COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP BOARD AGENDA Monday 7 December 2015, 9:30 - 12.30 Conference Centre, Barking Learning Centre

Agenda Items

Presented by Time Pages Allowed

1 Introductions and Apologies for Absence Chair 1 minute N/A

Declarations of Interest Members of the Board are asked to declare any Chair 2 1 minute N/A personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.

Minutes 3 Chair 3 minutes 1-17 To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting on 14 September 2015.

Section 1: Discussion Items

London Fire Brigade – Safeguarding 20 4 Stephen Norman 19-20 Safeguarding vulnerable people from fire minutes deaths (presentation).

Community Safety Partnership Priorities

a) Strategic Assessment 2015 Outlining the analysis of the Strategic Dan James 15 To follow 5 Assessment and agreeing the CSP’s priorities Minutes for the forthcoming year.

b) CSP Proposed Restructure Karen Proudfoot 10 To follow A review of the CSP’s current structure and minutes proposal for an adjusted structure.

Royal Society of Arts Report: Safer 15 6 Sultan Taylor 21-100 Together - Policing a Global City in 2020 minutes For discussion.

National Probation Service Blueprint ‘E3’ Carina 10 7 Report 101-154 Heckroodt minutes For discussion Section 2: For Approval

20 8 Draft Homeless Strategy James Goddard 155-240 minutes For approval. 20 Draft Substance Misuse Strategy Karen Proudfoot 241-253 9 minutes For approval. 10 Borough Risk Register Tony Cox 255-289 10 minutes For approval.

Home Office Gangs Local Assessment 5 11 Henry Staples 291-310 Process minutes For approval. 5 12 Health of Young Offenders Matthew Cole 311-315 minutes Update on recommendations.

Section 3: Business Items

Safer Neighbourhood Board 5 13 Steve Thompson 317-334 Minutes of meeting to note and items for minutes escalation.

Performance Callover 10 14 Dan James 335-336 Minutes of meeting to note and items for minutes escalation. Chair’s Report 15 Chair 5 minutes 337-338 To Note.

(a) Forward Plan (b) Date of Next Meeting 16 14:00 – 17.00 Chair 5 minutes 339-340 Tuesday 1 March 2016 Conference Centre, Barking Learning Centre

Section 6: RESTRICTED ITEMS

Preventing Extremism – Draft Prevent 15 17 Strategy 2016-18 Gareth Tuck 341-351 minutes Update on Prevent including presentation of Draft Prevent Strategy. 5 18 Domestic Homicide Review Anne Clark 353-355 minutes Membership List Name Post Title Agency Sultan Taylor Borough Commander Metropolitan Police Service (Chair) Glynis Rogers Divisional Director London Borough of Commissioning and Partnerships Barking and Dagenham Sharon Morrow Chief Operating Officer Barking and Dagenham CCG Steve Thompson Chair Barking and Dagenham Safer Neighbourhood Board Erika Jenkins Chief Executive Barking and Dagenham Council for Voluntary Service Clare Williamson Senior Service Delivery Manager Barking and Dagenham Victim Support – NE London Division

Cllr Laila Butt Portfolio Holder for Crime and London Borough of Enforcement Barking and Dagenham Carina Heckroodt Assistant Chief Officer, Barking, National Probation Service Dagenham, Havering and Newham Steven Tucker Interim Corporate Director of London Borough of Housing and Environment Barking and Dagenham Helen Jenner Corporate Director of Children’s London Borough of Services Barking and Dagenham Matthew Cole Director of Public Health London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Stephen Norman Borough Commander London Fire Brigade

Douglas Thompson Head of Stakeholders and Community Rehabilitation Company Partnerships Vacant Magistrates Courts Service Rita Chadha Chief Executive Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London Chris Naylor Chief Executive (ex officio) London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Non-LBBD Advisers Gemma Woznicki MOPAC Link Officer Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime Martin Kirby Chief Inspector Partnership and Metropolitan Police Service Safer Neighbourhoods Barking and Dagenham LBBD Advisers and Observers Karen Proudfoot Interim Group Manager London Borough of Community Safety and Offender Barking and Dagenham Management Henry Staples Interim Service Improvement London Borough of Officer, Community Safety and Barking and Dagenham Offender Management

Contact Officer: Henry Staples Tel.: 020 8227 2596 E-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA ITEM 3 Community Safety COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP MINUTES Monday 14 September 2015 Partnership Conference Centre, Barking Learning Centre 9:30 - 12:30

Members Present: Sultan Taylor (Vice Chair), Councillor Laila Butt, Rita Chadha, Matthew Cole, Carina Heckroodt, Erika Jenkins, Helen Jenner, Steve Norman, Glynis Rogers, Lucy Satchell-Day, Steve Thompson, Clare Williamson.

Advisers, Officers and Guests Present: Will Donovan (minutes), Katherine Gilcreest, James Goddard, Karen Proudfoot, Henry Staples, Sarah D’Souza, Jenny Bastock, Louise Giles, Daniel James, Gareth Tuck, Norma Jen Sarsby.

Apologies: Anne Bristow, Sharon Morrow, Steven Tucker.

Action By 245. Introductions and Apologies for Absence

The apologies were noted.

246. Declarations of Interests

None declared.

247. Minutes

The minutes of 8 June 2015 were agreed as an accurate record. It was agreed to widen action 213b “identify additional ways to safeguard dementia patients from the risk of fire death” to include protecting all vulnerable people from the risk of fire.

248. Public Space Protection Orders

This item was presented by Katherine Gilcreest (LBBD Anti-Social Behaviour Manager).

Katherine outlined the new power of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) as described in the report. PSPOs replace Designated Public Place Orders (DPPOs), such as the one currently in effect in the Borough to allow enforcement officers and the Police to ask people to stop drinking alcohol in public places, which will now end in 2017. Many boroughs are now considering replacing existing DPPOs with PSPOs.

It was noted that the a PSPO has to be introduced by the Council’s Assembly following public consultation and that the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) were being consulted to consider whether the introduction of a PSPO is appropriate and enforceable. It was reported that when the public are consulted on

Page 1 the introduction of new legislation in the Borough they are generally in favour of bringing in any powers available to improve public order.

It was reported that members of the public have approached Council officers about the use of orders to prohibit the use and sale of new psychoactive substances in the Borough, particularly nitrous oxide and that some other Boroughs have introduced PSPOs with this prohibition as a condition. It was reported that there have not been issues noted with these conditions in the UK. It was reported that other boroughs have worded this condition as banning some named substances then noting “other substances” to ensure that all substances are covered by the PSPO.

It was reported that there is consideration for a PSPO in Barking Town Centre, particularly around Barking Train Station where there is a wide range of issues including alcohol, begging, littering, urination, loitering and dogs off leads. It was reported that many known offenders have had orders given against them previously and that arrangements with British Transport Police and other plans are already in place, however these have been used before and problems have reoccurred. It was suggested that a PSPO could set a standards of behaviour across the board and give clear enforcement rules for all rather than requiring specific orders against persistent offenders.

Members of the public have also reported issues around a hardware retail location in Hartford Road where large groups of people wait by a business for potential work. It has been reported that those who don’t get work that day have begun sleeping in the area, street drinking and urinating. It was reported that there are plans in place to address this behaviour without a PSPO, however there are similar issues in locations across the A406 route in other boroughs and not taking strong enforcement action could result in this site in LBBD being seen as the most lenient and attractive of these locations.

It was noted that enforcement of a PSPO requires resources from the Police and Council enforcement officers and that as many people engaging in this behaviour are vulnerable there would not be a recovery of this cost through fines.

It was reported that the Police still have the power to seize alcohol being drunk in public and licensing can take action against retailers selling means to cover alcohol up. It was noted that retailers around Station Parade had been subject to test purchases recently with one failure. It was noted that retailers cannot sell alcohol to people who are already drunk, however the alcohol tolerance of heavy drinkers is very high and it can be hard to tell if they have been drinking.

It was noted that there are significant regeneration plans for Barking Town Centre and the Borough more widely, including a

Page 2 large number of new homes, which may introduce new issues. It was reported that the process of adding new conditions to a PSPO is relatively simple.

Steve Thompson as chair of the Safer Neighbourhood Board noted that the consultation process is much reduced from what it was for DPPOs and is now merely “to consult with interested parties”. Steve raised the concern that consulting on this and bringing in a PSPO raises public expectation of enforcement.

It was reported that there have not been any known incidents of a PSPO being subject to judicial review due to lack of public consultation, however the London Borough of Hackney have amended a PSPO to enforce against only begging and not rough sleeping following a negative public response to this condition. It was noted that the area this was introduced in Hackney is of a similar profile to Barking Town Centre.

It was noted that Council enforcement officers do not currently have processes in place for checking names and addresses to issue penalty notices for disorder and other enforcement actions which they may undertake if a PSPO were enacted. It was reported that the Council are in the process of reviewing existing enforcement powers and that it may be possible to increase these in the future, although it may take some time. It was suggested that the Council could ensure that Police support is available when enforcement action is taken in organised operational visits, such as visiting affected areas together on the same day. It was noted that a few days of action to robustly enforce the new powers may help to change behaviour and make the PSPO self-enforcing.

It was noted that quality of life in the affected areas was quickly deteriorating and that the CSP Board were largely in favour of the proposals for PSPOs. It was agreed to quickly identify who the interested parties for consultation are and launch a consultation to request their views. It was agreed to identify how, where and how often the PSPO would be reviewed to ensure that problems have not merely been dispersed and that new issues have not emerged. It was agreed that training for staff and enforcement will be looked at as part of the consultation before bringing this to Assembly.

It was agreed to:

Identify the interested parties for consultation and begin the Katherine consultation. Gilcreest

Agree how often and where the PSPO would be reviewed. Katherine Gilcreest

249. NELFT Female Genital Mutilation Multi-Agency Strategy

This item was presented by Jen Sarsby (Lead For Domestic Abuse, Harmful Practices and LAC, NELFT).

Page 3 Jen outlined the North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT) Female Genital Mutilation Multi-Agency Strategy, which began through work with London Borough of Redbridge and evolved with other organisations joining this work to give a wider context. Key elements of the Strategy include making clear the extent to which taking a child abroad for FGM is a crime, how partnerships hold perpetrators to account, naming the responsibly of parents and guardians to prevent FGM occurring and the duty for health partnerships to notify that FGM has occurred.

Helen Jenner welcomed this Strategy and noted there was a need to revisit local strategies in response to the developing context of this issue. Helen noted that there was wording which suggested that schools aren’t part of strategies when they are in LBBD and there was an implication that work on safeguarding which has already been completed locally would be needed. It was recognised that this presented a challenge as a multi-agency strategy across several different boroughs with different practices. It was noted that this is a very strong document but may need some work ahead of being finalised and approved.

It was agreed to make sure there is read across between LBBD’s FGM Strategy and this Strategy through consultation with Jane Hargreaves and Mike Brown. Sarah D’Souza noted that Clinical Commissioning Groups will be able to link into this Strategy to get GPs to sign up to it. It was noted that this issue is lead on by several areas due to the complexity and seriousness of FGM.

Sultan Taylor thanked Jen Sarsby for attending to present the Strategy.

It was agreed to:

Consult with Jane Hargreaves and Mike Brown to ensure there is Jen Sarsby read across between this Strategy and the LBBD FGM Strategy.

Add clarity around the governance of the Strategy to the text. Jen Sarsby

Bring the updated Strategy to the Community Safety Partnership Jen Sarsby and Local Safeguarding Children Board.

250. Child Sexual Exploitation Operational Plan: Draft Prosecute Strand

This item was presented by Jenny Bastock (Child Sexual Exploitation Coordinator, LBBD) and Louise Giles (Detective Sergeant Barking and Dagenham Metropolitan Police Service).

Jenny and Louise outlined the potential metrics to be brought to CSP Board in future, which would outline the number of people worked with to reduce their vulnerability to child sexual exploitation

Page 4 (CSE), stop issues from progressing to being crimes, cases going to court and disruption activity. It was reported that LBBD is top of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for identifying CSE cases and that this is being looked at as demonstrating that partners are identifying people who are vulnerable and working with them at early stages to prevent them becoming exploited or exploited further.

It was reported that a problem profile has been developed to analyse the ages of victims or people vulnerable to CSE and how services are identifying this. It was noted that most victims are being identified by schools and the Youth Offending Service (YOS) and that three male victims have been identified which demonstrates that services are aware of the range of potential victims.

It was clarified that the data proposed for the metrics is already gathered and viewed by appropriate officers, they are proposed to be additionally viewed by the CSP Board at regular intervals to give additional oversight and scrutiny. It was noted that Rotherham having a consistent one party Council elected had caused a lack of scrutiny which enabled a culture of CSE in the area. While a consistent one party Council would not necessarily enable CSE, this work is being brought to a number of partnership boards to ensure there is appropriate independent oversight due to learning from Rotherham.

It was reported that the Operational Plan applies to children who LBBD are responsible for who are placed in other boroughs. In these cases the placement is expected to alert the social worker to concerns, who would make contact with the CSE Coordinator or hosting authority to ensure that the appropriate services are aware of the concerns.

It was reported that children flagged as vulnerable to CSE are linked on joint support with the missing children list and information about gangs. It was reported that all missing children with a CSE flag are debriefed by the Police CSE Team once they are found to ensure their risks have been addressed. It was noted that specific information about gangs is recorded in the Prevention and Protection strands of the Operational Plan. It was reported that having the YOS and YOS Police co-located has ensured regular discussion of cases and checks against the gangs matrix, which has helped to reassure parents of vulnerable children.

It was noted that the final version of the Operational Plan will be presented to the Local Safeguarding Children Board on 29 September 2015 and any additions or amendments ahead of this should be sent to Jenny Bastock in the next week. It was agreed to ensure that the Probation services link in with this work as required.

It was agreed that:

Page 5 Any additions or amendments to the Operational Plan are to be All partners made to Jenny Bastock ahead of submitting the Plan to the Local Safeguarding Children Board.

251. Strategic Assessment 2015 Preliminary Report

This item was presented by Dan James (Research and Analysis Officer, LBBD).

It was reported that a workshop took place on 2 September 2015 to ask stakeholders and residents groups about their views of crime and disorder priorities. Feedback from this event was presented in the papers and will be fed into the draft Strategic Assessment. It was noted that this is one of several events and working groups which will feed into the Strategic Assessment.

The following elements were put forward by CSP Board members as issues which could potentially affect crime and disorder or the delivery of services in the Borough:  the effect of government funding cuts;  the discussion around crime and disorder and eventual changing priorities coming from the London Mayoral election;  regional crime and disorder or enforcement priorities, especially with relation to the new Greater London Authority Member for the region;  the potential devolution of powers to London Local;  the comprehensive spending review;  reducing Police resources and the need to manage the message around this to avoid a negative impact on confidence;  domestic extremism;  rise in hate crimes, particularly islamophobic;  the impact of the economic crisis on prevention work in Children’s Services and Children’s Social Care, which historically protected children from their families but now is expected to protect them from society as well with decreasing resources;  the impact of reducing grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and the Youth Justice Board (YJB);  supporting young unaccompanied asylum seekers to the age of 25; and  the impact of the need of people with no recourse to public funds.

