London’s Local Councils: Responding to the riots and promoting safe, resilient communities ’s Local Councils: Responding to the riots and promoting safe, resilient communities

1. Overview

When the riots began in August, London’s councils were faced with an unprecedented challenge. Their responses, individually and collectively, demonstrated both an organisational agility and a determination to respond in the right way to highly unpredictable events. Working alongside police, local communities and businesses, clean-up operations were carried out swiftly and effectively within hours of the disturbances ending. This was followed by a concerted effort to begin recovering from the disorder both within boroughs and across the capital to support the many residents who had been affected, as well as local businesses faced with financial uncertainty and a substantial loss of trade.

The much bigger question facing London local government is how it might ensure that disturbances on this scale don’t happen again. The role of councils extends far beyond a timely and well-executed response to disruptive events. Boroughs are there to shape their communities, actively addressing a wide span of challenges across society, by early intervention with families, through work to challenge gangs, rehabilitate offenders and develop policies that sustain their local economy and build communities.

London Councils develops policy and lobbies on behalf of 33 . There are a wide range of services provided by the London boroughs which we consider to be effective at tackling the issues that undermine social resilience which the panel is considering. We wanted to focus on three areas we feel are important to draw to your attention. These are · Early intervention and prevention initiatives · Dealing with those at a high risk of offending or re-offending · Ensuring a healthy local economy and environment

In order to answer one of the key points the panel has raised, namely how public services engaged with communities before, during and after the riots, we have also set out in this paper the immediate response to the riots, and the recovery work which has been underway since they happened.

Background to the riots

The panel is considering what might have motivated a minority of people to take part in the disorder and why, in some areas, there was no disorder.

We believe that many factors lay behind the cause of the riots, and that these varied between groups of people, according to place, age and circumstance. However, there are a set of common factors which create an environment that appear to pre-dispose individuals to choose to step outside the law.

1 As the Home Office and Ministry of Justice data show, many of those who were detained over the disorder had disadvantaged and criminal backgrounds. In London, 71% of detainees had already had one conviction or caution.

Riot statistics point to a large number of educational factors which may have contributed to the sense of disengagement which has been reported by several groups as a contributory factor.

Only 10% of those detained had five or more grade A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with the national average of 53%. 30% were persistent absentees from school, 36% had been suspended from school at least once in a year, and their absence rates were far higher.

Nationally, of those detained, 11.3% had been excluded from school, far higher than the national average of 0.1%. Sixty-six per cent of young people were classified as having some form of special educational need. This compares to 21 per cent of all pupils in maintained secondary schools. Two-fifths of them (42%) were receiving free school meals, more than three times the national average.

Those brought before the court, were far more likely to be young, poor and educationally disadvantaged, and have far lower chances of work as a result.

It is also clear that in some communities there are many young people, particularly young men whose disengagement with school and lack of work goes hand in hand with a lack of aspiration or hope. Youth unemployment is worse in London than the rest of the UK. In the year to December 2010, youth unemployment in the capital was 23 percent, which is equivalent to 118,000 unemployed young people.

The rate of youth unemployment in the rest of the UK (excluding London) was 19 percent. For those without qualifications, their job prospects are shrinking in the current economic climate. Almost a quarter of working age Londoners are not working – 1.3 million, as of August 2011. London is home to just under a quarter of all households that have never worked in , some 86,000 households in all.

These background factors in no way justify what happened during this week in August, and borough leaders are clear that much of what took place was opportunistic crime which had a severe impact on residents and traders in the communities The rioters represented a clear minority of this group, with some 2,800 in London arrested to date, but it is equally true that many, many more young Londoners who came from the same disadvantaged background, had a poor start at school or had no job chose not to break the law.

The job of councils to offer interventions which help individuals at risk of turning to crime to see an alternative future with a stake in society, whether it is through pupil referral units, or getting out of gangs, or finding an apprenticeship.

Much of the work of boroughs involves looking at how the most vulnerable families and individuals can be helped to turn their lives around. Prevention and early intervention ranges from mainstream services which support children and young people through to targeted projects which provide intensive support for families with multiple problems. These projects focus scarce resources through intelligent approaches to address a considerable range of problems that individuals and families face.

