Agenda item
The Safer Brent Partnership and Annual Report
To consider the Safer Brent Partnership and annual report2018-2019.
Minutes:
Councillor Tom Miller (Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement) introduced the item, which included the annual Safer Brent Partnership Report for 2018/19. The Annual Report provided the priorities of the Safer Brent Partnership 2018/21 and included a number of key priorities such as reducing domestic abuse, knife crime, vulnerability, number of offenders, anti-social behaviour and increasing safeguarding. The overall performance for the past year had been good, due to liaison and support between the Police, Local authority and community partners, with Brent’s crime rate remaining below the London average of 94 crimes per 1000.
Karina Wane (Head of Community Protection, Brent Council) highlighted that amongst the main achievements for 2018/19 outlined in the report had been the decrease in domestic abuse offences with injury by 8%, the overall reduction in knife crime offences by 13% and a reduced risk of Community MARAC referrals by 53%. However, areas for further development remained and included early intervention of domestic abuse, reducing the impact of gangs/knives, more partnership working, more intervention for individuals exploited/ at risk of county lines and addressing issues of repeat ASC callers by utilising existing powers further and working proactively with neighbourhood managers.
The Chair thanked the Lead Member and Officers for the introduction to the report and subsequently invited questions from the Committee:
In noting reference in the report to domestic abuse women/men identified as “victims”, Members queried whether they should be portrayed as “survivors” instead, in order to help build their confidence. Referencing information in the report on the delivery of services to Brent’s diverse community, it was further queried whether any consideration for victims of social media abuse had been given. In response, Karina Wane stated that a number of services existed which were trying to reduce levels of victimisation. While acknowledging that subjects to domestic abuse were indeed “survivors”, she explained that from a Council perspective those individuals entered the service as “victims”. In terms of social media and hate crime, she explained that further work was needed in the area. Commissioning services had to adapt around the services provided and social influences had developed. The Council was working with a number of organisations which specialised in domestic abuse and child sexual exploitation.
Members further questioned the impact on partnerships, which intervention method had been the most successful and steps undertaken to increase prevention. Karina Wane advised that an annual strategic assessment had been completed, which provided a good way of measuring through an action plan and strategy. Whilst the plans were “top heavy”, the Safer Brent Partnership had a number of operational priorities and was being held to account by the strategic boards under Safer Brent Partnership. Specific training in working with victims and risk-assessing had also been carried out. Non-crimes were also addressed through early intervention and the Council was aiming to identify problems before they escalated. It was noted that the Council was working with nearly 300% more victims which had affected the balance of injury statistics. Nevertheless, Ms Wane confirmed that working with a larger pool of victims would continue and the Council had applied for more funding to home office to get more resources. The project was still on track and would aim at offering even further intervention.
Discussion moved on with Members spotlighting on the performance dashboard, set within the report. Referencing the priority on reducing gang related offending which required further work, the Committee enquired on common trends in gun crimes, further questioned how Brent compared to other boroughs, sought clarification on the number of repeated incidents and how they were recorded. In response, Karina Wane advised that it was difficult to have specific indicators around gang related offending and this was new trend seen in 2019. She noted that whilst flagged as “red” category, the numbers quoted were not considered high and there was an overall downward trajectory.
Supt Smith added that the number of cases referred to in the dashboard was considered small (31 cases for 2018/19) compared to crimes in other local authorities. He assured Members that measures were in place and criminals with guns, in particular street guns, were being targeted by the Police. In addition, Brent had one of two available violent crime task forces. Actions taken may not necessarily lead to a percentage decrease but it was expected that overall trend line would decrease. Expressing his understanding of the gravity of issues at stake, Supt Smith assured members that guns were generally difficult to obtain in the UK and there was no gun culture. Councillor Miller clarified that the dashboard represented a flat rather falling under a specific statistic and the priority would be monitored.
A key line of enquiry for the Committee was the increase in ASB-related calls to the Brent Police and reporting of such behaviour across the borough. Members questioned the principle of reporting and stated that it may mislead the public who would expect specific actions to be taken. Councillors were mindful that by encouraging people to report the Council was raising expectations, without the ability to guarantee that specific actions would be taken, which in turn may result in complaints. Therefore, it was felt that further consideration should be given on how expectations were managed. Members further questioned why measures which are so flawed in principle are used and queried whether other, more targeted Key Performance Indicators could be used.