It was noted that the Fire Service have delayed releasing their updated Strategic Assessment, the London Safety Plan, to allow the impact of the new government to be assessed, once the London plan has been released then the LBBD plan will be developed.

Page 6 It was agreed to:

Link in with the work of Ambition 2020, which is working to address Dan James the general impact of funding reductions across the Council.

Contact MOPAC about future grants and consider the impact of Dan James potentially losing this funding.

252. Community Safety Callover

This item was presented by Dan James (Research and Analysis Officer, LBBD).

Dan reported that the Callover meeting discussed the issues of violence with injury and criminal damage as well as robbery, which was agreed to be the topic for the next meeting. It was noted that there was a low number of violent street based violence and a large number of crimes where the suspect was known for the victim even in non-domestic violence cases. It was noted that criminal damage has fallen considerably for three years and risen recently. It was reported that there were no clear hotspots for criminal damage and agreed to investigate whether there has been any linked increase in insurance claims for damage to property ahead of the next meeting.

It was noted that although the papers comment that work with schools could identify violent behaviour at an early stage the level of violence in schools is very low and that information around the level of violence in schools could be supplied to the next meeting. The excellent work of Police Safer Schools Officers was noted. It was reported that the numbers of violent offences in schools may be skewed by reports of violence at Trinity School, a specialist educational needs school.

It was noted that there had been a low attendance at the two most recent Callover meetings. It was agreed that Callover would continue to meet separately every three months but noted that this could be attended through conference calling or video conferencing to ensure CSP members can contribute.

253. Draft Homelessness Strategy

This item was presented by James Goddard (LBBD Group Manager Housing Strategy).

James gave a presentation which outlined the current need for homelessness services in LBBD and the proposed aims and vision of the Strategy.

Rita Chadha reported that Third Sector organisations have offered services to Housing which haven’t been taken up and there is a need

Page 7 to have a responsible officer for working with voluntary organisations to coordinate this support. It was noted that the fire service have a strategy for people staying in unsuitable accommodation, such as industrial units and the link between these strategies could be explored.

Erika Jenkins noted that partners will need to see the draft strategy as well as figures on presentations and re-presentations to services and the outcomes of these presentations. Erika reported issues around the way the duty of the homelessness strategy is discharged and that homelessness is an issue which requires significant third sector support.

It was agreed to:

Add addressing overcrowding to the aims of the strategy as this is a James driver of crime and disorder. Goodard

Distribute the draft strategy and bring a further report to the 7 James December 2015 CSP Board to outline the levels of presentations and Goodard re-presentations, outcomes and how the strategy will address different groups, such as people noted as intentionally homeless, refugees, asylum seekers and care leavers to ensure the aims address the specific needs of vulnerable groups.

253. White Ribbon Day Proposals

This item was presented by Karen Proudfoot (Interim Group Manager Community Safety, LBBD).

Karen presented the proposed activities and communication plan for White Ribbon Day 2015 which were set out in the papers, which would focus on healthy relationships to prevent domestic violence following several years of successful awareness raising.

Erika Jenkins reported that she had consulted on these proposals with the women’s consortium who had fed back that the “be my hero” social media campaign may praise healthy relationships rather than promoting them as the norm. It was suggested that a campaign could run as “love is” to promote healthy relationships and that joining in with national hashtag campaigns can bring more publicity than running a smaller scale local hashtag. It was noted that the campaign could address non-violent abuse and emphasise that it is not only violence which can put people in danger and be addressed by reporting to services.

Update the proposed White Ribbon Day plans in line with comments Karen from CSP. Proudfoot

Alcohol Awareness Week Proposals 254. This item was presented by Karen Proudfoot (Interim Group Manager Community Safety, LBBD).

Page 8 Karen presented the proposed activities and communication plan for Alcohol Awareness 2015 which were set out in the papers, which would focus on the theme of health. It was noted that the Police are seeking to engage Safer Transport Command in Alcohol Awareness Week.

It was agreed to:

Confirm how many people a fibroscanner can scan in one day and Karen agree sensitive messaging around this offer. Proudfoot

255. Safer Neighbourhood Board

This item was presented by Steve Thompson (Chair, Safer Neighbourhood Board).

Steve fed back information from the recent Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB) meetings and noted that the SNB has found its feet over the last year. It was reported that the closed meeting brings together chairs of panels and brings up issues of concern beyond the MOPAC 7 pan-London priorities. It was reported that this is one of the few SNBs in London which has an open quarterly meeting, which can be onerous on the board members but works well and helps to improve confidence as residents know that concerns can be raised to the SNB.

It was reported that the issue of CSE was raised in a close meeting to ask for assurances that there was no indication that there had been a historical issue in the Borough similar to that in Rotherham. It was reported that historic Local Authority Designated Officer Reports have been checked to ensure that there is no indication of widespread CSE. It was noted that, while it is very difficult to promise this had not taken place, there is currently no indication that there may have been any widespread issues or denial, and that the question will continue to be asked whether there have been any issues flagged which would have been looked at more closely had CSE been as well understood as it now is. It was noted that if any indication of widespread historic CSE is identified then this will be brought to the attention of the CSP and LSCB as soon as possible.

256. Mass Evacuation Plan

This item was introduced by Superintendant Sean Wilson (Deputy Borough Commander, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Metropolitan Police Service) and lead on by Tony Cox (Senior Civil Protection Officer, LBBD).

It was reported that this Plan outlines how the Borough would shelter up to 5,000 people for 48 hours and that LBBD and London Borough of Redbridge appear to be ahead of the rest of London with these plans, especially by having an agreement with Vicarage Fields. It was noted that this is a short term plan to get people into shelter

Page 9 quickly and their additional needs will be identified and responded to. It was reported that Civil Protection work very closely with the British Red Cross who bring a great deal of expertise and that a list of Third Sector organisations who could supply support and have done so in the past is held and regularly updated.

It was noted that LBBD would not automatically be asked to provide shelter and that if an incident was occurring in the Borough then local residents’ needs would be prioritised over the need to provide mass evacuation shelter from other areas of London.

It was agreed to:

Circulate the list of Third Sector organisations to be contacted for Tony Cox support to the CSP to build and edit the list.

257. Chair’s Report

The Chair’s report was noted. Sultan Taylor welcomed Steve Norman, the new London Fire Brigade Borough Commander, and Claire Williamson, the new Victim Support Area Manager for East London.

It was noted that Anne Bristow is taking up a secondment but can still support the CSP while she was in this role although she will not attend the Board. Sultan thanked Anne for her work in chairing the Board. New funding for victim services was noted.

258. RESTRICTED - Youth Justice Plan

This report was noted.

259. RESTRICTED - Prevent

This report was noted.

260. Any Other Business

Rita Chadha raised the current refugee crises. It was reported that the current issue in the UK is families with no recourse to public funds, and the Government have asked Local Authorities to opt out of their statutory duties to these families. It was reported that further legislation will be included in an Immigration Act 2015 and that there are currently no clear plans except for the previously reported 20,000 Syrians and some Palestinian refugees to be re-housed in the UK, although there are several proposals for how this will function.

It was noted that there was a meeting of all London Council Leaders with the Mayor of London the previous week which was called at extremely short notice and that a debrief will be provided shortly on this. It was reported that there may be some budget provided to Local Authorities for a year to give housing and health support to refugees given humanitarian protection rather than asylum seeker

Page 10 status, which allows the funding to be administered quicker but may mean that the recipients are returned after five years.

It was reported that Ramfel have held public meetings around the crises which have been well attended with many offers of accommodation received, those who have put themselves forward are currently being checked as appropriate. It was noted that Ramfel can share information about these residential placements to organisations seeking emergency housing if required. It was reported that by December 2015 there will be more clarity on the impact of this and timescales and that Rita Chadha will write a report for December to present this and wrap up the work of the Immigration Taskforce.

It was agreed that:

A report outlining work with refugees and wrapping up the work of Rita Chadha the Immigration Taskforce will be brought to the 7 December 2015 CSP Board meeting.

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank CSP Board Action Plan

Target Open/ No. Action Lead Others Start Date Update Status Completion Completed 210 Integrated Offender Management Open Open Develop ways to promote An individual was due to present strong IOM work to other their case study to the Reducing Re- senior boards and publicly, Offending Board but had to cancel including potentially bringing due to a family bereavement. This Lucy 210a people who have been 12/12/2014 07/12/2015 will be rescheduled then brought to A Open Satchell-Day successfully worked with to CSP Board. The CRC have stated CSP Board or developing a a commitment to producing a video video where offenders or clip but are currently prioritising actors can tell their stories. MTCNovo mobilisation tasks. 213 Fire Brigade Priorities Open Identify additional ways to Page 13 Page safeguard vulnerable people, 213b Stephen Norman 12/12/2014 07/12/2015 See Agenda Item 4. G Open including dementia patients, from fire deaths. 217 Health of Young Offenders Open Open

The recommendations of the report have been progressed. A Task and Finish Group was held on 8 September 2015 to confirm which Bring back a progress report recommendations have been against the recommendations adapted and outline how 217a Matthew Cole 02/03/2015 07/12/2015 G Closed of the Health of Young outstanding recommendations will Offenders. be completed. A report will be brought to the 7 December 2015 CSP Board to confirm recommendations have been completed (See Agenda Item 12).

Complete 236 Female Genital Mutilation Open d Target Open/ No. Action Lead Others Start Date Update Status Completion Completed Agree how to take this message into the Borough's This will be progressed in religious mosques, building on the venues through laision with Faith 236a Glynis Rogers Cllr Laila Butt 08/06/2015 14/09/2015 G Open good work which they have Action, the Faith Forum and BME done around raising women's groups. awareness of forced marriages. Complete 238 Sub-Group Structure Open d Map the sub-structure of all This work is now being taken on by multi-agency boards and 238a Will Donovan 08/06/2015 07/12/2015 the Delivery Unit as part of the G Closed identify if there is any Ambition 2020 initiative. duplication of work.

248 Improving Public Spaces Open Open

Page 14 Page Station Parade: Consultation with C2C, British Transport Police, Drugs and Alcohol Providers and Met Police has taken place. Public consultation (area users, residents and businesses) to commence December 2015. Identify the interested parties Hertford Road: Consultation has Katherine 248a for PSPO consultation and 14/09/2015 15/03/2016 taken place with the police, Street G Open Gilcreest begin the consultation. Link and the Home Office, and multi- agency cross border meeting with Newham, Enfield, Haringey and LBBD on 16 November. Borough-wide: Initial consultation to take place with partners via the Alcohol Alliance and Substance Misuse Strategy Board. Target Open/ No. Action Lead Others Start Date Update Status Completion Completed PSPOs last for a maximum of 3 years. The review process would be set out in the Assembly report (which would go to CSP, DMT and Cabinet before Assembly). The initial recommendation is that CSP Agree how often and where Katherine 248b 14/09/2015 15/03/2015 should review annually. This would G Open the PSPO would be reviewed. Gilcreest be a simple process with CSP being provided details of any enforcement action under the PSPO for the last 12 months, including whether there are any issues which suggest this order should be varied. 249 Multi-Agency FGM Strategy Open Open Consult with Jane Hargreaves Page 15 Page and Mike Brown to ensure 249a there is read across between Jen Sarsby 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 Consultation has taken place. G Closed this Strategy and the LBBD FGM Strategy. Add clarity around the Amendments have been 249b governance of the Strategy to Jen Sarsby 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 G Closed incoporated. the text. Bring the updated Strategy to Strategy to be brought to next LSCB the Community Safety 249c Jen Sarsby 14/09/2015 15/03/2016 board prior to approval from CSP A Open Partnership and Local (expected March 2016). Safeguarding Children Board. 250 Child Sexual Exploitation Operational Plan Prosecute Strand Open Any additions or amendments to the Operational Plan are to be made to Jenny Bastock None received, Plan has been 250a All Jenny Bastock 14/09/2015 18/09/2015 G Open ahead of submitting the Plan submitted to LSCB. to the Local Safeguarding Children Board. 251 Strategic Assessment Initial Report 2015 Open Open Target Open/ No. Action Lead Others Start Date Update Status Completion Completed The Delivery Unit have been contacted, however the Unit are still Link in with the work of within preliminary stages and Ambition 2020, which is therefore have not developed an 251a working to address the Dan James 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 A Closed overarching vision or objectives for general impact of funding Ambiition 2020. Contact with the reductions across the Council. Delivery Unit is to be maintained in order to keep informed of progress. Contact MOPAC about future Discussions with MOPAC took grants and consider the 251b Dan James 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 place on 11 Nov. No new A Open impact of potentially losing this information has been provided. funding. 253 Homlessness Strategy Open Open Add addressing overcrowding

Page 16 Page to the aims of the strategy as 253a James Goddard 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 See Agenda Item 8. A Open this is a driver of crime and disorder. Distribute the draft strategy and bring a further report to the 7 December 2015 CSP Board to outline the levels of presentations and re- presentations, outcomes and how the strategy will address 253b James Goddard 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 See Agenda Item 8. A Open different groups, such as people noted as intentionally homeless, refugees, asylum seekers and care leavers to ensure the aims address the specific needs of vulnerable groups. 253 White Ribbon Day Open Open Update the proposed White 254a Ribbon Day plans in line with Karen Proudfoot 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 Completed G Closed comments from CSP. Target Open/ No. Action Lead Others Start Date Update Status Completion Completed

The provision of the fibroscanner was been cancelled by the LoveYourLiver campaign due to the Confirm how many people a lack of trained staff available on the fibroscanner can scan in one 254b Karen Proudfoot 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 day. This was replaced with a G Closed day and agree sensitive 'mocktail' competition; a non- messaging around this offer. alcoholic wine competition, and a non-alcohol mulled wine competition.

255 Mass Evacuation Plan Open Open Circulate the list of Third All agencies part of the Borough Sector organisations to be Resilience Forum have been asked 255a Tony Cox 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 G Open Page 17 Page contacted for support to the for any amendments. (See Agenda CSP to build and edit the list. Item 10.) 255 Immigration Task Force and Refugee Crisis Open Open A report outlining work with refugees and wrapping up the Karen Proudfoot to meet with Rita work of the Immigration Chadha and Martin Kirby to discuss 256a Rita Chadha 14/09/2015 07/12/2015 A Open Taskforce will be brought to whether any further action is the 7 December 2015 CSP necessary. Board meeting. This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 4

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: London Fire Brigade – Safeguarding Vulnerable People

Date: 7 Dec 2015

Author: Stephen Norman, Borough Commander, London Fire Brigade

Contact: [email protected]

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 The Community Safety Partnership will receive a presentation from Stephen Norman in relation to recent work on protecting vulnerable people from fire deaths.

1.2 It is recommended that the Community Safety Partnership Board:

 note the content of the presentation.

Page 19 Unprotected

Page 20 AGENDA ITEM 6

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Launch of "Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020”

Date: 7 December 2015

Sultan Taylor, Borough Commander Barking and Dagenham Author: Metropolitan Police Service

Contact: [email protected]

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 This report presents a brief summary of the report: "Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020” published by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) on 15 October 2015. It is recommended that the Community Safety Partnership Board:

 give consideration to the proposals raised within the report.