Underpinning all of these targeted interventions are a wide range of initiatives that support and develop a healthy local economy and environment. This includes a focus on neighbourhoods, housing estates, town centres, and the mesh of physical and skill-based development that support jobs and growth. What we understand by economic resilience is a system which

2 enables local businesses to prosper in a safe and steady environment, and creates a platform for initiatives that link disadvantaged residents to economic opportunities.

The work in recovering from the events in August is not over. Hundreds of shops and dozens of high streets were damaged. At least 1,700 Londoners have been charged in connection with the riots and the police are seeking more. Although many high streets are repaired and back to normal and stores are trading once again, there are much wider questions to be answered for communities faced with a breakdown of order on such a scale. The continuing response will need to balance prevention and diversion with co-ordinated action to challenge criminality. This needs to be underpinned by strategies which create jobs and local economic opportunity.

Giving councils the resources and the power to expand their tried and tested interventions, working hand in hand with voluntary groups, offers, in our view, the best opportunity to strengthen communities and develop sustainable social and economic resilience.

2. The immediate response and restoration work

During 6–10 August 2011, incidents of widespread public disorder, looting and arson occurred across many parts of London. The disorder spread fast across London, with the worst disturbances centred on borough high streets and retail shopping parks.

For the London local authorities, the rioting taking place at such a speed and on such a scale was unprecedented, and threatened to bring with it sizeable economic and social damage. 29 out of the 33 London boroughs suffered some form of physical damage during that period; and yet the majority went on to make a swift and significant recovery. Thanks to the hard work and co-ordinated efforts within and across the boroughs, the established London-wide systems of emergency planning and visibly strong support from communities, the damage done to high streets, shops and residential properties was tackled very fast.

Borough CCTV networks were monitored through council control centres and were able to assist police in mobilising to deal with emerging hotspots, as well as providing useful evidence at a later stage. Some boroughs were able to deploy mobile CCTV vans to help with identifying rioters – building on existing strong partnerships between the local authority and local police.

In London, a total of 3,461 crimes have been recorded in relation to the riots, according to the Home Office data. This represents 68% of the total riot-related crime. Within London, the boroughs of Croydon (430), (314), Haringey (303), and Ealing (279) recorded the highest number of crimes. There have been 2,879 arrests, and 71% of those arrested have a previous conviction. 16% of those are over the age of 30.

Clean up

As the scale of the rioting and disorder became clearer, boroughs swiftly started work clearing up the affected areas. Street cleaning teams liaised with the emergency planning departments so that the streets were swept of glass and debris, without breaking through the cordons placed around the unsafe buildings.

The speed of the clean up was remarkable. Some areas had swept away all debris by 6am that morning. Volunteers also came together in a remarkable show of community spirit to do sweeping, and this in turn led to a very positive use of social media as communities co-ordinated

3 their actions to support local businesses as they dealt with the aftermath. By the end of Tuesday August 9, most of the glass was cleaned up, although emergency services were still assessing the scale of the damage.

London Councils collected information from the boroughs’ press teams about the clean-up to put out to media, but had no operational role to play. The information-gathering at an operational level was done through the London Local Authority Co-ordination Centre.

Councils responded quickly to support those families that were left without accommodation. Emergency rest centres were set up and council teams arranged for help with rent; making insurance claims and exploring housing options for the families affected. The number of residential properties that were damaged stood at 171 in September. The number of displaced households and residents totaled 174; of these, 61 required long term alternative housing which London boroughs have worked to resolve.

Advice and support to businesses

Councils provided speedy information, advice and support to affected businesses - to get them back trading as soon as possible and minimise economic impact locally. Officers and members visited affected businesses individually, often several times, and ensured there was a support available for those who needed it. London Councils played its part by influencing the shape of the support programmes and ensuring that the main points regarding the support package were quickly circulated to local authorities, then on to business and communities.