The Committee was assured that ASB was a priority for the Police across all boroughs. The number of high risk individuals committing ASB was relatively small, with the authorities focusing on personal ASB cases as a way of addressing long-standing/unresolved problems. Over the past 12 months the community in Brent had been actively encouraged to report more and in doing so allowed the Council to develop an evidence base as a way of resolving local issues. Nevertheless, it was explained that definitions of ASB were not universally agreed upon and with London expanding in size, issues were becoming more complex. While the rationale behind reporting of ASB was largely a political matter aimed at addressing increasing public pressures, the aim was to reduce the number of areas people were reporting on rather than the number of reports received. Members were advised that ASB served as a useful proxy measure for describing a wide range of behaviours, which were gathered under one statistics to demonstrate to the public what was being done about less serious crimes and communicate what was going on but was not always sufficient to describe the real world.
With regards to indicators used in the report, officers advised that these were included information to allow for a general oversight. However, they noted that crime related indicators were subjective and directly related to the level of cooperation between the LA and the Police. KPIs used in the report were seen as a baseline for comparison but the wider service had additional, more specific KPIs which were used for commissioning services and contract monitoring and could be disclosed if necessary.
Spotlighting further on the issue of ASB, the Committee suggested that the Police explores the possibility of applying a decapitation strategy by targeting gang leaders and getting them off the streets an example of implications of ASB and as a way of addressing issues of persistent ASB. In welcoming the suggestion, Louis Smith stated that any actions taken need to be evidence based. He advised that the police were working on a series of operations and trying to engage with the community and advise them on taking back control of their areas. Councillor Miller stated that the Council was nominated for an award last year for the joint actions taken with the Police. He noted that the most effective method so far had been the utilisation of behaviour orders. The Committee heard that overall public confidence in the Police was at 75% approval rating with 67% customer satisfaction in relation to dealing with anti-social behaviour. Although it was on the right track further improvement was needed including review of the website and simplification of the processes.
Responding to question from a Member on whether statistic on burglaries had been included in the Annual Report, Karina Wane explained that while the Annual Report focused on 5 nominated priorities based on the strategic assessment carried out, the service would continue to take into account other areas including burglaries and monitor them. Supt Smith added that the Police was actively monitoring certain individuals/gangs involved in burglaries and assured Members of the high conviction rate. Although Brent a lower number of burglaries compared to Harrow and Barnet, Members were cautioned about the importance to avoid any displays of affluence and take measures towards guarding wealth and valuables. A point was raised by officers that going forward a different approach needed to be adopted when dealing with crime such as burglaries which focused not only on resolving the crime itself but also seeking to understand the needs of the person who had been burgled.
Discussions moved on to supporting sex workers and addressing the negative impact of criminalisation on them. Members were mindful of ongoing issues in the borough and felt that more could be done to support sex workers through further consultation and exploring alternative options such as “AA-style” meetings, installation of street lights, removal of phone boxes and identifying blind spots. Karina Wane stated that the Council commissioned an outreach service through MOPAC, which actively sought individuals who may need help through an intelligence approach. Sex workers were seen as vulnerable individuals – the intention was not to criminalise them but to engage with them through positive behaviour, raise awareness and help them develop a longer term plan. Majority of sex workers were women but there were some male workers as well. Through an audit-model approach it had been established that wider issues existed such as drugs and alcohol leading to the need to support such people and move them away of negative environment. In terms of sex workers in Brent, Karina Wane stated that there were a number of engrained issues and would take years to fully engage with these individuals. She noted that majority of sex works were not trafficked but were mostly local residents with local issues. The idea of carrying out a consultation on best approach had been considered but no specific actions had yet been taken. Whilst further work could be done, it was likely that it would be resource heavy task which needed to be offset by impact on available budget.
Data requests:
· Figures on net increase/decrease in total number of lethal gun crime be shared with committee members
RESOLVED:
The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee recommended:
i. That data on: police performance; public satisfaction in policing; and confidence in partnerships be included in the next SBP Annual report
ii. That the Council participate fully in the national debate and supports a Nordic legislative model for the sex industry to criminalise purchasers and protect workers by responding to Home Office consultations where possible.
iii. That the Council undertake a borough-wide review of street furniture and makes every effort to “design out” parts of the street furniture that allows sex work to happen, for example by removing public phone boxes.
Following this item, the Committee adjourned for a short break. The meeting resumed at 7.40pm.
Supporting documents:
- 06. Scrutiny Report - SBP Annual Report 2018-119 FINAL Report V3 24.6.2019, item 7. PDF 93 KB
- 06a. SBP Annual Report 1819 v.3, item 7. PDF 2 MB