2. Content of Report

2.1 The RSA was commissioned by the Metropolitan Police on an independent basis to look at how the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) could adapt to the many changes and challenges it will face over the next five years and more. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, launched the consultation for ‘Safer Together’ in March 2015. Since then the Met has been working with the RSA's public services and communities team to engage stakeholders in order to discuss the future of policing in London, a critical component of its success as a global city.

2.2 'Safer together: policing a global city in 2020' is based on an extensive consultation and wide-ranging research, including engagement with 500 of the most senior officers from the Metropolitan Police, and more than seventy external organisations, Following this, the report argues that London needs a ‘shared mission’ to ensure the safety of its citizens and those who visit or work in London. This mission

Page 21 Unprotected

involves public agencies, the voluntary sector, companies, the public and the police themselves.

2.3 In a context of severe budgetary constraints and a changing pattern of crime, which is becoming more complex, the report outlines an approach that relies on deeper co-operation, better use of information and ‘what works’ analysis, and more extensive engagement of the police with London’s communities and members of the public who need its support.

2.4 Some of the key proposals from the report include:

 a Community Safety Index for London that will combine objective measures of crime and incidence of risk and harm with subjective measures such as feelings of safety, absence of anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood quality;  a London Policing Impact Unit that would combine operational, academic, and strategic knowledge. The Impact Unit would analyse data and learn from on-the-ground experience of ‘what works’. These lessons would then be applied in the Met. A representative Citizens’ Panel would inform its work;  new forms of collective impact to focus on particular challenges should be extended. These will broaden and widen the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub approach where agencies work in close cooperation. This means a permanent engagement on shared issues of concern such as domestic violence, mental health, or anti-social behaviour; and  a deepening of the Metropolitan Police’s engagement with victims and witnesses, for example through greater deployment of restorative justice and greater analysis of victim needs and more continuous communication with them. Only through devolution of more powers over the criminal justice system to London can this take place convincingly. And there is a need for deeper community engagement – especially through the Safer Neighbourhood Boards and through the smart use of social media.

2.5 The Metropolitan Police are encouraging wider debate on the report, including via Twitter, which can be followed at #2020Met.

3. Appendix

3.1 RSA Action and Research Centre: ‘Safer Together Policing a global city in 2020’ Anthony Painter, Jonathan Schifferes, and Brhmie Balaram, October 2015

Page 22 Safer Together Policing a global city in 2020

Anthony Painter, Jonathan Schifferes, and Brhmie Balaram October 2015

1 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 23 Contents

Acknowledgements 5

Foreword 6

Executive summary 7

1. London 13 2. Changing crime types, threats and responses 18 3. London policing and community safety scenarios 2020 26 4. Purpose 30 5. Design principles for effective criminal justice and community safety in 2020 36 6. A major organisational challenge 64

Bibliography 70

Appendix 74

2 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 24 The RSA in partnership with

Page 25 About the RSA

The RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) believes that everyone should have the freedom and power to turn their ideas into reality – something we call the Power to Create. Through our research and 27,000-strong Fellowship, we seek to realise a society where creative power is distributed, where concentrations of power are confronted, and where creative values are nurtured. The RSA Action and Research Centre combines practical experimentation with rigorous research to achieve these goals.

About the Met

Today, the Metropolitan Police Service employs around 32,000 officers together with about 13,000 police staff and 2,600 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). The Met is also being supported by more than 5,100 volunteer police officers in the Metropolitan Special Constabulary (MSC) and its Employer Supported Policing (ESP) programme.

4 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 26 About the authors

Anthony Painter Anthony leads our Development Team which includes design, international, behavioural change/social brain, organisational change, and the RSA’s policy work and consultancy offer. In his work on policy development, he focuses on a range of policy issues including the impact of new technology on the economy and society, reform to welfare and learning and skills, and reform to public services and a range of public institutions. He previously directed the Independent Review of the Police Federation and has also worked with Google, the BBC, the BMA, the Education and Training Foundation, the Association of Colleges and the Metropolitan Police. He is the author of three books, most recently ‘Left without a future? Social Justice in anxious times’ and has written a number of very high impact policy and research reports such as the “Fear and Hope Project Report”, “Democratic Stress, the Populist Signal, and the Extremist Threat” and “In the Black Labour”.

Jonathan Schifferes Jonathan is Associate Director for Public Services and Communities at the RSA. He has undertaken impact evaluation for major national charities including Shelter, Carers Trust, Catch-22 and Refuge, and advised on impact measurement for the NHS and many community groups. With a background in urban planning and community development work, Jonathan’s work explores how the built environment affects social and economic productivity.

Brhmie Balaram Brhmie was a researcher for the Independent Review of the Police Federation and for the influential RSA City Growth Commission. She continues to explore issues of institutional reform, economic inequality and labour market disadvantage while situated in the Public Services and Communities team. Previously, Brhmie worked at the Institute of Public Policy Research and at The Work Foundation.

5 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 27 Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all of the individuals and organisations who engaged with the consultation and submitted evidence. Please see the appendix for a full list of names. We are also thankful to all of the members of our academic reference group, and in particular those who provided additional research material and feedback: Perri 6, Jennifer Brown, Martin Innes, Joshua James, Nick Parker and Colin Rogers. We would like to acknowledge our colleagues who provided invalu- able support during the first phase of the consultation: Joe Bonnell, Paul Buddery, Rowan Conway, Thomas Hauschildt, Amanda Kanojia, Joanna Massie, Kenny McCarthy, Rachel O’Brien, Matthew Parsfield, Carys Roberts, Jack Robson and Atif Shafique. Thank you to Matthew Taylor as well for providing comments. Particular mentions go to Martin Fewell, Katie Deeble, Robert Pontin, Judith Mullet, Hannah Armstrong, and Anna Greenley from the Metropolitan Police Service for their support.

6 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 28 Foreword

At the launch of the consultation for the Safer Together report in March, I encouraged our partners to come forward and contribute to this thought-leading work on the future of policing in our capital. The public safety of Londoners is the responsibility of us all, and I’m delighted and grateful that so many partners have given us the benefit of their perspective. Alongside the Met, individuals, communities, the public and private sector all have a role to play in public safety, and I want to thank the RSA for working tirelessly to produce this independent and, to my mind, realistic analysis of the challenges we are facing. Safer Together acknowledges the scale of what the Met has already achieved, not just in terms of combating crime but also in making our organisation as efficient as possible at a time of shrinking budgets. It describes the ‘acute pressure’ facing the Met and recognises, rightly in my view, that this pressure risks undermining the safety of London. I am proud of what we have already achieved, but know that there is more to do. Policing is at a crossroads and to achieve our shared goal of a thriving and safe global city, we need a new collaborative approach to public safety; a shared vision and mission for which we are all responsible, and a transparent process by which we can achieve these shared goals. Safer Together offers a renewed approach to ‘policing by consent’ in a city that is both global and digital. It commits us all to achieving a collective impact – ensuring safety for all who are a part of this city’s story. At this time of austerity, where the police are required to do even more with less and respond to increasingly complex and boundary-less threats, such a combined approach is even more vital. I’m an optimist and I believe that we can transform the Met and the policing of London to enhance public safety in 2020. So I welcome the publication of this report and look forward to the conversation it will create about how, together, we secure a safe future for London.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe Commissioner Metropolitan Police Service

7 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 29 Executive summary

London faces its most difficult period of change in public services in living memory. Without a response that is imaginative, collective and focused, the quality of services is at risk of decline. In the context of policing, this means some additional risk to the safety, wellbeing and success of London, its residents and its many visitors. This outcome is not inevitable. With the Metropolitan Police working more closely with other public services, the voluntary and commercial sectors in new ways, and in collaboration with the public (including those who are unfortunate enough to be victims of crime or witnesses of it), risks can be mitigated and, indeed, London can be even safer. Public safety is critical to London’s social and economic success. In terms of scale, there is little doubt that the anticipated cuts make a different way of working in London more difficult. This report makes a case for critical changes in the way London organises its collective resources in order to keep everyone who lives, works and visits the city safe and secure. It is important that the Home Office and HM Treasury factor in considerations about how these changes can be supported when the final funding package for London’s policing is agreed. The changes to policing in London proposed in this report would be necessary and desirable even without a lower level of funding for public services, however they are even more acute in the current context. Our proposals cannot be implemented immediately. They are a roadmap towards 2020 for a different way of working between the public, private, and voluntary sectors and with all of London’s communities. Many changes will have national and international implications as the Met’s reach stretches well beyond London’s boundaries in terms of where their investigations lead. The partnerships suggested taken together are a ‘shared mission’ for the management of London’s safety and crime reduction. Despite the organisational challenge contained within this report, decisive and early steps can be taken by the Met and others to accept the direction of necessary changes. The RSA was commissioned by the Metropolitan Police to provide an independent assessment of how the Met working collaboratively can best serve London into the next decade – and how London can better support the Met. Drawing on evidence gathered through an extensive engagement process, the proposals made by the RSA are designed to ensure the Met can best address acute, urgent and long-term challenges. The proposals contained within this report are designed to provoke a debate about how the Met can better work with others and vice versa. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), with its strategic responsibility for policing in London, holds the Met to account. This report is a contribution to the dialogue between London’s oversight bodies (including at a national level) and operational policing as future strategy is under consideration. It does not prejudge those future discussions nor does it seek to provide a benchmark for them to be assessed against. It is a contribution based on extensive consultation both within and external to the Met.

8 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 30 The Met relies on other public services and on intelligence from citizens and communities to reduce crime and other risks to welfare. Safety and liberty are among the most valuable features of life in London – part of the success story of a thriving global metropolis. This should therefore be seen as a report for London, not just for the Met. Our conclusion is that in the context of changes in London and The Met must changes in criminality, successfully minimising risk and harm will require foster trust among the Met and its partners to share accountability much more fundamen- partners and tally. The Met must foster trust among partners and legitimacy in the eyes legitimacy in of the public through a step change in transparency, allowing for a shared understanding of demands and decision-making regarding prioritisation the eyes of the of resources. To effectively deploy shrinking resources, the Met and its public through partners must engage in new collaborative initiatives. This in turn requires a step change additional devolved powers so that London can govern its own systems for in transparency justice, probation and prisons. Without public agencies, local authorities and London’s communities sharing the burden through deep collaboration, there is a real risk that London’s safety and security will be undermined. Even with such collaboration, the next decade will be amongst the most challenging in the Met’s history. This acute pressure requires a different, more open conversation – across London and nationwide. Our goal is to help generate such a conversation with the analysis and proposals contained within this report. However, many of the changes advocated will be difficult to initiate in a context of resource crunch across all public services. The worst outcome is that public services dump cost and responsibility on one another in response to resource constraints. This will create unnecessary cost, duplication, gaps and overall reduce the effectiveness of the range of agencies, as well as the public itself, in keeping London and Londoners safe. Together, the changes we advocate should be embodied in a shared mission, albeit informal in form, of public, private, and voluntary sectors working closely with London’s communities. This shared mission – based on trust generated through common causes as London’s public, voluntary, and private sectors work with the public – defines the purpose of the police, supports civil liberties, defines community responsibilities and that of other organisations and agencies. It commits partners to achieving collective impact – to ensure the safety of this vibrant global city and its people.

Listening to the Met, learning from London The RSA was asked by the Met in summer 2014 to structure a special round of internal consultations. This ‘Met Conversation’ directly engaged over 500 of the most senior police in London over three days of workshops, covering a range of themes from technology to workplace culture. Following this, in early 2015, the Met asked the RSA to engage key partners around a refined range of consultation questions. A wider stakeholder consultation was launched by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, in February 2015. We received written responses from 41 individuals and organisations and engaged with 35 further consultees and in focus groups and a number of one-to-one meetings. A research and case study bank was developed with advice from an academic reference group which included

9 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 31 19 leading academics in the crime, policing and public administration fields, ensuring our analysis and proposals respond to global experience, beyond the 32 boroughs.

Securing safety and liberty in a global powerhouse Global connections increasingly influence and define London, fuelling both prosperity and inequality. Along with the quality of education available, the ability to live free from corruption and danger to life and property is an essential pre-condition for a mobile global workforce of highly-skilled workers which is a component of London’s thriving success. In an era where knowledge-intensive sectors and industries increasingly provide the economic base for global cities, quality of life for residents becomes a more important component of the business environment. And many of the world’s most vulnerable citizens strive to settle in London too, craving the peace, protection, economic opportunity and freedoms that the city can offer. Londoners – whether they have been here for generations, or are newly arrived – expect low crime rates and a high degree of personal and community safety. As London’s growth accelerates, it has done remarkable things, and has been at the forefront of innovation. The Met Police has been part of London’s success story for 180 years. It has not always achieved the very high standards expected of it, especially when it comes to community relations and transparency. The institution is fully aware of this and has made significant strides, including rooting out corruption, reforming stop and search tactics, and widening recruitment to better reflect diverse communities. However, cultural change is always difficult and there is still more that the Met can do. Alongside contending with a sometimes difficult legacy, the same scale of ambition evident in the cranes on the skyline, the achievement in schools, the buzz of new business districts, and the hubs of social innovation, needs to be felt in the work of the police alongside other public agencies, business and London’s communities. While the past five years have been about focusing on necessary efficiency savings and crime reduction – both of which have been largely successful – the next decade demands that the Met, with others, changes many of its ways of working in addition to making painful choices about the service. The challenges are therefore both internal and external to the Met, and the response will be one of the key foundations of London’s success and the quality of life for all its citizens.

Adapting to changing crime types and threats Changes in technology, society and in the law make new crimes possible and redefine what is considered an illegal act. Attitudes are changing too. The implications of these shifts for policing are complex. ‘The job’, as it was, has not gone away; rather, layered on top, are issues to which productive responses require a new set of skills. The police have a role which goes beyond crime-fighting to become first responders to a range of welfare concerns, where the safety of individuals might be compromised. Over 80 percent of calls to the police relate to non-crime related incidents, 42 percent of which were resolved over the phone. Many of the non-crime related incidents that the police do need

10 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 32 to respond in person to are not accounted for in statistics, also skewing perceptions of demand on police time. For example, the majority of 1m reported incidents of domestic abuse and 2.3m reported incidents relating to anti-social behaviour do not result in recorded crimes.1 Some crime types also consume far more resource than others. Many of the types of crimes which take up an increasing proportion of police time are intimately social or psychological (occurring within households and families), or remote, virtual and anonymous (executed by digital means). This contrasts with the traditional crimes (on property and in the public realm) which have historically shaped the Met’s own organisational structures (such as management and training), and the public impression of what constitutes the bulk of police work. Where the balance is shifting and demand on resources considerable, there may have to be new ways of collectively policing shared spaces. For example, there is an active discussion about the cyber domain in terms of rights and responsibilities and whether there may even need to be a different level of contribution, for example, from the private sector. The police need to be honest about the limitations they face. Not everything can be prioritised. It is not for the police alone to determine prioritisation. Its partners and the public itself need to be engaged. The quid pro quo is that this dialogue has to be based on the language of priorities. New demands on police – particularly when driven by media focus – may not warrant the resource and attention they receive just by virtue of their novelty. Sometimes new concerns, such as social media bullying, fall between individual, commercial and police responsibility. There has to be an honest and mature dialogue if increasingly limited police resources are to be deployed effectively. Some of this requires the Met to ensure directly and through others that the right information and guidance is placed in the hands of individuals, families and communities. Like other forces, the Met struggles to comprehend fully the nature of demand for service.2 Understanding demands is fundamental to improving effective response. In particular, this is true of incidents that fall between services, such as mental health and personal and public safety, where the Met is obligated to respond; this needs to be acknowledged in any discussion about the future of policing. It is clear that the evolution of policing is also being driven by the rise of complex crime that will require more of the Met’s time, skill and resource unless the service, its partners and the public embrace a more preventative approach and focus on risk reduction. For example, in the case of mental health concerns, this requires frontline officers to be in a position to quickly assess and respond to risk. This in turn requires new ways of working and new skills.