Boroughs quickly undertook surveys of the number of businesses damaged and in what way and have maintained Damage Registers. Business forums were then held to determine business support needed, as well as explain different sources of help available to businesses. Many boroughs circulated leaflets to thousands of businesses highlighting support available within five days of the riots happening, and held business forums to talk about financial aid. Existing networks such as Town Centre Management and Business Improvement Districts BIDs were immediately available to be used as multi-agency business recovery groups to asses the damage, identify a focus for recovery efforts and design and set up initiatives which would encourage return of footfall to the affected areas in the immediate aftermath.

The scale of the impact on businesses

The latest figures show that the number of businesses affected by the disorder now stands at 1,422, slightly higher than initial estimates. Damage to businesses was in most cases superficial and it did not impact on their ability to continue trading after the riots. However, as of September 22, up to 65 businesses across London were still not open. New figures show that the majority of these were small traders employing less than 10 members of staff.

In boroughs that experienced widespread disorder, businesses reported a 50% loss of trade in the week following the riots. According to the London impact assessment report of Sept 14, they have continued to experience a 20-30% decline in trade. London councils are continuing to support businesses to recover costs - by assisting them in approaching insurers - and helping them to claim money back from the Riot Damages Act and the High Street Funds.

To date, London councils have made £409,400 available to businesses through loans and grants. Some are also providing rate relief to badly affected businesses. These details are available in the appendix.

4 In areas where the disorder had a significant impact, boroughs are reporting that this, combined with the effects of the economic down-turn, has led to a number of businesses closing. In Haringey, for example, approximately 150 businesses lost trade for up to a week through road closures and cordons. Of businesses that were able to reopen, they reported a 50% loss of trade for 2-3 weeks. Their current trading is reported to be 20-30% below normal.

Community resilience

By the end of the first week, boroughs had seen their communities reacting in different ways to the disorder and violence. Some were reporting continued tensions within their communities and numerous rumours were circulating via social media about attacks on mosques and activities of the English Defence League. The Home Office acted to ban all EDL marches in Tower Hamlets and four other boroughs at the request of the Metropolitan Police, amid fears of further disorder if they were to go ahead.

However, many communities showed a great deal of resilience with residents coming out very strongly in support of shopkeepers and others whose trade and premises had been affected. In many areas, the community spirit improved as volunteers rallied around those carrying out the clean-up and helping restore normality to the affected areas.

Sadly, there were also cases of trauma, where people had either lost their properties or witnessed the violence of the riots. There were areas where elderly people had been badly traumatised by the events, and boroughs used counsellors to come and talk to them. Some other boroughs helped to arrange specialist counselling support staff to aid those areas where residents were particularly affected.

Social media

Much has been written in the press around how social media, such as Twitter and Blackberry messaging, helped to ‘fuel’ the riots, telling groups where to go and spreading unrest.

However, social media can also be used as a way of reassuring residents and businesses that the situation is under control, and of restoring calm within the borough. It involves very close liaison with the police, but has the benefit of being extremely fast, and used by the great majority of young people.

Social media was also used to good effect in the clean-up campaigns, with some community groups starting campaigns which managed to arrange hundreds of volunteers to come together and help sweep away debris and support businesses. This is the first time that London has seen such a community movement planned using mobile phone technology.

We believe that this is an area where more needs to be understood, so that boroughs can capitalise on the instant messaging systems to get information to residents, and counteract the false messages to reassure them when areas are safe to enter.

We would like to see a review of social media use during the riots by all the various agencies, to understand how it operated, and how its positive benefits can be maximised when facing serious events.

5 3. London Recovery

London boroughs are now working with businesses and the community to develop plans to re- build local economies and town centres that have been adversely affected in the medium to longer term. Through their community leadership role and the services they deliver/commission (such as planning; housing; leisure and culture, employment and support to businesses) they can, with other partners, develop integrated programmes for their areas. Examples of recovery measures such as free parking and restoring footfall to shopping areas are given in the appendix.

