.

·      A highlight report from other meetings could be put forward to the CSP at the next meeting. Draft reports could also be brought forward to the meeting for approval.

·      Representatives from MOPAC, LCPF and VRU teams could attend a future meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.