Responding to context: A shared mission and renewed purpose Changes in London as a global metropolis, in the nature of crime types and threats, and in public sector finances, also challenge the inherited, historical relationship between the Met and the public. To avoid the

1. College of Policing, “College of Policing Analysis: Estimating Demand on the Police Service,” 2015, www.college.police.uk/About/Pages/Demand-Analysis-Report.aspx. 2. National Audit Office, “Financial Sustainability of Police Forces in England and Wales,” 2015, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Financial-sustainability-of-police-forces.pdf.

11 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 33 dangers of retrenchment or overstretch, London should lead the way in ‘focused impact policing’. Focused impact policing broadly describes a force that deploys fewer resources, but is better connected, equipped and informed to achieve a higher overall impact. It is our assessment that to become a focused impact police force requires not only changes in culture within the Met, but a redefined purpose for policing. Too often the refrain has been ‘what should we stop doing?’ In the Met’s heart-of-hearts, however, despite such frustration, they know that they will always be London’s frontline. The question is how, with others, that demand on the Met can be best managed. The Met’s role in the shared mission proposed here would be, in addition to its crime fighting and solving capability, to prevent crime and reduce harm from the perspective of justice by:

•• Showing leadership to address systemic, structural, and contex- tual drivers of criminality (albeit whilst being clear about the role of others as well in this domain). •• Being part of the orchestration of early action and intervention which reduce risks, and implement effective strategies to reduce harm. •• Supporting the enforcement of justice where harm occurs, from the perspective of the victim.

To achieve impact on crime, reduction of risk to public safety and safeguarding of legitimacy of justice requires professional capability, information management, trust of the victim including more targeted responses to their needs and others close to them, and smart collaboration. Domestic abuse is illustrative of how effective ‘core’ policing to fight crime is best achieved through connected approaches which can only exist in a system involving partners with a shared mission. Several major societal dangers show parallels – including violent extremism, gang violence and organised crime.

Design principles and key proposals To realise the value that can be created from a shared mission, we outline a number of proposed initiatives for the Met, its partners, and for London. These proposals are a basis for a different set of conversations, which should lead rapidly to a collective implementation plan. The proposals are organised against three design principles: an effective information ecosystem, impactful collaboration across agencies and partners, and the replenishment of trust. Our evidence review found great examples of the Met engaging communities and other agencies to ensure London’s safety. We were able to benefit from the honest insights of many inside and outside the Met who, whilst committed to the Met’s goals, want to see some different approaches. By virtue of the fact that this process was even initiated, it is apparent that there is senior commitment within the Met to further developing details of a new shared mission for London.

12 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 34 The success of this mission will not be determined by the Met alone. We hope that the proposals we outline serve as an invitation for all involved in London’s safety to organise collectively, adapting to limited resources, changing expectations, the opportunities and risks of new technologies, and the increasingly complex nature of crime. A new shared mission will respond to these challenges to ensure London continues to be a safe and well policed city to 2020 and beyond.

Key proposals include:

• The creation of a Community Safety Index for London, with accountability held across the public services, civil society and different levels of government.3 This Index is the core of the shared mission which would also devolve power and responsibility to borough police officers to work with others. The Index would be supported by a London Policing Impact Unit (LPIU). This body would be an expanded and evolved version of MOPAC’s current work through the Evidence and Insight Unit (inherited from the Met). The LPIU would catalyse a step change in data sharing, operational analysis, and knowledge development and sharing. The unit is based on bodies such as NICE in the health service which evalu- ates effectiveness. It would have a representative citizens’ panel of 30 Londoners to mediate community and ethical dilemmas so it wouldn’t be purely operational. The LPIU would be comprised of senior operational police and staff engaging with experts and other agencies including the College of Policing. It would drive evidence- based change throughout the Met and its partners. • The development of a range of collaborative approaches for collective impact, such as co-location between emergency, health and local authority services and co-funding of backbone organisations with a focus on discrete issues. To support the adoption of early intervention and preventative approaches, we advocate devolution, from Central Government to London, of budgets and control over the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), courts, prisons and probation service. • The renewal of the Met’s public engagement strategy is proposed. This would include a system to help victim support become more personalised (where self-service, including for allocation of crime numbers could be possible). Victim support would be further enhanced through working with the voluntary sector. Evidence of ‘what works’ in wider community engagement strategies should be applied more consistently across London. Community groups and peer support should be augmented (eg through accreditation, information sharing and organisational support) to enhance support for victims and witnesses.

3. MOPAC have also committed to developing a Public Safety Index in the Police and Crime Plan 2013–2016.

13 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 35 1. London

Like all of the greatest global cities, London is in a state of constant change. Forecasting change for the future, from the perspective of 2015, is difficult. The soundest response is to recognise this uncertainty and plan for it. The next decade will see the Met operating in an era in which global connections are likely to increasingly influence and define London. London is in a period of growth which extends across the city: its population is increasing and businesses are seeking to expand. Victorian London felt acutely the pressure of commerce, industry and population growth, and responded with invention: efforts to address public health challenges included data mapping and coordinated public investment; new technologies such as tunnelling allowed the city to transport people and waste; and new powerful institutions were created including municipal councils and the Met Police itself. The current era of growth puts London in uncharted waters; in 2015, The current it was estimated that London’s resident population was the highest it era of growth has ever been – over 8.6 million. In recent years, an increasing number puts London in of people are migrating to London from the rest of the UK, while a uncharted waters; decreasing proportion of Londoners are moving out. Net international in-migration makes up this difference, but the major reason for popula- in 2015, it was tion growth is simply births outnumbering deaths. estimated that Always a commercial capital, vast swathes of the old city have been London’s resident repurposed to accommodate new activities. Economic dynamism today, population was the in sectors such as finance, advanced business services, digital technology, highest it has ever media, and creative industries, increasingly relies on firms and workers been – over being in close proximity to one another. 8.6 million While much of the late 20th century saw a drastic and challenging restructuring of London’s economy – with volatile unemployment – in the 21st century inner London has ascended to become the most economically productive region in Europe (Figure 1). London’s ability to make money is increasingly dependent on the tal- ents of people from around the world. Two million London residents hold a non-UK passport.4 The London Business Survey estimates 44,000 businesses (nearly 10 percent of total) are foreign-owned. However, the nature of that growth is also increasingly complex and uneven. For example, consider cultural diversity as expressed through language and religion. Among the eight boroughs with the highest proportion of non-white residents, six are in outer London. Inequality

4. Office for National Statistics, “International Migrants in England and Wales 2011,” no. December (2012): 1–26, www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290335.pdf.

14 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 36 – in many dimensions – has risen, and continues to rise. This is often evident in sharp relief at highly local scales – a legacy of piecemeal housing development and redevelopment as well as rising property prices taking asset owners with them and leaving others behind. Islington, for example, is home to a high proportion of high-wage jobs, and yet has a higher rate of children growing up in workless households than anywhere else in England. It is no longer appropriate to use the term ‘inner city’ as shorthand for multiple aspects of deprivation.

Figure 1: GDP per capita in European regions

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 Italy Malta Spain Latvia Serbia Ireland France Poland Austria Finland Iceland Cyprus Croatia Estonia Greece Norway Belgium Bulgaria Slovakia Sweden Portugal Hungary Slovenia Romania Denmark Lithuania Germany Switzerland Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic United Kingdom

Capital region National average Other NUTS regions FYR of Macedonia

100 = European average GDP per capita. (NUTS2 Geography). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/GDP_at_regional_level# Source_data_for_figures_and_maps_.28MS_Excel.29.

And London is not just about Londoners. The population of the city swells to over 10 million on a typical weekday.5 London’s commuter footprint now extends across much of the south of England. In 42 local authorities outside London, more than one in 10 working residents travels to London daily.6 A typical weeknight sees 340,000 overnight visitors (80 percent international), and in a typical weekday the city hosts a million day trippers. Impacts are acutely felt in central London, obviously. With major tour- ist attractions and over 700,000 jobs based in Westminster, the borough hosts a million people every weekday: more than quadrupling compared to the night-time (resident) population.

5. London Datastore, “Daytime Population, Borough,” accessed October 6, 2015, http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/daytime-population-borough. 6. “Commuting Patterns in the UK, 2011,” 2014, www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011- census/origin-destination-statistics-on-migration--workplace-and-students-for-local- authorities-in-the-united-kingdom/sum---commuting-patterns-in-the-uk--2011.html.

15 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 37 Often underplayed in the story of London’s contemporary success is the role of public safety. It is notable that London’s crime rate has moved broadly in line with its ability to attract and retain residents and businesses. Across the UK, recorded crimes of violence against the person quadrupled between 1950 and 1965. Organised crime became endemic in many London neighbourhoods, and street gangs prompted the first worries of ‘juvenile delinquency’. Racially-motivated riots swept Notting Hill for five nights in 1958. Alongside increasing immigration, and despite the ‘baby boom’, London’s population declined by 500,000 during this period. Today, many of the world’s most affluent individuals choose to enjoy their wealth in London, and invest in London with the reassurance that corruption is rare and the legal process is world-class. Many of the world’s most vulnerable citizens strive to settle in London too, craving the peace, protection, economic opportunity and freedoms that the city can offer. The premium on security is evident in many of the world’s less safe countries. For example, as crime has risen in many of Mexico’s cities, along with endemic narcotic trafficking in several states, affluent Mexican families have been targeted for kidnapping and burglary. This has prompted rising property values and a surge in development in Mérida – a safe city hundreds of miles from the worst concentrations of violence. Developers and city leaders in Mérida are building an economic development strategy based on attracting skilled and talented middle-class Mexicans. This example reinforces the understanding that London’s attractiveness as a place of business and residency is about relative safety, as well as absolute safety. London competes with other cities offering a safe and secure business environment, public realm and personal safety. London is ranked 18th in the Economist’s Safe Cities Index 2015 of 50 global cities; behind Stockholm, Amsterdam and Zurich but ahead of all French, German and Italian cities.7 But as a global city, London ranked behind the leading cities of Asia-Pacific (Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong and Sydney) and North America (Toronto, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles). Breaking down these figures, London ranked 12th globally in personal safety – the aspect of the index most connected to policing and the prevention of harm. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index has over the last six years shown a marked improvement of the performance of the UK in three key areas of business concern: the ability to compete free from the costs of crime and violence, from the disruption of terrorism, and from corruption and organised crime. Given this is based on a survey of senior executives, with rankings composed for 144 countries, it is likely that the performance of the Met is instrumental in these scores. Police in the UK are consistently viewed as reliable (see Figures 2 and 3).

7. The Economist Intelligence Unit, “The Safe Cities Index 2015,” 2015, 39, http://safecities. economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EIU_Safe_Cities_Index_2015_white_paper-1.pdf.

16 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 38 Figure 2: Perception of UK competitiveness: police and crime factors

Rank in performance 100

120 (out of 144; 1 = best performance)

140 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business costs of terrorism Business costs of crime and violence Organized crime Reliability of police services

Source: The World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey, 2015.

Figure 3: Ranking of countries based on overall competitiveness and business costs of crime and violence

150

120

60 (out of 144; 1= most competitive) Overall ranking: Global Competitiveness Index

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 Business costs of crime and violence (rank out of 144; 1 = lowest)

Source: The World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey, 2015.

Along with the quality of education available, the ability to live free from corruption and danger to life and property is a driver of preference among an increasingly mobile global workforce of highly-skilled workers. In an era where knowledge-intensive sectors and industries increasingly

17 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 39 provide the economic base for global cities, quality of life for residents becomes a more important component of the business environment. As London has grown, it has done remarkable things and been at the forefront of innovation. So far, in the 21st century, London has coordinated across public and private sectors to redevelop entire neighbourhoods of former industry in order to provide housing, shops and offices, and built a new park to host the Olympic Games. The Congestion Charge to reduce traffic congestion has proved successful. To keep up with 100,000 new residents each year – double the growth rate anticipated at the beginning of the century – London raised new taxes and has finished digging Crossrail tunnels across the city. The tube will start 24-hour operation on weekends. Transport for London is taking control of more rail franchises within the city. Where the strains of growth are physical, the solutions are often tangible and, subsequently, it’s easier to lobby for action, investment. As well as investment, London has been home to innovation in the way the city manages key services where the public shares a concern with the performance of those services. From 2003, London Challenge contributed to dramatic improvement in London’s schools, focusing on workforce leadership, professional development and data-driven analysis of performance. Since 2011, three London boroughs have pooled budgets and management of the operation of key public services including child safeguarding and adult social care (this arrangement has survived a change in leadership of Hammersmith and Fulham). Promisingly, as the next few years beckon systematic reforms as well as efficiency savings, London is also a world leader in social innovation; it has cultivated social investment markets, bringing new sources of financial capital to achieve social outcomes and deliver savings for the state. A groundswell of social enterprises address challenges from social isolation to unemployment through approaches which harness the power of community networks and peer support. The Met Police In policing, strains felt as a result of changing demand and shrink- have for 180 years ing budgets are, by definition, visible only to a smaller proportion who been part of interact with the police. Compared to the affordability of housing, or London’s success congestion in the transport network, the imperative for change is less clear in the public imagination, but equally urgent. story. They have The Met Police have for 180 years been part of London’s success story. provided stability They have provided stability through challenging pressures in London’s through challenging history, but are continually challenged themselves to adequately respond pressures in to an increasing complex city. Now with a new governance structure in London’s history place, MOPAC and the Met have a strong but developing relationship in ensuring the safety of London. This opens up new relationships and ac- countabilities between the public, its representatives and the police which should continue to be a creative dialogue. Looking forward, the same scale of ambition evident in the cranes on the skyline, the achievement in schools, the buzz of new business districts, and the hubs of social innovation, needs to be channelled to coordinating the work of the police alongside other public services, and London’s businesses and communities, to secure the safety of the world’s leading global metropolis in the 2020s.