Recovery Co-ordination Group

To take forward the work on helping the London boroughs recover from the riots, a Recovery Management Cell was established. The group met for the first time on August 15. This cell, which became known as the Recovery Co-ordination Group, was made up of London Councils, the GLA, the Metropolitan Police, the , a representative from DCLG, and the London Development Agency. The London Fire Brigade emergency planning team were asked to collate information which would inform all the work of the group

This followed on from the work done by the London Gold Command structure, which produced the situation updates and guidance in the ten days from the start of the riots. The London Gold structure allows all the relevant officials in boroughs to be kept updated on developments around security and other issues in a way that minimises duplication, and allows information to be fed back to the group.

For the recovery stage, Nick Walkley, chief executive of Barnet, was nominated from among the London Chief Executives to chair this, and as Deputy Chair of the London RRF was asked to join the group.

The key responsibilities included carrying out and circulating impact assessments, monitoring financial matters and pursuing funding and other assistance, agreeing the overall recovery strategy, providing co-ordinated communications and providing advice to facilitate recovery efforts.

The group agreed that there were three main phases to the work that needs to be undertaken. One was around restoration – this was largely the clean-up work that was going on. The second was around recovery – including helping residents and businesses to recover from the impact of the disturbances. Third was around re-building which both physically and in terms of community work would be more long-term. The role of the Recovery Management Cell, which became known as the Recovery Co-ordination Group, was largely around the first two of these phases.

As the recovery work moves on and the delivery of initiatives moves to mainstream service areas, it is envisaged the Group’s role will be scaled back in a managed fashion, in accordance with established protocol.

Website

The RCG decided that it needed a website in order to support the work of the group. This was overseen by a sub-communications team, run from London councils.

It was set up quickly, within four days of the group meeting, on the domain www.londonrecovers.org.uk and it had two purposes.

6 · It was to showcase the positive efforts being made by different communities in helping to restore neighbourhoods and streets affected by the disturbances. · The website was also a portal for sharing information between boroughs, for example the several documents around funding arrangements, but also the latest impact assessments.

Boroughs were invited to contribute their press releases explaining recovery efforts, which they did with some enthusiasm. Twitter was used to flag up the site to a wider public, and the department for Communities and Local Government also used it to link to their work, and to upload their latest releases.

Finance for the Recovery One of London Councils’ major roles in the recovery stage has been to work closely with finance colleagues across London boroughs to identify the financial implications of disorder in London, identifying potential gaps in funding, issues of consistency and current challenges faced by local authorities in accessing funding.

The main issues identified were: 1. Funding levels and the flexibility of use 2. Timescales: ensuring that funding timescales match the timescales across which cost issues would emerge and need to be managed. 3. Issues of consistency in treatment of different types of business and different severity of harm. 4. Sustainability of restitution and the need to ensure that the way in which damage was repaired reduced vulnerability of businesses and people to future events. 5. Financial pressure on public services.

London Councils officers convened a meeting with central government officials from CLG and the Home Office. With boroughs having had the opportunity to further develop their thinking and response, CLG and Home Office officials were invited to discuss the current funding streams available to local authorities and businesses and to identify current challenges faced by local authorities. This resulted in a series of requests of central government, aimed at the local authority response. 4. Turning round lives: early intervention and young people initiatives

Stepping back from immediate events allows a focus on the important work carried out by boroughs in the area of early prevention, to prevent crime, disorder and severe problems. This work ranges from mainstream services which support children and young people through to targeted projects which provide intensive support for families with multiple problems. These projects focus scarce resources through intelligent approaches which address the range of problems that these individuals and families often face, and which could not be tackled by a single agency working alone.

Education

In the overview, we detailed the educational backgrounds of those detained for rioting. Education is pivotal to helping to prevent young people from turning to crime, or becoming 7 disengaged from the community around you. Much of the work done by boroughs focuses on improving the life chances of young people, particularly when it comes to securing qualifications and the chance of a job.

Pupil Referral Units (PRU) act as a crucial safety net to catch young people with behavioural problems before they disengage completely with education. They offer an opportunity to target interventions at a cohort of children and young people who are at risk of involvement in crime.

The latest 2009/10 figures from the Department for Education show that London schools excluded 1,080 pupils (from primary, secondary and special schools) which equates to 0.10% of the school population. The vast majority of these young people would be referred to a PRU. London is below average in terms of the percentage of young people excluded but is not the lowest.

