Agenda item

Mr Sandeep Broca introduced the item. 

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to sexual offences, it would be useful to see the breakdown of sexual offences to understand which ones were made during street working and which ones were within the domestic setting to understand the figures reported. An increase in the numbers of reporting was seen as a positive as it meant that confidence in the system was present for people to be able to submit reports. An increase in the numbers often meant better protection.

·         There appeared to be a good processes within the Council and the Police to detect and liaise with victims and to deal with offenders more appropriately.        

·         In relation to public protection related offences including slavery, stalking, child sexual exploitation, there had been an increase in reporting.

·         It was important to consider what the borough was trying to achieve in terms of impact as how the community felt about crime in their area was critical. Crime levels may collapse in certain areas, but speaking to residents demonstrated a fearful position and often residents felt worse off than they had done previously. In the coming years, measures should consider subtle elements and in a four year or five year plan. The borough needed to consider the impact of the year on year perception of communities by engagement.

·         The statistics could be considered alongside positive outcome rates. This was so it could be understood how the borough was actually dealing and managing reports of crime effectively.

·         The 43% increase in drug offences from a Police perspective was considered a positive because it meant officers were locating drugs and prosecuting drugs offences. It would be interesting to see what avenues were being taken with those offenders to make sure that the borough was providing them with relevant support and how they were being prosecuted. However, presenting data to the public as an increase of 43% could result in concern that drug use or supply was increasing, but it likely was not and was most likely due to better action, better reporting and better recording.

·         It was not clear what reporting standards were like in order to overlay information such as in relation to arrests made, how many were then placed into programs. It was difficult for the borough to deal with the tracking and progress especially as the volume got higher. However, the borough’s capacity to cope and deal with the issues presented did not increase. It still had the same resources.

·         Over the last four years, the way that the borough recorded robbery and theft had changed. In 2022, what might have been recorded as a ‘robbery’ would now be recorded as a ‘theft person’. This could cause a fluctuation in statistics.

·         Area profiles would also be taken into consideration. The theft person statistics would be impacted as well depending on what kind of modus operandi was present. The introduction of e-scooters and e-bikes saw an increase in theft person because certain logistics made it easier to commit the crime.

·         Recently there had been a spike robbery in one area, but this spike accounted for five robberies a month. There had been dramatic decreases in robbery rates. However, all angles were considered including displacements, trends, locations and demographics.

·         Spikes in robbery also tended to increase during the release period of a new smartphone. All these types of trends were tracked.

·         In relation to mental health, there had been a significant increase in terms of matters associated with mental health, either based on people placed into the borough or residents in the borough who had care and support needs and were causing social misbehaviour and committing crimes. Discussion had been held around responses made by the Police.

·         The agenda papers had a proposal for a five or six week project to look at repeat incidences for antisocial behaviour, but possibly other crime types, and to use that data to compare against social care data and health data to see if there were trends that enabled the borough to better focus its activities.

·         Proliferation of professional meetings were taking place. One example involved a family arrangement which had one person living with a disability. Many calls to the Police had been made regarding domestic issues and antisocial behaviour requiring intervention as a partnership. There was another case where an individual who had come in from a neighbouring borough into supported accommodation. This case required management across departure in terms of social care professionals from two different boroughs, involvement of Police, the care provider taking enforcement action in relation to the accommodation.

·         The borough may have to design a process that was more robust and able to deal with the level of demand as opposed to having ad-hoc professional meetings.

·         There was a lot of work through public health around the prevention agenda. The Roger Sylvester Centre would act as a crisis prevention house and would be increasing the number of crisis prevention beds. The link to adult safeguarding was important and this came through on multi-agency support, but there was no consistent approach. It would be useful to see all partner agencies working together.

·         From an adult social care perspective and a community support perspective, Right Care Right Person worked well in terms of releasing policing resources, but there were cases where individuals were not managed through an earlier intervention approach resulting in the issue escalating to a crisis.

·         The North London Foundation Trust was about to implement a community outreach team which would focus where issues were impacted by medication non-compliance. These then presented as behavioural issues. There was a focus on neighbourhood health agendas.

·         There had been cases which had moved from antisocial behaviour to violence or criminality. It was important to ensure that the right channels of escalation were being used to take control of the issues.

·         There was a gap in provision, not just in Haringey, but across London where mental health and neuro-divergence issues meant that there was a difference between health and social care and behavioural support. There needed to be a shift for neuro-divergence issues not being managed in a health facility.

·         The commissioning approach needed to change.

RESOLVED:

1. To approve the proposed approach to developing a new CSP strategy as outlined in this report.
2. To delegate authority to the relevant Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member, to implement the proposal.
3. To note the considerations relating to legal duties, equalities, and strategic outcomes.