18 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 40 2. Changing crime types, threats and responses

Changes in technology, society and in the law make new crimes possible and redefine what is considered an illegal act. There are interactions between all these elements. Advances in automotive technology have been a prime deterrent for stealing cars, while the prevalence of mobile phone ownership creates a new valuable target. Communication over the internet offers a novel arena in which to undertake ancient crimes such as fraud and harassment. Naturally, legislation has a large impact too. For example, anti-social behaviour orders represented a new type of offence, introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, alongside ‘hate crimes’ as a new category of criminal offence. Attitudes are changing too. Domestic abuse is increasingly and rightly recognised in a criminal light. Sexual offences are one of the fastest growing categories recorded, although many police forces are confident that this is being driven by a higher proportion of crimes being reported. The implications of these shifts for policing is complex. ‘The job’, as it was, has not gone away; rather, layered on top, are issues to which productive responses require a new set of skills. Some crime types also consume far more resource than others. Many of the types of crimes which take up an increasing proportion of police time are intimately social (occurring within households and families), or remote, virtual and anonymous (executed by digital means). This contrasts with traditional crimes (on property and in the public realm) which have historically shaped the Met’s own organisational structures (such as management and training), and the public impression of what constitutes the bulk of police work. Our social norms and expectations drive demand for a police response. The big risk is that the police become increasing reactive as new demands emerge. We don’t know what new challenges and behaviours lie around the corner. There is a risk that we place new and onerous demands on police time without ever really having had a proper public dialogue. There needs to be an acknowledgement of the shifting nature of demand and pressure on police time. This requires more police openness and transparency but there must also be an insistence on a mature public discussion. For example, the Met could publish a methodology for prioritisation. Where resources are limited there will always be prioritisation and it is not indicative of a mature relationship between the Met, its partners and the public if this process is not transparent. With greater

19 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 41 openness and transparency the police and public can come closer in appreciating the areas which warrant greatest focus. Both the police and public need to participate in an open dialogue Levels of recorded about choices that are made. None of this would absolve the police of crime, including their responsibility to bring perpetrators of crime to justice – and, indeed, violent crime, have the police would not accept this process if it did. 8 been falling year-on- The majority of the public, as evidenced in recent polling , understand police priorities as preventing crime and responding to immediate danger, year in London, in alongside specialised police work to investigate violent, serious (and news- most other major worthy) crimes. Indeed, crime statistics reflect this. Almost 80 percent of UK cities, and in crimes recorded in London (547,554 out of 698,729 in 2013–14) relate to rob- many comparable bery, theft, drug offences, public order offences, criminal damage and arson. capital cities around Overall, crime figures have been falling in England and Wales since the world 1995, but several crime types that are growing in prevalence are particularly costly. Dealing with rape accounted for 6 percent of police costs in 2003–4 compared to 12 percent in 2013–14).9 Police forces across the UK face a similar dilemma: how to prioritise the allocation of resources as different demands rise (eg sexual offences) and fall (automotive theft), in an era of constrained and reduced spending. This challenge is acute in London, due to the city’s diversity, inequality, global connections and pace of growth. Like other forces, the Met struggles to fully comprehend the nature of demand for service10, which is fundamental in improving effective response. However, it is clear that the evolution of policing is being driven by the rise of complex crime that will require more of the Met’s time, skill and resource unless the service embraces a more preventative approach and focuses on risk reduction.

Proposal A risk assessment based on the severity of the crime, risk of further danger to people and property and likelihood of apprehension of the perpetrator could be published as a prioritisation methodology. A special category would be created for police corruption and malpractice as this relates to trust and legitimacy in the police. This published risk score could then be a basis for public discussion on the Met’s resource priorities.

Understanding growing demand in the context of falling crime In aggregate, criminal activity peaked 20 years ago and has subsequently declined.11 Levels of recorded crime, including violent crime, have been falling year-on-year in London, in most other major UK cities, and in many comparable capital cities around the world. However, crime statistics are not a reflection of an officer’s full workload. According to the College of Policing’s analysis of demand on the police service, not all types of work undertaken by officers feature in reports of crime, and therefore are not taken into account when assessing

8. Stephen Greenhalgh and Blair Gibbs, “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service,” 2014, www.no-offence.org/pdfs/69.pdf. 9. College of Policing, “College of Policing Analysis: Estimating Demand on the Police Service.” 10. National Audit Office, “Financial Sustainability of Police Forces in England and Wales.” 11. However, this does not take into account the changing nature of crime and how much more complex it has become in the past two decades.

20 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 42 demand using police recorded crime data.12 The College also notes that counts of crime fail to show the varying levels of resource required to deal with different crimes. This could be because individuals experiencing the same type of crime may be impacted differently, thus requiring very different responses from the service, or it could be that the type of crime consumes more resource than others – rape, for example. As Dame Elish Angiolini set out in her independent review into the investigation and prosecution of rape in London, not only is rape as a crime itself ‘unique’, but it presents investigators and prosecutors with unique challenges.13 The review raises the point that the variety and complexity of rape cases often far exceeds the difficulties encountered in investigating other offences, including the most serious, such as homicide. It is thus particularly challenging that there has been a marked increase in reported rapes in recent years, albeit a welcome challenge if there has been a shift in the likelihood of rapes being reported. Rapes recorded by the Metropolitan Police as a whole increased from 3,079 in 2005–06 to 5,179 in 2013–14, which is a rise of 68 percent. The number of rape and penetrative offences dealt with by the Met’s specialised Sapphire investigation team rose 2,192 in 2009–10 to 4,083 – a rise of 86 percent. While the majority of rape cases are passed onto the Sapphire team, there is still a role for most officers in effectively responding to initial reporting of rape, as well as in reducing offences through proactive tactics. The College of Policing concluded that demand could be understood as comprising two components. Public demand takes into account the traditional view of demand as reactive and mainly covers calls for service or incidents to which the police respond. Conversely, protective demand takes into account more proactive work which the police are increasingly required to undertake, mainly involving safeguarding the public (particularly vulnerable groups, such as children). A consideration of data on calls for service indicates that public demand limits the extent to which the service can respond to protective demand. As many as 83 percent of calls to the police relate to non-crime related incidents, 42 percent of which were resolved over the phone. Many of the non-crime related incidents to which the police do need to The Met estimates respond in person are not accounted for in statistics, also skewing percep- that 15–20 percent tions of demand on police time. For example, the majority of one million of incidents are reported incidents of domestic abuse and 2.3m reported incidents relating 14 linked to mental to anti-social behaviour do not result in recorded crimes. Analysis of data from different forces suggests that incidents relating health, and to mental health are also increasingly reported. The Met estimates that account for at 15–20 percent of incidents are linked to mental health, and account for least 20 percent at least 20 percent of police time. In 2014 the police were required under of police time Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to assist in 17,000 detentions of individuals who appeared to suffer mental disorder to places of safety

12. College of Policing, “College of Policing Analysis: Estimating Demand on the Police Service.” 13. Rt Hon, Dame Elish, and Angiolini Dbe, “Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London,” 2015, www.cps.gov.uk/publications/ equality/vaw/dame_elish_angiolini_rape_review_2015.pdf. 14. However, domestic violence accounts for one-third of recorded assaults with injury. HMIC, “Everyone’s Business : Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse,” 2014.

21 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 43 (normally a hospital).15 Such incidents often take six to eight hours of police time (in part, to access health records16). In three quarters of cases police provide transport.17 This figure is up from 12,000 similar incidents in 2010. In 2014, an additional 6,000 Section 136 detentions involved the use of police cells as the designated place of safety despite guidance that police custody should only be used in exceptional circumstances; HMIC estimated that the average length of custody was over 10 hours. Extended detentions often relate to lack of capacity in health services and mental health services; according to the House of Commons Health Committee,18 “demand for mental health services for children and adolescents appears to be rising as many Clinical Commissioning Groups report have frozen or cut their budgets”. Overall, 22 percent of police responses relate to actual crime being committed.19 While the public must play a role in reducing this sort of demand, other services are also relying on the police to respond to non- crime related incidents. The police are often, legitimately, requested to attend interventions by other services, which create efficiencies in those services; this varies from enforcing planning laws, building regulations and environmental health regulations to investigation of benefits viola- tions alongside housing association officers.

The London borough of Newham has a law enforcement team which makes fuller use of available powers to local authorities, and they work with a dedicated policing team of 40 Met officers, funded by Newham, who provide support and compliance for these council officers. Law Enforcement Officers have worked on innovative schemes such as landlord licensing, and improved the efficiency of other officers such as noise enforcement or trading standards officers. More evidence is needed on the knock-on impact on subsequent investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, to assess the systematic efficiency.

Concern has been expressed by the College of Policing that preven- tive, problem solving activity is not captured in traditional performance management data, but given that it can reduce crime and public initiated demand on the police, capacity should be ensured for this sort of ‘discretionary’ activity. As certain complex crimes become a growing challenge for the Metropolitan Police, demand for the service should be managed more proactively.

15. Victor Adebowale, “The Independent Commission on Mental Health and Policing Report,” 2013, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_05_13_report.pdf. 16. HMIC. et al., “A Criminal Use of Police Cells,” 2013, www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ hmic/publications/a-criminal-use-of-police-cells/. 17. College of Policing, “College of Policing Analysis: Estimating Demand on the Police Service.” 18. House of Commons Health Committee, “Children’s and Adolescents’ Mental Health and CAMHS” (London, 2014). 19. National Audit Office, “Financial Sustainability of Police Forces in England and Wales.”

22 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 44 From reactive crime-fighting to proactive early intervention and risk reduction The following section provides examples of how the police service could improve risk reduction to mitigate the demand from certain crime types and threats.

Terrorism Although organised violent campaigns with political motivations have operated in London for over 40 years, their threat is potentially greater now that global communications have lowered barriers to coordination and mutual support between individuals, intent on harm, from around the world. Platforms for networking accelerate the spread of publicity, fundraising, and efforts to communicate and plan attacks.20 There are new opportunities for lone or small groups of terrorists beyond (though often linked at the fringes) more formal terrorist networks. The corresponding response of police and security agencies is significant. International police coordination is now rising exponentially – in 2004 Interpol issued 1,924 ‘red notices’ for arrest; in 2014 it issued 10,718. But efforts to coordinate across police forces internationally are multiplied in difficulty by the lack of common standards in rules of law, judicial procedures and in rules of prosecution and admissibility of evidence.21 Management of these threats relies in part on gathering intelligence, and undertaking surveillance to monitor activity. This kind of activity has been termed ‘high policing’ (named after the haute police, a French political police force in the 17th century).22 High policing targets ‘macrocrimes’ that threaten society in general, rather than ‘microcrimes’ which affect individuals specifically. Often, activities to thwart planned acts of terrorism are largely invis- ible to the public. Counter-terrorism tactics include covert and undercover police operations. Secrecy of operations creates challenges for police agencies in their legitimacy and credibility23; potentially eroding the trust that police need (including the fulfilment of ‘low policing’ of traditional crime and public order). The compatibility of high policing and low policing activities is challenging for an organisation, because high policing tends to demand a top-down command structure, and changes the orientation of police duties from servicing to controlling the population.24 By contrast, low policing activities are often successful when police have invested in strong relationships with people in local communities. Community policing can, in this regard, be seen as a complementary ‘force multiplier’ in activities such as counter-terrorism, rather than a competing set of priorities.

20. Cabinet Office, “The UK Cyber Security Strategy Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World,” 2011. 21. Frederic Lemieux, International Police Cooperation: Emerging Issues, Theory and Practice (Routledge, 2013). 22. Jean-Paul Brodeur, “High Policing and Low Policing: Remarks about the Policing of Political Activities,” Social Problems, 1983. 23. Tom Williamson, The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions, The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008). 24. David H. Bayley and David Weisburd, “Cops and Spooks: The Role of Police in Counterterrorism,” in To Protect and To Serve: Policing in an Age of Terrorism (Springer New York, 2009), 81–99.

23 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 45 Policing by consent is not just acceptance by the public of what the police are doing, it implies ability to shape activity as well as having regard for the nature of police public encounters.25

Cyber-dependent crime An important challenge for the Met and other UK forces might be appropriately termed the ‘delocalisation’ of crime. There are parallels, domestically, with the challenges more commonly identified with networked globalisa- tion. Traditional crimes have taken on new dimensions; for example, fraud being conducted via online financial transactions. This means that the victim and the perpetrator are not necessarily (and often not) located in the same police force area. This holds for an increasing number of personal An important crimes such as harassment, as well as anonymous financial crimes. challenge for the In tackling emerging crimes such as online fraud, it is clear that police Met and other forces need to invest in preventative efforts and in mustering the resources of UK forces might partners (such as banks, online retailers and online marketplace platforms) who share an interest in prevention and often hold the necessary intelligence be appropriately to bring about enforcement. MOPAC funded a pilot in early 2015, due to termed the continue for the remainder of the year, to make victims of economic crime ‘delocalisation’ feel safer and reduce the likelihood of becoming a repeat victim.26 of crime In the UK, fraud cases are allocated by the National Fraud Investigation Bureau to the force with jurisdiction for the location of a suspect with a case they deem viable to investigate. For London, this means the Met received 23,000 cases in 2014 – almost one-third of the national total – but many victims in these cases are located across the UK and beyond. The successful investigation and prosecution of online fraud faces a number of challenges. Firstly, criminals use masked identities to hide digital communications from surveillance. Secondly, there is an ‘aggregated threshold’ effect. Digital technologies allow for immense economies of scale through cloning and automation. One individual might simultaneously defraud hundreds of victims, while the value of each transaction remains relatively small. Victims are therefore less likely to invest time in seeking the fraud redressed, and police staff are hard pressed to justify prioritisation of any single investigation. Though informal and reciprocal cooperation will always be paramount, the challenge of the wide dispersal of victims is compounded by a lack of any formal agreements in place to coordinate investigation across forces, and incompatible databases across (and within) police forces for sharing records for investigations. Notably, the MOPAC pilot has involved all three territorial police forces in London (City of London and British Transport Police, alongside the Met) and Age UK, the Fraud Advisory Panel, Victim Support and the Chief Executive of the Police and Crime Commissioners.

25. Jonathan Jackson et al., “Why Do People Comply with the Law?,” British Journal of Criminology 52, no. 6 (2012): 1051–71, doi:10.1093/bjc/azs032. 26. Action Fraud, “Law Enforcement Agencies Review the First Ever Economic Crime Victim Care Unit at City of London Police Event,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.actionfraud. police.uk/news/law-enforcement-agencies-review-the-first-ever-economic-crime-victim-care- unit-at-city-of-london-police-event-apr15.