The Pan-London Back on Track project was designed to make the most of these opportunities by improving Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) provision in London. It comprised a 3 year programme (from April 2008 – March 2011) led by London Councils with £525k from the Department for Education. The project worked with all 72 PRUs in London with a focus on sharing best practice between leaders to drive up standards. For example, three PRUs piloted restorative approaches (£30k each), a way of resolving conflict with pupils to improve behavioural management – the PRU staff involved have reported improved attendance and reduced low level disruptive behaviour.

Parenting skills

London Councils has funded boroughs for the Young Parents To Be programme. Part of Foundation Learning, this programme offers young people aged 16-18 an opportunity to return to formal learning and improve their prospects and those of their family. This involves intensive support from staff, with phone calls and home visits, to engage with them and talk about the value of qualifications.

440 young people have taken part in the programme, of which approximately 50% gained their qualification aim (usually in better parenting) - and many of who have subsequently returned to formal study, apprenticeships or employment.

Safeguarding vulnerable children

London boroughs have joined forces through the London Safeguarding Children Board, with multi-agency support, to draw up a useful gang procedure that supports front line professionals. Produced in 2009 with multi-agency support, this procedure for frontline staff has ensured that a large number of professionals are better equipped to deal with issues relating to safeguarding and gangs than they would have been previously. It aims to: aid understanding of the nature of risk that gang activity poses to children; identify how signs of gang involvement may manifest themselves; provide guidance on dealing with these issues;

The London guidance was used as the basis for national guidance, published in March 2010.

Timely and effective systems for sharing information about vulnerable children and young people are crucial to avoiding children falling between bureaucratic gaps. Councils are now working with the police and other key agencies to develop and deliver a Multi agency safeguarding hubs (mash). These are there to help identify, assess and provide the right

8 support for vulnerable children and young people. For example, there is a ‘partnership triage’ scheme in Hackney. This links police data, with referrals for services, including substance misuse, across all aspects of risk.

There is considerable interest and commitment across London to roll out these types of hubs more widely.

Family intervention projects

The work to help the most vulnerable families in boroughs is exemplified by Family Intervention Projects (FIPs), local authority-run initiatives to provide intensive support aimed at families who are engaged in crime and anti-social behaviour. Some 568 families in London have benefited from this service between April 2010 and March 2011. There were, on average, reductions in the proportion of families experiencing the following issues: o 53% reduction in truancy, exclusion or poor behaviour in school (from 58% of families with the issue at the start of the intervention to 28% of families with the issue at exit) o 58% reduction in anti-social behavior (from 81% to 34%) o 34% reduction in child protection issues (from 27% to 18%) o 41% reduction in crime (from 35% to 20%)1

Please see our appendix for specific examples.

5. Delivering safer communities – tackling gangs and crime.

Boroughs play a vital role in dealing with individuals who are involved with gangs or are in danger of falling into crime. We commission and deliver innovative programmes that tackle this behaviour through enforcement; by challenging young people to take alternative paths and by harnessing the power of communities.

In London to date, there have been around 3,000 arrests connected to the riots, and more than 1,800 people have been charged. The early information available on the court appearances connected to the riots suggests that those involved were predominately men under the age of 30. In London, 19% of those appearing were classed as juveniles, and just 4% were over 40.

The data would also suggest that those taking part were far more likely than the general population to have a previous criminal history, with 68% of the adult males having at least one previous conviction. Among the younger age groups, 60% of the 10 to 17-year-olds had a previous conviction.

Where offending does occur, council initiatives act to challenge and support individuals to develop crime-free ways of life. This work is delivered through statutory Youth Offending Teams and also through new models of integrated offender management. These models intervene with prisoners coming off short sentences, who would otherwise receive little or no intervention from the criminal justice system. There is significant scope for expanding this type of intervention, if resources could be realigned within the system.

