Agenda item

• ASB
• Hate Crime
• VAWG
• Serious Violence

Mr Mark Wolski introduced the highlight reports on four priorities of ASB, Hate Crime, VAWG and Serious Violence.

Discussion arose on a variety of subjects. In relation to anti-social behaviour, the meeting heard:

·         Progress was reported as moderate, with the development of PPSG, closure panels, case reviews and an emerging risk in respect of the discontinuance of the CMARAC.

·         The development of an ASB Case review protocol was noted. In the absence of feedback by 29 October 2025, these would be agreed.

·         Victims of anti-social behaviour required more support, and it was noted Victim Support North London was very good at both providing the standard victim support for victims of crime and antisocial behaviour. The organisation was quite proactive in terms of representations and advocacy for victims, including neighbour disputes, hate crime and harassment. The Council did not have a bespoke point of contact.

·         Discussion around Clear Hold Build informed the board about the closure panel, extensive use of full and partial closure notices. There had been reported success in respect of closure notices of whole blocks such as the Rothbury Walk Estate achieving reductions in reported ASB. Further opportunities were being looked at in respect of wider geographic locations such as Olive Morris Court which was made up of individual ferry like containers with no defined boundary. This would be done as an internal corporate order to test proof of concept

·         There were multiple demands and opportunities for identifying areas of concern that could mitigate demands made by local councillors for example, expressing concern about an area. This was often for a regular problem.

·         Discussion around the PPSG noted the importance of being data and risk led. PPSG could not be a ‘catch-all’ for the whole borough. Greater focus was required in respect of problems as well as measuring activity and impact. An action point would be added to the action tracker for a review of PPSG.

·         Keeping focus on high-harm, reoccurring, persistent antisocial behaviour, whether it was thematic, geographic or individual was important in attempting to tackle issues specifically to try and reduce antisocial behaviour rather than just managing cases across the borough. Clear, Hold, Build had looked at the five most problematic individuals in the footprint, the five most problematic residential addresses and the five most problematic businesses. In three months, the borough had taken a variety of action that included some robust action against individuals. This may well be a better strategic use of operational resources.

·         Consideration would be made regarding approaches on universal prevention. There would also be a secondary prevention category of people who were vulnerable people at the cusp of offending and a tertiary stage where there was a high risk of causing harm.

·         There were opportunities to address gaps in the system, especially around communication between various services and wider partnership working such as the ICB/NHS in respect of Mental Health.

·         There was a need for focus work to be done on mental health (ICB/NHS). Heath representation was important at the meeting and for any sub-groups. The need for this representation would be noted on Action Tracker. 

·         In relation to criminal behaviour orders, it was not something that the Partnership considered but probably should. It would be useful to explore such orders for those under the age of 18 and how they could be continually monitored across the Partnership and the Youth Justice Partnership Board.

·         Following discussion and proposal for an ASB strategic delivery, group, the partnership concurred there was an opportunity or a need for an ASB strategic delivery group.

In relation to Hate Crime, the meeting heard:

·         Police would not be investigating non-crime incidents. They would be recorded but not investigated. Islamophobic, faith hate crime and antisemitic crime was monitored.

·         As an action point, the borough would seek reassurance on online challenges and on integrated responses to Hate Crime, Prevent and VAWG. This would also be embedded into future strategies and delivery plans.  It was also important to have an up-to-date understanding of what the trends were and how it manifested itself.

In relation to VAWG

·         Discussion around those involved in sex work linked to the CHB initiative arose, and the actions of improving the response to those involved in sex work was acknowledged. The board recognised the vulnerability of those involved in sex work, as well as some inherent tensions in managing vulnerability and reported complaints by the community

·         A number of special providers had been commissioned Haringey. There was one provider that was directly a ‘women only’ service. The other services were inclusive of transgender women. This needed to be explicitly stated on the website. Transgender victim survivors were able to access services they needed. There was also an LGBTQ specialist service. In terms of recommissioning, the set specifications outlined that support was being sought for all women, including transgender women.

·         There was a number of community groups and organisations that supported migrants in the borough. It would be useful to hold events with them. In addition, with work in the Resettlement team, various collaborative events could be held.

In relation to Serious Violence:

·         For the action tracker, was the need to convene a working group in respect of reduction of re-offending and the opportunity to develop a more cogent partnership plan regarding serious violence

·         The borough was in the process of setting up a ward panel chair network.

RESOLVED:

To note the contents of reports and presentations in respect of the four priorities.