24 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 46 Responding to adaptive challenges In light of these fundamental changes in the operating environment of the police, evidence on effective practice points to two shifts in approach. Firstly, there has been a shift from assuming that applying the law is enough to deter criminals27 to actively reducing risk through public education and early intervention. Secondly, there has been a shift towards collaborative approaches and strategic partnerships to support individuals, moving away from the informal handover thresholds at which policing intersects with the work of other public services. Each of these shifts has the potential to be supported by new working practices which make the most of advances in technology, and which help officers and staff engage with the adaptive challenges that characterise the increasing complexity and diversity of interactions with the public – including victims, witnesses, perpetrators and vulnerable individuals. Support for these shifts can take many forms. Initiatives, such as the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction hosted at the College of Policing, provide authoritative collation of evidence on effective approaches. Their first review, concerning crime reduction, set a strong foundation for UK police forces in highlighting the links between these agendas:

Crime is highly concentrated: the evidence shows that most of it is associated with only a small proportion of places, victims and offenders. Focusing action on crime and anti-social behaviour hotspots, repeat victims, and prolific or high volume offenders is, therefore, an effective way to allocate resources for crime reduction. Understanding what is causing high volume offending or problems in hotspots and coming up with specific solutions – often in partnership with others – allows the police to drive down crime. As well as preventing crime and deterring offenders, the way the police treat individuals and communities day-to-day in any encounter (and, historically, over time) can also make a difference to crime. By treating people equally, making decisions fairly, explaining them, and being respectful, the police can encourage people to cooperate with them and not break the law.28

In their daily work, the police encounter situations which require highly complex ‘sense-making’; since they often act in fast-moving circumstances that are ‘suffused with dynamic complexity’.29 In short, the police are continually under pressure to review their operating procedures in order to drive fairer decisions and positive outcomes. This is relevant both to minute-by-minute high pressure situations (the adaptive challenges within everyday working practice); and relevant

27. Bayley and Weisburd, “Cops and Spooks: The Role of Police in Counterterrorism.” 28. What Works Centre for Crime Reduction, “What Is the Best Thing the Police Can Do to Reduce Crime?,” accessed October 6, 2015, http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/ overview/Pages/best.aspx. 29. I. Colville, a. Pye, and M. Carter, “Organizing to Counter Terrorism: Sensemaking amidst Dynamic Complexity,” Human Relations 66, no. 9 (2013): 1201–23, http://hum.sagepub. com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0018726712468912.

25 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 47 in how the police operate across competing priorities: the collaboration, partnerships, and managerial ‘tasking’ required to provide flexible responses to long-term needs and demands. The following chapter considers scenarios that characterise the choices the Met faces, so as to rise to the challenge presented by the shifting landscape of crime and potential responses.

26 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 48 3. London policing and community safety scenarios 2020

Faced with the changing pattern of crime and wider demands on the police, the dynamically changing picture within London, and very tight resource availability, it is important to consider a range of possible 2020 scenarios. Below we outline three possible broad pathways: retrenchment, overstretch and focused impact. Given significant resource constraints and the complexity of growing areas of demand for police action, retrenchment and overstretch are very real risks. Overstretch projects the current operating model forward while retrenchment outlines a pulling back of police support in a wide variety of ‘non-core’ areas. Focused impact is more painstaking and the significant organisational and external barriers and blockages to achieving it should not be underestimated.

Retrenchment

“Forces must guard against a vicious circle of less preventative activity, more reactive policing responses and increasing demand.”30 HMIC

In this scenario:

•• The Met increasingly focuses its resources on ‘core’ functions alone, ie responding to and investigating crime and immanent risk of crime. •• The crime rate remains on a downward trajectory in the short term at least. •• Resources are tightly managed. •• However, it may struggle to meet public expectations and relationships with key partners in the public, commercial and voluntary sectors remain somewhat distant. •• Its legitimacy becomes more difficult to sustain as it becomes a more distant partner and pure crime-fighting force. •• Its ability to meet safety concerns through early upstream intervention is undermined as it misses out on key sources of engagement, knowledge and learning.

30. HMIC, “State of Policing: Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/2014,” accessed September 30, 2015, www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/ uploads/state-of-policing-13-14.pdf.

27 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 49 •• Officer morale is challenged by strict and narrow prioritisation. •• The outcome could be a service under strain in its internal and external legitimacy despite the fact that it manages resources efficiently.

Overstretch

•• Faced with resource constraints, the Met continues to try to answer every demand, but in an inefficient manner, eg it deploys people and resources to situations without properly assessing the need, demand and risk. •• It doesn’t use its resources in a knowledge-based fashion and knowledge is not properly captured and applied. •• Its resources are thinly spread, investigations take longer, and problems are reactively managed rather than resolved through impactful early intervention and collaboration (despite best endeavours). •• The Met may start to lack transparency, clarity and be seen as ‘not following through’ by partners and the public. •• Its ineffectiveness might start to undermine its legitimacy and that would make its ability to manage London’s safety more fraught. •• It is a ‘jack of all trades’ service and inefficiencies become systematic. It is defined by mission creep. •• Its resources might become thinly spread and it only works at its best when crises catalyse a reactive mode.

Focused impact

•• It deploys fewer resources on the front-line but where resources are deployed, officers are well-tooled, well-informed, and well-connected. •• Knowledge of impact underpins all activity. •• Each area of service is clearly outlined within a police network of connected delivery (Cowper, 2007) and accountability. •• The partnerships that the Met is engaged in both locally and at a London-wide level are defined by shared objectives, shared information, shared analysis and coordinated operations. •• Resources are pooled where possible to maximise return on investment. •• It provides the public with the tools and information they need to improve their safety, it supports others to help ensure a safe city, and it works with others to leverage the core services that the Met can provide. •• There is an active dialogue between the police, its partners and the public about where resources should be devoted and priorities set, albeit whilst accepting the Met’s responsibilities to bring perpetrators of crime to justice. •• It uses technology highly effectively to help inform its officers and the public – whether through social media or through case management.

28 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 50 •• Prevention and early intervention is the norm and good practice is applied across the force and with other partners. •• A range of specialist skills – often provided by non-officers If community safety working with warranted officers – sit within the force and is a shared endeavor shorter term deployments complement the traditional force then there is a structure. strong argument for •• Overall, the Met is smaller than it is currently in 2015, but it is more connected, focused and has a higher overall impact in any a common mission given context. to pool resources, capabilities, devolve The remainder of the report maps out three design principles for the responsibility and Metropolitan Police which, crucially, must be shared with its partners and focus on common the public. A design principle is an essential feature of a system, product objectives or process that is required if a desired solution is to be achieved. The design principles here are aimed at securing the ‘focused impact’ scenario. To that end, there should be an early test of collective commitment. If community safety is a shared endeavor then there is a strong argument for a common mission to pool resources, capabilities, devolve responsibility and focus on common objectives. And this sense of mission lies behind our first key proposal:

Key proposal There should be a London-wide Community Safety Index co-owned by the Mayor’s office and by boroughs, criminal justice partners (including the courts and probation services) and key NHS bodies too. A component of the Index must include crime statistics, but other domains will cover wider, more subjective measures such as satisfaction with neighbourhood safety. This index will be made public to progress shared accountability and transparency across public services and civil society.

Partners: Mayor’s Office, MOPAC, London boroughs, The Courts, and the NHS

This index will require expert design by policy, statistical and social research experts such as the National Centre for Social Research or a leading market research company. It also requires multi-agency buy-in and pooled investment. The suggestion is that MOPAC, the Met, the Association of London councils and the Mayor work together to secure such multi-agency buy-in. The design of the index would then be procured by MOPAC once these commitments are secured. The aim should be to pilot the index in a small number of neighbourhoods before deployment across London and adoption of targeted metrics by 2017. The city of Rotterdam has such an index combining local factors such as quality of the local environment and health of the local economy with subjective factors such as satisfaction with the neighbourhood in terms of safety, feelings of security, and overall environment.31 It is area based and requires a common action plan with the objective of increasing the safety of each area over time. It relies on cooperation between the police

31. Rotterdam City Council, www.rotterdam.nl/Directie%20Veilig/PDF/VJAPengels%20 2010-2014.pdf.

29 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 51 and others. The most important aspect of the index is that a number of agencies and communities themselves are aware of it and feel a sense of involvement in achieving the goal of greater community safety. A similar initiative for London could create a mobilising cause – each agency and the public themselves could be given a greater sense of the part they can play in making their neighbourhood safer. It would also empower borough-based police leaders to search for greater collective responsibility with others to improve community safety. There are three core elements to the Rotterdam approach that flows from the index:

•• An area-oriented approach focuses on the specific needs and problems of each area. •• A ‘phenomenon-oriented’ approach which looks at specific problems such as night-time violence, domestic violence, or mental health concern and devises conjoined strategies of prevention and response. •• A person-oriented approach which focuses on the needs and challenges of high risk individuals.

The design principles in this report adopt similar approaches but there needs to be the top-level metric to work towards and that is why the index is a cornerstone of a different approach to community safety in London. The index is the measurement tool for the Rotterdam programme. A target of a ‘7+’ (in the index) overall has been met. The index targets run over four years. Every area is required to score a minimum of ‘6’ and at least retain that position over a four year period. Members of the community are expected to have at least a 70 percent community safety sentiment with a city-wide target of 80 percent. This type of collective approach and the need to push towards a focused impact scenario raises the question of the modern purpose of the police. We consider this before laying out the three design principles – an information ecosystem, shared impact, and trust and confidence – necessary to make the focused impact scenario a reality.

30 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 52 4. Purpose

“The first phase of [Met reform] was all about form, not function. It created new structures; it did not change the culture. It reassigned some personnel; it did not redefine the mission… now we are entering a second phase of police reform which must be about function, not form… A function – or mission – that is getting pulled and probed and tested every day by budget reductions, high public expectations, and new patterns of crime.”32 Greenhalgh and Gibbs

“The Met should be centred on the MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub) model – it should share more information with its partners. It should focus on neighbourhood policing, which will be both leaner and more knowledgeable. It will form stronger partnerships with industry. And it will base its decisions on data from local authorities, and organisations in health, housing, third sector, social care, education, and the private sector. It will use apps effectively. Currently Met brings together people through partnerships, but their information is not synced – they need to merge their efforts so as to save time. It will be victim-witness centric.” Business consultee

Changes in London as a booming global metropolis, in the nature of crime types and threats, and in public sector finances, also challenge the inherited, historical relationship between the Met and the public. It is our assessment that to become a ‘focused impact’ police force requires not only changes in culture within the Met, but a redefined purpose for policing. We propose a new shared mission between London – its communities, businesses and public services – and the Met. The Met’s role in the shared mission proposed here would be, in addition to its crime fighting and solving capability, to prevent crime and reduce harm from the perspective of justice by:

•• Showing leadership to address systemic, structural, and contex- tual drivers of criminality (albeit whilst being clear about the role of others in this domain). •• Being part of the orchestration of early action and intervention which reduce risks, and implement effective strategies to reduce harm. •• Supporting the enforcement of justice where harm occurs, from the perspective of the victim.

32. Greenhalgh and Gibbs, “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service.” p. 5–6.

31 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 53 To illustrate this transformation as an ongoing process, at the end of this chapter we use the example of the evolution of the role of the police in addressing domestic abuse.

Establishing a shared and connected mission Democratic institutions collectively decide on the resources the public wishes to allocate to policing and community safety. It is the role of the police, with requisite democratic and legal scrutiny, to maximise community safety and uphold the law effectively within resources made available. There has to be prioritisation, linked to capability and resources. In this regard, the police are no different to the armed forces. Periodically, a Strategic Defence Review is undertaken by the Ministry of Defence in an effort to ensure that resources are matched to operational need and strategic priority. Defence of the homeland is fundamental, but beyond that, the UK has a number of global security objectives it pursues in partnership with other armed forces, governments, NGOs and local actors to reduce threats. These allies connect their activities under a shared mission. The Met is effectively in a phase of strategic review currently. Its capabilities depend on mutual support and a common mission shared with others. That requires it to seek new alliances and develop existing ones. The most important Police responsibilities are sometimes separated into ‘core’ and relationship for ‘auxiliary’. Core is responding to and investigating crime – dealing the police is with mostly with victims, witnesses, suspects and perpetrators. Auxiliary the public itself. activities cover the work the police do to ensure community safety and minimise harm and risk of harm to the individual. This work engages The British model the public and civil society. As outlined in previous chapters, the police of policing is rely on auxiliary work in order to prevent crimes being committed, and based on consent thus manage the demand on their own resources – reducing the pressure which places felt by the core activities. transparency, trust Auxiliary activity requires a connected and shared approach. The and accountability police use their capabilities to spot risk, deploy legitimate authority, and at the centre of pool information in ways that enable more acute problems to be averted. Many others also have responsibility for reducing risk and harm, through law enforcement sharing information and taking action themselves: for example the owner legitimacy of a licensed premises, a mental health nurse, a corporate IT manager, a victim support group leader, or a school teacher. Having a shared and connected mission supports effective ‘core’ policing. For example, intelligence around extremist involvement and activity may be a precursor to a threat of violence. Getting an early warning from a community group, a school or youth worker can both help identify threats and, if intervention is early, de-escalate risk. The most important relationship for the police is with the public itself. The British model of policing is based on consent which places transparency, trust and accountability at the centre of law enforcement legitimacy. As trust is developed, more open relationships can be sustained which can ensure a greater degree of mutual respect, underpinning public order and enabling a flow of critical information into and out from the police. The focused impact scenario outlined above rests very deliberately on the British model of policing whereby trust, community safety, and crime prevention and reduction are tautly bound together.

32 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 54 To provide assurances between the Met and partners, we propose a shared mission which makes explicit the expectations, roles and responsibilities under a shared mission to ensure the safety, security and civil liberties of all who live, work and visit London.

Transforming police purpose: the case of domestic abuse Domestic abuse is a complex and sensitive issue. Emotional abuse and physical harm take place within an abusive regime of control. Other crimes of abuse include blackmail, harassment, kidnapping, threats to kill, and a range of sexual offences. Domestic abuse exemplifies the kind of public safety issue where ‘complexities benefit from effective collaborative responses between multiple agencies as well as co-production of safety approaches.’33 Taking a historical perspective, how the police have involved themselves in domestic abuse highlights how the implicit purpose of the police can and should change. In previous generations, many victims have reported that they were denied requests for police assistance because their accusations were within a ‘domestic’ environment.34 Implicitly, the police often limited their jurisdiction to the front door of the home, and acts of domestic harm were not seen as risk to the public at large. The autonomy of the ‘head of household’ was the civil liberty given paramount status. Civil law in the 1990s, was amended to afford greater protection for individuals in domestic settings, including in the Family Law Act 1996 and the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997. Measures include restraining orders, non-molestation orders, non-harrassment orders and occupation orders to exclude individuals from a family home. ‘Graded response’ approaches piloted in the UK in the 1990s have shown some success, been adopted overseas and have spread slowly among UK forces. Most notably, the Killingbeck pilot in 1996 aimed to reduce repeat victimisation through a three-tiered programme of operational interventions. It was driven by data analysis; the tiers corresponded to the number of times the West Yorkshire Police attended the offender in the past year. Success was partly dependent on the extent to which the force could rapidly access data from other forces about previous contact, in the case of households where the members recently moved to the area. Together these changes point to more effective fulfilment of the shared societal goals of reducing risk and supporting justice in cases of domestic abuse. But the Met itself recognises that achieving sustainable long-term impact relies on coordinated action from different corners of society. In our consultation workshops with senior police officers, many referred to the historic success of increasing public safety in relation to traffic accidents. This was achieved through a combination of education (eg public information on dangers of drink-driving), engineering (eg traffic calming schemes; car airbags) and enforcement (eg seat belt laws; speed cameras). When prompted as to which aspect of public safety should be prioritised in the coming decade, one room of officers instantly and unanimously came to consensus:

33. Geoff Coliandris and Colin Rogers, “Policing Domestic Abuse Effectively: A Blueprint for Success?,” Australasian Policing 5, no. 2: 2, accessed September 30, 2015, http://search. informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=855777659495824;res=IELHSS. 34. Caroline McGee, Childhood Experiences of Domestic Violence (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000), https://books.google.com/books?id=AYlGFvUSdOoC&pgis=1.