1 These figures are national - http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/a00196853/dfe- monitoring-and-evaluation-of-family-interventi 9 Gangs

In the capital, there are thought to be around 170 gangs, with members typically aged between 12 and 25, according to the MPS. Their presence across the capital has a disproportionate effect on both crime and fear of crime. Approximately one-fifth (19%) of those arrested in London over the disturbances were known to the police for previous gang involvement. However, despite many anecdotes on gangs arising from the disturbances there is little firm evidence to suggest that the criminal activity was organised through gangs.

Many boroughs have initiatives to tackle gangs, and these are listed in our appendix.

The wider crime picture

Youth Offending Teams

Youth Offending Teams are co-ordinated by local authorities but bring together the police, Probation Service, social services, health and education services to support young offenders from re-offending. They are partially funded by a grant from central government that is sent to local authorities via the Youth Justice Board.

It will be the job of Youth Offending Teams, run by local authorities, to rehabilitate the young people sentenced in relation to the riots with appropriate support packages. These teams have already faced cuts in the past year – the Ministry of Justice cut their funding by on average 23% (up to 30% in some London boroughs) in March 2011. The average cut in cash terms for London is almost £175,000 per borough. It is not clear whether any additional resources will be forthcoming from Government to deal with this anticipated increase in demand. It is also not clear how existing packages of support will change when the new duties relating to remand outlined above come into effect.

Given the scale of involvement in the riots in London it is still unclear how many young people will be sentenced and therefore, what the likely impact will be on these teams. There is a need to carefully monitor the situation to ensure that YOTs are adequately resourced and given appropriate flexibility to tailor their support to the needs of the young people being referred to them.

Third sector projects

Boroughs play a crucial role in commissioning and funding targeted third sector projects, which can take an innovative approach to accessing gang members and those at risk of serious criminality.

The Metropolitan Police Service and London Councils have commissioned Community Conflict Management (CCM) which mediates between groups and individuals who are vulnerable to, or likely to commit, serious high risk acts of violence. It works with groups of young people on the fringes of gang activity working on conflict mediation techniques which in turn mitigates against violent behaviour in the future. Its services are called upon either following a homicide or a series of violent activities. Since 2009 CCM has dealt with 143 high risk cases across London and has now trained 45 mediators. London Councils contributed £32K for 2011/12

10 Reducing re-offending

Given the prevalence of previous convictions for those charged in relation to the civil disorder as set out above, council programmes which work to rehabilitate offenders have the potential to make an impact on crime rates as well as the lives of offenders.

Councils are now playing an increasing role in offender management (especially repeat offenders and prolific priority offenders) through an integrated programme which brings different agencies together to tackle the offender’s behaviour.

At present, this work is targeted on a relatively small number of ‘priority’ offenders (those that the Probation Service is not resourced to work with) and a typical borough programme costs between £50,000 and £200,000 per annum, providing intensive programmes for up to 50 individuals.

There are opportunities for the boroughs to become more involved in reducing re-offending, particularly because of the work we do across communities, but there are significant resource implications for boroughs.

Five London boroughs have agreed to be pilots for a financial incentives approach and will incorporate this into their programmes for tackling re-offending. Lewisham, Lambeth, Hackney, Croydon and Southwark will explore innovative ways of working with their local statutory partners so as to reduce the demand on the justice system caused by re-offending.

The pilots began in July 2011 and will run for two years until 30 June 2013. London Councils and the five pilot boroughs have been working closely with the Ministry of Justice and other partners, to ensure they are given greater flexibility and autonomy to explore a range of initiatives that would reduce demand on the justice system in their local areas most effectively.

However, the absence of upfront funding may hamper the ability of local authorities and their partners to fully develop innovative initiatives. If some of the money currently spent elsewhere in the criminal justice system was made available for local problem solving, it would broaden boroughs’ potential to explore a wider range of options for reducing re-offending. We feel that local authorities could better use these resources to enable them to fully test a wider range of initiatives.

6. Developing a healthy local economy

The riots demonstrated both how quickly high streets and businesses can be harmed by widespread disorder, but also how quickly local communities reacted to the threat with the enormous groundswell of support that was offered to traders by volunteers and local people.

Supporting and developing a healthy local economy and environment is one of the central roles a borough plays, having a focus on neighbourhoods, housing estates, town centres, and the mesh of physical and skill-based development that support enterprise and growth. This effort builds local economic resilience and creates a platform for initiatives that link disadvantaged residents to economic opportunities.

Jobs

11 London has 4.7% of its 16 – 19 year-olds not in education, employment or training, NEETs, the lowest percentage of any region in England. But it also has 23% of its young people unemployed.

Boroughs have an important role commissioning and delivering employment services that link local people with employment and skills opportunities, often with local employers. Small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) account for around half (49 percent) of all private sector jobs in London (GLA Economics, Employment in London by firm size, May 2008).

There is a particular emphasis on linking disadvantaged residents to economic opportunities, exemplified by the following work: · London Councils European Social Fund programmes. These employment and training programmes have attracted £18 million of borough and EU investment over 6 years and resulted in 3,700 Londoners getting jobs and almost 2,500 getting qualifications They focused on more disadvantaged and long-term unemployed Londoners. (please see case study below). · Apprenticeships. Over the last 2½ years, London boroughs have collectively created more than 2,000 apprenticeship job opportunities. The majority of these vacancies were filled by young people (almost 90 percent) and over a third (36%) were previously NEET (Not in Employment, Education and Training) · Borough-led local employment programmes – innovative approaches working closely with local employers and meeting their needs e.g. Greenwich Local Labour and Business (GLLaB) has got over 10,000 residents into work and training another 11,000 since it was set up in 19962; almost half of these people were out of work for more than a year. · Creating employment and skills opportunities through procurement – over the last two year boroughs created over 500 apprenticeship opportunities via suppliers.

We would like to see support for an apprenticeship programme that focuses on retailers and high street businesses, bring in support from corporate business.

Town centres

Councils play an important role in setting the framework for the ‘ Look and Feel’ of the public realm, paying particular attention to shopping precincts and the need for safety and security to be balanced against a conducive shopping environment. However, the premium people place on their local public space and the attachment they feel to an area can affect their propensity to protect or to join in the destruction in these types of incidents. Boroughs have reported that video evidence suggests toughened glass frontages performed better against rioter damage compared to shutters.

Local authorities, working with social landlords, have continued to promote mixed sustainable Communities, encouraging mixed tenure of social housing and low cost home ownership

Economic growth

Councils are instrumental to developing tailored strategies that promote local economic growth and support local enterprise.

We believe more could be done to enable local areas to kickstart growth in small companies, and make them more attractive places to work and prosper. We have asked the government to

2 Figures at February 2010 12 reconsider its Local Government Resource Review proposals to give boroughs real incentives for economic growth with more business rates growth retained in London, whilst still ensuring fairness;

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) work closely with boroughs to improve the environment, sustainability and marketing of an area, making them more attractive places to live, work and do business. London has 25 formal BIDs, with a 100% success rate on BID ballots. Boroughs are often instrumental in developing BIDs with business. Business support – support to start-ups, business incubators and sector specific work.

Encouraging footfall back into the high streets is vital for boroughs affected by the disorder. A number of boroughs have reported that business and traders associations have been reinvigorated following the riots. Improving business resilience and joint action between businesses to improve an area is an important aspect of economic resilience.

Some boroughs are looking to draw on the local resident and business community and volunteers to stage events to reinvigorate the High Streets, building on the initial good will. Ideas include allowing artists working with schools to create posters or performances that encourage parents to go to the high street to see the outcome, youth led film projects documenting the area with a local screening inviting in audiences to the area and musical events within the High Street.

Boroughs are continuing to support businesses in recovering costs by assisting them in approaching insurers and helping them to complete forms to claim money back from the Riot Damages Act and the High Street Fund.

A number of boroughs are also working closely with businesses to make use of the Outer London Fund to boost economic confidence locally. Examples of this are given in the appendix.

The types of businesses affected cover all from large scale enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises and sole traders and vary from borough to borough. In addition to those directly affected a number of businesses have reported a loss of trade as a result of early closures or lack of access due to cordons. Boroughs reported that the scale of the disorder has had a significant impact on public confidence especially in severely affected areas, which is further impacting on businesses and local traders.