33 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 55 “violence against women and girls” – while recognising that neither enforcement nor education alone would be sufficient to substantially reduce risk. There is a way to go. HMIC’s recent inspection of the domestic abuse response from UK police forces was unequivocal:

The overall police response to victims of domestic abuse is not good enough… Domestic abuse is a priority on paper but, in the majority of forces, not in practice. This stated intent is not translating into operational reality in most forces.35

HMIC has encouraged police forces to target and manage their perpetrator population in a way that is now common practice in tackling other sorts of crime. This includes deployment of response officers and neighbourhood policing teams, using intelligence analysts to support disruptive tactics, deploying covert resources to collect intelligence, and learning successfully – as an organisation and across forces – from failures and successes. The police could strengthen their role in reducing risk and harm of domestic abuse through better collating and sharing information, both internally and in partnership with other agencies. Reducing domestic abuse requires long-term systems leadership, making the most of the comparative advantages offered by different partnering agencies.

Information flows within and between forces – the ‘core’ response In cases of domestic abuse, officers often have little or no information about the victim or the perpetrator when they arrive at the scene. Outdated information technology and poor force information systems are preventing vital information about victims and perpetrators from being placed quickly in the hands of frontline officers.36 HMIC notes that, “the quality of the service that a victim receives is entirely dependent on the empathy, understanding and commitment of the individual attending.” Yet, when HMIC assessed training for police, largely reliant on e-learning, it found that there was a failure to build understanding and proactive engagement among officers. For example, few officers are made aware of how to use feedback from victims to successfully help plan appropriate services and capture their own experiences of successful interventions for use by others in the force. HMIC found, in reviewing 600 cases of actual bodily harm (ie visible injuries), photography was used in only half of the cases; 30 percent of investigations failed to adequately record detailed description of the scene or the injuries of the victims. Bringing justice into domestic settings requires the police to be proactive. As HMIC put it, “The police service needs to build the case for the victim, not expect the victim to build the case for the police.”

Information flows between partners – the ‘auxiliary’ response Preventative work most often requires skills and information beyond that available to the police – for example, doing more to work with other agencies to find the right ‘non-crisis’ moments to provide effective support.

35. HMIC, “Everyone’s Business : Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse.” 36. Ibid.

34 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 56 Crawford distinguishes between multi-agency working and inter- agency working which suggests a deeper level of interpenetration.37 As Coliandris and Rogers elaborate:

Professional … no single agency has the capacity or capability to address its multi- capability, faceted challenges. Further, by its very nature, DA appears to overlap information other pressing social problems including: mental ill health; homelessness; management, and child maltreatment (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009). As Sparrow trust of the victim (2008) observes, such problems tend to ‘straddle’ programmatic and jurisdictional boundaries. Barriers to effective multi-agency working tend and others close to to centre on: communication; information-sharing; mission, values or them, and smart power conflicts; funding, personnel, management and resourcing issues collaboration (Mulroney, 2003). Flawed multi-agency arrangements clearly hold impor- should be intrinsic tant consequences for service users.38 to police work Successful inter-agency working recognises that police may not be the best service to provide continuity of care, leading to long-term crime prevention. Some evidence exists (in Canada, quoted in a rapid assessment compiled by the N8 Research Partnership), that a ‘second responder’ programme (whereby an alleged perpetrator is contacted by a support agency other than the police) reduced recidivism significantly one to two years after the ‘first response’ from the police.

Standing Together Against Domestic Violence (STADV) There is good practice in the London environment where the police work in partnership with the charity, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence. In London, flagship work of STADV has been in Hammersmith and Fulham (and the partnership operates in a number of London boroughs). MARACs (Multi-Agency Risk Assessment conferences) have been part of the response to domestic abuse in the UK since 2006, and are now held every three weeks. They discuss around 275 cases a year. These cases have been assessed (using the DASH risk assessment model) to be at high risk of murder or serious harm. While the DASH risk assessment could be more effectively applied (as comprehensively evidenced and outlined by HMIC), there has been improvement in reducing further risk to victims.39 Data has shown that nationally around 60 percent of clients report no further violence after their cases are discussed at MARAC (this is due to the safety planning linked to risk and professional support). In Hammersmith and Fulham, this figure is 75 percent. Furthermore, for every £1 spent on MARAC at least £6 is saved from the public purse.40 This Hammersmith and Fulham domestic abuse case study demonstrates how the police are a foundational partner with others such as voluntary groups and other public agencies for systems leadership to address harm and criminal acts of harm, as well as strengthen efforts at risk reduction.

37. A Crawford, “Community Safety and the Quest for Security: Holding Back the Dynamics of Social Exclusion,” Policy Studies 19, no. 3/4 (1998): 237–53, doi:10.1080/01442879808423759. 38. Coliandris, G. and Rogers, C., “Policing Domestic Abuse Effectively: A Blueprint for Success?”, Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice and Research, 5(2): 3-7 (2013). 39. HMIC, “Everyone’s Business : Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse.” 40. “Hammersmith and Fulham Domestic Violence and Abuse Strategy 2012–15,” accessed September 30, 2015, www.standingtogether.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/standingUpload/ CCR/HF__VAW_Strategy_2.pdf.

35 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 57 Professional capability, information management, trust of the victim and others close to them, and smart collaboration should be intrinsic to police work. Domestic abuse is illustrative of how effective ‘core’ policing to fight crime is best achieved through connected approaches which can only exist in a system involving partners with a shared mission. Several major societal dangers show parallels – including violent extremism, gang violence and organised crime. To achieve this redefined purpose in the modern London context across the range of complex demands as described in the previous section, we suggest three design principles for the Met and the full range of its partners: an information eco-system; impactful collaboration; and trust replenishment. Together the proposals designed to achieve these goals comprise a new shared mission for a safer London.

36 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 58 5. Design principles for effective criminal justice and community safety in London 2020

A recent authoritative study into ‘what works’ in policing given resource constraints proposed the following four pronged model:

(i) Be targeted on high crime micro-locations; (ii) Focus on connected problems rather than individual incidents and involve local communities in identifying, prioritising and addressing them; (iii) Engage actively with communities and harness the resources of other agencies to deliver an integrated approach to reducing crime; (iv) Be aware of central importance of legitimacy.41 Police Foundation

This matches very closely the evidence we gathered in the consultation and have reviewed from elsewhere. In order to achieve the above goals within the Police Foundation model, the Met will need the right organisational leadership, culture and infrastructure and this is outlined in the next chapter. This chapter reviews how the Met, its partners, and the London public can establish the right relationships to work towards a common purpose. Three design principles are reviewed in turn: cultivat- ing an information eco-system; developing stronger collaboration; and enhancing trust and legitimacy.

Design principle one: cultivate a stronger information ecosystem within the Met and with others Since the CompStat system was established by New York Police Department as a performance and operational tool, information about crime, arrests, police activity, public order risk, gang activity and much else besides have been central to the policing toolkit. In London, data and information is shared with other agencies and the public. MOPAC’s publicly available crime dashboard provides an overview of crimes in London down to the borough level. This data is blended with public health and economic data in the online London Data Store.

41. The Police Foundation, “Policing and Crime Reduction: The Evidence and Its Implications for Practice,” 2013, www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/ policing_and_crime_reduction.pdf. p. 4.

37 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 59 Considered within this report is the range of information about activities, people, networks, and neighbourhoods that comes about through conventional police activity and the activities of other public services and members of the public. There is a wider debate about access to private data as part of the surveillance but that is beyond the scope of this report. Beyond publicly available data, Capita defined data on three levels in response to our consultation:

“Open – Allow multi-agency access to systems but control and monitor access to protect against security breaches and misuse.

Closed – Only permit multi-agency specialists access to sensitive or restricted information for dissemination as appropriate.

Anonymised – Do not give multi-agency staff access to personal identifiers and move to a probability based operational research model.”

This points to a difficult set of protocols and relationships, with legal and ethical considerations. Data gathering, organisational analysis, and sharing is an incredibly powerful tool but it requires working through a complex environment – especially in a multi-agency setting. Parameters are necessary but often these can be used as barriers when more can be done to open out and share data more effectively.42 Take the example of a young person who is becoming associated with a known gang. That young person will leave clues in all sorts of settings. Their behaviour at school may change or they may have stopped attending a local youth facility abruptly. They may have had to seek medical help for injuries sustained in a low level confrontation. They may have had contact with neighbourhood police on a number of occasions. There may be no evidence of criminal activity but left unchecked it could develop in that way. However, each of the agencies involved only has a sliver of the picture. If these information sources coalesce the picture will become clearer. An early intervention can take place and that in itself might generate useful information about wider networks, risks and threats. Sometimes local information is sufficient (professionals talk to one another all the time), but what about if we want to understand the range of triggers associated with young people becoming involved in early stage gang related activity? This is where data aggregation, across time, is essential. Collecting sound data is essential, sharing it in the right way (subject to ethical and legal considerations) is vital, and establishing systems and the right professional approach is the final component of focused impact.

42. Some barriers include: a) the ICO rules around data can only be used for the purpose for which is was collected; (b) Human Rights Act interpretations; (c) Learning from previous data security breaches from various agencies; (d) Confusion around when the data was collated when consistency is demanded; (e) National security or VIP information being revealed unintentionally through ‘mosaic style’ attacks; (f) The liability of an agency acting on information collected by another agency from a dubious source.

38 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 60 Information gathering and analysis There is a general concern about the way in which police forces gather, record and handle data. The following is from HMIC State of Policing Report:43

“Even when crimes are recorded, too many are removed or cancelled as recorded crimes for no good reason.” [NB. refers to all police forces]

Similar issues have been noted in London directly:

“Observations of a basic Command Unit in London… showed that a significant proportion of intelligence submissions were never entered on the system.”44

We have heard similar things during the course of this consultation and the quality of local police intelligence briefings has been subject to particular criticism from key partners. The sophistication of use of police data has been questioned. There is a cultural point here. The point about data is not simply a technocratic one. Seemingly purposeless form-filling would have little useful impact. The proposals here are for a pervasively different attitude to information and data. Police officers should understand the value of relevance, accuracy, analysis and utility of data. Moreover, data analysis will not provide a shortcut to sound judgement in a complex environment. By way of a purely hypothetical example, there could be evidence that stop and search has a positive correlation with crime prevention. However, discussion around the wider impact of the approach could, again hypothetically, be negative in that it undermines the legitimacy of the police within certain communities. Would the judgement be to increase its use or not? Would the fact that the victims of crime could be concentrated in a particular community mean that the Metropolitan Police was justified in adopting greater levels of stop and search? These dilemmas require sound police judgement above and beyond what the data may suggest. Data and analysis inform policing judgements but do not supersede them.

“If the decision to only have a centralised intelligence team remains in place, that team must become significantly more responsive to local data demands. One possibility would be to identify borough or area liaison officers to manage requests and provide local MPs and partners in an area with a single point of contact.” Local authority consultee

In a public awareness and prevention setting, data not simply on broad categories of crimes reported but how they happened might alert people to a number of risks. If there was a spate of incidents involving theft of purses from unsecured bags on the tube, or burglaries through unlocked rear windows, or fraud caused by a failure to update PCs with the latest

43. HMIC, “State of Policing: Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/2014.” p. 84. 44. Innes M. and C Roberts, “Policing, Situational Intelligence and the Information Environment: A Report to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.” (Cardiff, 2011).

39 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 61 software, these can attract both police attention and serve as a basis to demonstrate the risks to the public. Flows of data are becoming a torrent. Ensuring the Met is organisation- ally ready not only to handle the torrent, but to harness its energy to thrive is a strategic necessity. This requires deployment of big data analytical techniques which will increasingly utilise developments in artificial intelligence to, for example, identify suspects in an automated fashion instead of more manual techniques currently adopted. There are, of course, ethical considerations surrounding such techniques also and the public will need to be engaged as these techniques are deployed if they are to be legitimate. The public themselves are increasingly eyes and ears, providing surveillance of social order. An app by Witness Confident captures witness material that could have very high utility for police investigations and risk analysis, albeit with the right safeguards in place so that people avoid danger.45 Recently, there have been a series of incidents in the United States involving police brutality that have been caught on smartphone cameras The public and spread across the globe. This has further exacerbated community themselves are tensions with the police in many US cities. In London, the police are increasingly eyes experimenting with body-worn cameras. and ears, providing These incidents in the US show that the public is, if anything, ahead of the police. The beating of Rodney King in 1991 was caught by someone surveillance of who just happened to have a video camera in his apartment; nowadays social order more sophisticated recording technology rests with almost every individual. Instead of resisting these changes, they can be turned to police ad- vantage. Officers must have access to rapid information and be ready to take evidence of a range of types from witness statements to geo-tagged photographic and video evidence. Whilst application of technology does seem to be an issue, an even bigger one is professional ethos. The tools that are available are relatively easy to use so the biggest challenge is not professional development, it’s application. Once the technology and supportive infrastructure is in place, the big leap required in understanding for all front-line officers to capture, record and use data accurately will require a concerted effort for consistent adoption across the Met. Processing and analysing this torrent of data is beyond the capability of individual officers. Big data analysis techniques will be required. Social media analysis can be used to understand networks and linkages in new ways and revealing ways that can develop a picture of associations and risk. Fortunately, London is the leading centre of tech – including fintech which is based on just this sort of approach – in Europe.46 As has already been referenced, cataloguing data will be automated and smart analytics will process data the police receive. The development of artificial intelligence is progressing at pace. The Metropolitan Police will not be able to develop without the help of this expertise. Much as

45. Witness Confident, “Self Evident App,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.witnessconfident.org/self-evident-app. 46. City AM, “London Is Home to Europe’s Hottest Fintech Startups as 24 of the FinTech50 Come from the Capital,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.cityam.com/208497/europe-s-hottest- fintech-startups-are-london.

40 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 62 the NHS is seeking to use its data for public good, the same approach could be adopted by the Met by combining its data with others. There would have to be clarity about how and why information was being used and to what end. If it is seen as ‘spying’ then it may meet public resist- ance. If the public can see instead that it’s about focusing resources, understanding patterns of crime, ensuring that evidence is of a high standard then it becomes easier to build public support for information- Social media is empowered policing. already becoming Increasingly, communications technology that enables the tracking of a good tool of flows of people and social media are becoming part of the infrastructure communication of ‘smart cities’. Social media is already becoming a good tool of communication between the police and the public and, especially where there between the police are major incidents, it is a key channel. and the public and, Furthermore, ‘demand’ for policing is not static. As one business especially where consultee pointed out: there are major incidents, it is a “Currently the policing model is territorial, based on London boroughs; key channel which is not the most effective solution. Wandsworth ‘loses’ 60,730 people per day to work elsewhere (20 percent of its population); Tower Hamlets ‘gains’ 114,381 people (a 41 percent increase.47). One million Oyster card journeys are made in London between 7am and 10am. Yet police support does not follow those served, it does not ‘commute’ across London, unlike the inhabitants. Indeed the police station in Wandsworth is only open Monday to Friday from 9 to 5, when a fifth of its population is out of the borough.”