However, the majority of businesses affected by the disorder across London were able to resume trading within 24 hours of the disorder. Five boroughs also collated offers of temporary trading premises through their councils.

Given the importance of building economic resilience in town centres and high streets, we believe the government could explore how it would work with London boroughs and business to bring sustainable economic growth and local job opportunities through:

· investment in town centre management to build capacity and sustainability within the business community; · support for an apprenticeship programme focusing on retailers and other high street businesses, bringing in support from corporate businesses and providing support for smaller traders; · extension of the proposed pilots of community budgets (a single pot of funding; two of which are proposed nationally) to London boroughs with a focus on economic growth and employment.

13 7. Conclusion

This report describes how London local government responded to the immediate challenges of the August disturbances in London. It demonstrates how local government was able to act effectively in response to a range of immediate challenges during the riots. It draws lessons for future improvement in response. The report then describes the interventions led by boroughs during recent years that have a bearing on the causes of the disturbances.

Lessons of the Immediate Response

Overall local councils responded fast and effectively, and the partnerships with police and other agencies worked well. London recovery management systems were effective in responding to events.

Social media was used by the rioters but also by the police and public services to restore calm and help with clean up. London needs to share its experiences to improve its use of this form of communication in an emergency situation

Small high street business is especially vulnerable to disorder. Response in the first few days can be critical. The overwhelming need was for clarity around financial assistance from central government, insurance companies and others. London will benefit from sharing the best responses to these threats and building them into a review of business continuity planning.

Learning for the Longer Term

This report does not attempt to provide a single judgement on the motivations of those involved in looting or riot. Indeed there is evidence that specific causes varied between both people and places. However, we do conclude that there were common factors creating a fertile soil in which individuals may have been more likely to make the choice to step outside the law.

These factors are relevant whether individuals were members of organised gangs with a specific purpose, opportunists seeing a chance to commit crime, or people caught up in the moment and too easily able to step over the line into lawlessness.

Family, school, peer group, inclusion within the world of work and the link between past criminality and the chance of re-entering work are all important factors. They contribute to a state of mind that has made the choice of criminal behaviour more likely once individuals are faced with the unusual circumstances of violence on the streets of the capital.

Even in the absence of a precise analysis of what caused such widespread disorder it is possible to see the kinds of interventions that reduce the likelihood of individuals choosing to step beyond the law. These actions have common characteristics. They are locally tailored. They depend on many agencies working together, public, third sector and private. Their weakness is that they do not operate at scale. The local initiatives include: · Family intervention projects · Pupil Referral Units and catching problems in school · Parenting skills · Getting out of gangs · Youth offending and youth aspiration initiatives · Offender rehabilitation · Housing interventions as a lever for wider change 14 · Aiding entry to work through training and apprenticeships · Encouraging vibrant high streets and town centres

We believe that the longer term challenges to address are the following: · How can successful local initiatives be scaled up from demonstration projects to significant interventions? o What changes to central government decision making, beyond the advances in the Localism Bill and community budgets initiative, could facilitate locally integrated action? o How can locally pooled funding and incentives accelerate the process? o What other techniques can encourage joint working by local public services? · How can we build on current approaches to the high street and town centre economy? · How can the local state better support the actions of local communities and residents who responded so positively putting right the harm of the riots?

Key Recommendations

Councils need to be empowered to bring together funding streams and agencies to deliver the appropriate and effective services locally. In the longer term, councils need to be resourced to expand their tried and tested interventions so that success can be scaled up.

The government should consider how it can help realign resources in criminal justice to help boroughs explore a wider range of options for reduction of re-offending than is currently available.

Boroughs need assistance to protect the budgets that manage young people in a range of services between the ages of 18 and 24

The proposed pilots of community budgets should be extended to London boroughs to address the underlying issues discussed in this report, with a focus on growth and employment

Local government action has consistently delivered results in these areas by joining up local public services and working with the third sector. However, in each case scale has been an issue. Too often local integration conflicts with prevailing assumptions about the organisation of national public services. In the past this has been frequently been overcome through national initiatives supported by additional funding. That route to better local results is diminishing as public spending is reduced. An alternative must be found.

15