Smart city technology is about using aggregated Transport for London or mobile phone provider data to get a better sense of the flows of the city. This underlines a reason why London’s policing model may need more flexibility. Developing consent for this with partners such as local authorities is essential.

Sharing information In the last sub-section we concentrated on outlining the importance of improving the volume, quality and analysis of Met collated or accessed data. Here we outline the importance of combining data sets and analysing patterns to condition responses in a connected and shared community safety setting. Numerous comments were made about the degree to which quality information was shared and acted upon between agencies in London. The Police Foundation has noted the weakness of current multi-agency information sharing across police forces in England and Wales and with their partners:

47. Office for National Statistics, “Where Do We Commute to? Commuting Patterns in the United Kingdom, 2011 Census,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov. uk/HTMLDocs/dvc193/; Wikipedia, “List of London Boroughs,” accessed October 6, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_boroughs.

41 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 63 “The effective integration of multi-agency information and interventions also remains one of the weakest elements in the implementation of a problem-solving approach.”48

And in our consultation a number of comments were made in a similar vein:

“Lots of positives such as MASH but some uncertainty about what goes on behind it in the Met. Is data shared properly and are there resources for people to follow through? The police are more anxious about data protection than local authorities.”

“We already share information and work well together in respect of those known to be involved in criminal activity, but we could go one step further to make this approach more preventative than reactive.”

“One of the main challenges to partnership working is the sharing of information and resources, and ensuring a robust evaluation to assess evidence-based performance.”

“An example of where information sharing has worked well in the past was during the Olympic period in 2012 where information flowed into and out of the Borough Olympic Command Centres (BOCCs) and the Borough Group Support Units (BGSUs) via Situation Reports and ad hoc communications, which collectively formed Common Recognised Information Pictures (CRIPs). The routes through which information flowed were clearly understood by all concerned.” Local authority consultees – various

This has also been commented upon by London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime and his Principal Advisor:

“‘Data-sharing’ for the police often amounts to the police telling partners to give them their data.”49

A lack of trust may explain the reluctance to share information and intelligence and this applies both ways – from the Met to local authorities, health partners and others and vice versa. The key proposal we made for London’s public bodies to sign up to monitoring and tracking a community safety index should be matched by a commitment to contribute to the pooling of data. In the policing and community safety setting this could be a partnership between MOPAC, the Met, and other significant public bodies. It would build on the London Data Store that is currently developing the sophisticated use of data in London. However, there would also need to be levels of data and analysis that were not public to enable even stronger crime analytics to be undertaken. There is a need for an even more sophisticated data, intelligence

48. The Police Foundation, “Policing and Crime Reduction: The Evidence and Its Implications for Practice.” p. 20. 49. Greenhalgh and Gibbs, “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service.” p. 49.

42 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 64 and analysis hub; it would require the porting in of data analysis and interpretation skills and technologies from external organisations in the academic, NGO and commercial worlds. For example, the Open Data Institute has significant capability and has previously worked with the London Fire Brigade. The Met is leading National Policing Data Standards, although for multi-agency working this may need to feed into a higher level standards body. However, waiting for national standards may create a lag and there may be many areas where more can be done within the scope of various laws and regulations governing data sharing and handling. This would be the benefit of a multi-agency hub tasked with opening up and aggre- gating data. The Mayor’s office seems to be the most appropriate place for such an initiative and, indeed, the GLA already gathers a range of data for its London Data Store. The proposal here widens that remit to encompass different types of data including closed and anonymised data as a resource. This aggregation of open, closed and anonymised data would enable an even more sophisticated analysis as a support for focused impact policing. We propose that the Evidence and Insight Unit which was transferred from the Met to MOPAC should be evolved and developed further. We refer to this as the London Policing Impact Unit. It could have a role as the analytics engine for London’s safety and crime reduction. To fulfil that role, it would need even greater access to academic and operational expertise and its remit would need to extend to an expectation that the Met would implement the evidenced best practice of potential impact.

Key proposal The Met should commit to being a ‘Total Information Organisation’ involving:

• Greater granularity in data collection. • High quality data collection should be a key aspect of the core skills of every officer and they should be managed and appraised on that basis. • All existing protocols and procedures for information sharing; risk assessment and management should be adhered to (as recommended in the Adebowale report with regards to mental health). • Named information liaison staff should link with key partners – especially local boroughs – to improve the quality of information and intelligence provided to partners in the form of reports (on crime patterns etc). • The Mayor, NHS and boroughs should also commit to a London-wide strategy to manage information gathering, collating, sharing and analysis; tackling barriers that are not legally or operationally required. • Construction of a comprehensive data and analysis hub shared across public services. Common data platforms and protocols combined with data- bridging technologies could be available to a range of collective services with partners. This can’t be managed by the Met alone – the Mayor’s office would seem to be the best location.

Partners: The Mayor’s Office, MOPAC, the Met, the NHS, and boroughs

43 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 65 This of course raises the question of what will be done with this gathered information. It is necessary, as a Total Information Organisation, to systematically analyse impact, assess what works and create a culture of managed experimentation. Again, this occurs currently, but is fragmented and often isolated. Here we advocate a more systematic approach to organisational learning and institutional innovation to underpin it. Our third key proposal is as follows:

Key proposal A London Policing Impact Unit would be established as a MOPAC, Met, and expert-academic partnership:

• The unit would be located in MOPAC and evolved from currently capabilities and would have multi-agency governance with a Board comprising of representatives nominated by MOPAC, the Met, and the College of Police. It could be supported by the Police Knowledge Fund and certainly needs sufficient resource. • Operational knowledge, academic knowledge and knowledge from other police forces and bodies would flow in, and constant piloting would be led by this unit, with knowledge captured and evaluated. There would be secondment opportunities. It would be empirical and experimental as well as evaluative. • This impact unit would suggest local models of neighbourhood partnership and policing that can work (taking a cue from the approach taken in the NHS Forward View). • It would constantly evaluate how the Met was implementing the latest knowledge in partnership with others. These evaluations would be published. • The LPIU would have a ‘citizens’ panel’ of thirty or so representative selected members to help inform community and ethical decisions.

Partners: MOPAC, The Met, the College of Police, academic institutions

This is an approach that has been pursued in a partnership between Cardiff University and South Wales Police, which has been funded by the College of Policing and Cardiff University.50 The unit described above would be more directly linked to multi-agency governance and operational policing in London. It would supplement the growing body of ‘what works’ knowledge and contribute to developing such knowledge further. In conceiving of the London Policing Impact Unit, we have sought to identify key efficiency and efficacy institutions with the NHS. The National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence (NICE) assesses the value for money of health interventions for the NHS. Recently, NICE has augmented its work with a Citizens Council to provide the body “with a public perspective on overarching moral and ethical issues that NICE has to take account of when producing guidance”.51 We are recommending a similar element to the LPIU. The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency assesses safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices.

50. Cardiff University, “UPSI Secures Grant to Advance Policing Research,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/upsi-secures-grant-to-advance-policing- research-27773. 51. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, “Citizens Council” (NICE), accessed October 6, 2015, www.nice.org.uk/get-involved/citizens-council.

44 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 66 NHS England itself recommends systemic forms and structures that can meet a range of local needs. The London Policing Impact Unit would seek to embody all of the principles: efficiency, efficacy, operational approaches, systemic reforms. It would be the leading voice, albeit working in close partnership, for policing excellence in London.

Design principle two: impactful collaboration

“Police have been too willing to accept ownership of problems that actually require partners.”52

“The police do not have sole responsibility for preventing and reducing crime and anti-social behaviour; statutory bodies and non-statutory bodies (such as community and voluntary sector organisations and chari- Met senior ties) have important parts to play. To be effective, the police need to work leadership with these other bodies to prevent crime and anti-social behavior and should focus reduce the likelihood of offenders re-offending.”53 on encouraging In our view this understates the scale of the challenge. The police, openness, statutory and non-statutory bodies need to work towards common goals supporting acting as individual players within a coordinated and common system. patience through a The public should be allies and participants in this mission rather than transition period in simply the recipients or beneficiaries of the service or system. which the returns There is much that is informal in the sets of relationships that on investment police have across London’s landscape. The question is whether more of police time formality in many of those relationships can contribute to a safer city. Some evidence from elsewhere suggests that it could. We have may not be clear seen the case of Rotterdam that has pursued collective multi-agency goals with some success. We give an example below from Memphis that has similarly formalised collective working through a collective impact approach. There is a significant risk that many of these collaborative ways of working will consume time and energy and, therefore, undermine trust and, consequently, impact. Where there is not a willingness to work in new genuinely collaborative ways then there is little point consuming organisational time and energy for all partners involved. In a tight funding environment across public services, there can also be willingness but little ability to follow-through. This will be a barrier. However, an openness to explore more formal ways of collaborative working can increase the impact of any investment that agencies spend on keeping people and the community safe. Therefore, Met senior leadership should focus on encouraging openness, supporting patience through a transition period in which the returns on investment of police time may not be clear. Below we explain collective impact before exploring the specific relationships that can be leveraged further between the Met and others.

52. Professor George Kelling, quoted in Greenhaulgh and Gibbs, “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service.” p. 33. 53. HMIC, “State of Policing: Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/2014.” p. 37.

45 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 67 Collective impact

“The police have a lead role, but also rely on other agencies; the trend to cost-sharing will be a major trend in future years.”54 Greenhalgh and Gibbs

In 2011, John Kania and Mark Kramer, explained a technique of collaborative working termed collective impact that had been trialled in a number of US cities. Collective impact is an approach with five key features as opposed to a blueprint. Collective impact can operate at a neighbourhood, borough or city-wide level depending on the nature of the initiative’s goal. The five key elements of this approach are as follows:55

1. A common agenda. This is a shared analysis of the problem between agencies and a joint approach to confronting it underpinned by agreed actions. It goes beyond partnership in this regard which can focus on exchange of information rather than common action. 2. Shared measurement systems. This is why the data collection and sharing outlined in the previous section is so important. 3. Mutually reinforcing activities. It is important that each partner plays to their strengths. For example, community groups could be best placed to engage people in the initiative, the police may have an understanding of the nature of the challenge and can lend the initiative authority, and a voluntary group may be placed to support hard to reach people or those with complex needs. A housing association may understand the nature of the specific problems that its tenants are facing and be in a position to engage with them with appropriate authority and sensitivity. A local authority may have access to wider intelligence about a particular problem and have the means to provide the right support at critical moments or understand the wider impacts of the issue. 4. Continuous communication. A collective impact initiative requires a sense of mutual learning and open exchange. As Kania and Kramer put it: “Developing trust among nonprofits, corpo- rations, and government agencies is a monumental challenge. Participants need several years of regular meetings to build up enough experience with each other to recognise and appreciate the common motivation behind their different efforts.” 5. A backbone organisation. This is an essential element of the infrastructure of support for successful collective impact initiatives. There needs to be a degree of formality and permanence if the initiative is not to flounder and this requires some (but not a huge amount) of dedicated staff support. This is where the co-funding that Greenhalgh and Gibbs have suggested might come into useful effect.

54. Greenhalgh and Gibbs, “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service.” p. 46. 55. John Kania and Mark Kramer, “Collective Impact,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011 (2011): 36–41.

46 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 68 One large-scale collective impact example with significant relevance for London is the Memphis based initiative, Operation Community Safety.56 The initiative was established as part of a wider regeneration plan, Memphis Fast Forward. It was established by the Shelby County Mayor, the Memphis Mayor, the Shelby County District Attorney General and the United States Attorney. This demonstrates that it had strong political backing from multiple agencies and it also had private sector backing. Memphis has out-performed US and state averages on reductions of property crime (but, it should be noted, still faces challenges of violent crime which has fallen less rapidly, albeit showing a significant reduction of 22.8 percent between 2006 and 2011).57 Operation Community Safety is constructed around 26 collective initiatives. One strategy, for example, aims to reduce violence in the home. This focuses on strengthening laws against repeat offenders, expanding legal, housing and counselling support to repeat victims, and increasing awareness of child abuse and neglect. Named partners range from the District Attorney General, local family safety centres, the police, the Memphis Area Women’s Council, a range of advocacy and support groups, and medical services. Other areas of structured involvement include: reduction of gang and drug crime; reducing blight, problem properties and crime in apartment complexes; reducing repeat offending; and reducing youth violence. All the strategies rest on the expansion of data driven policing which is seen as a key component of the areas in which there was success in the first five years of operation. And a partnership has been formed with the University of Memphis Center for Community Criminology and Research (C3R) to “obtain crime trend analysis, research, federal grant writing and management to support its crime-reduction initiative.” London has a much larger population and a greater number of day and short-stay commuters/visitors than Memphis and there are many more actors in the community safety field. However, there will be areas of London where initiatives can be developed along collective impact lines, perhaps on a borough or group of boroughs basis. London-wide initiatives could be formed around reducing the cost of emergency services to the tax payer through common procurement, co-location, and joint-technology investment. The Met and its partners should establish where there might be the opportunity to forge formal collaborative arrangements around specific, measurable initiatives. Capturing the learning from a number of pilots, even at an early stage, with the support of one or a number of academic partners could then be used to spread the approach elsewhere. This would all be supported by the London Policing Impact Unit recommended in the previous section.

56. Operation: Safe Community, “Memphis Shelby Crime Commission Overview,” accessed October 6, 2015, http://operationsafecommunity.org/overview. 57. W Richard Janikowski, “Operation: Safe Community Report Summary – Crime Rate Trend Comparison of Memphis and Selected Peer Cities 2006–2013,” 2013.

47 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 69 Key proposal Establish a range of collective impact initiatives:

• The Met and MOPAC should assess where there is scope for a range of collective impact initiatives based on the willingness of other agencies and London’s communities to be involved with this new approach. A series of mapping exercises would highlight fragmented structures which inhibit efficient coordination; and enable identification of gaps in provision as well as overlapping responsibilities. (Our proposals for health and public health, below, include this mapping). • A series of guidelines could be established, perhaps with outside partners, for example, from the academic community, for application in the individual initiatives. • Early stage learning from a number of pilots should be captured and applied. For example, building on the work done with Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, further borough based collective impact initiatives could be established. • The evaluation of collective impact initiatives could, in time, be undertaken by the London Policing Impact Unit proposed above. • Co-commissioning options should be explored for ‘backbone organisations’, ie permanent support staff, to support collective impact working groups focusing on discrete issues. • Some of these initiatives, for example on mental health or combating gang- related crime, might involve a much greater degree of co-location with other services such as the NHS or local authority services (eg Youth Offending Teams or Drugs and Alcohol Action Teams). • A London-wide initiative could involve a feasibility study into co-location of emergency services with shared service arrangements to properly capture efficiencies. This should be complete by 2020. Partners: Depending on the specific initiative, it would involve a broad range of partners in the public, voluntary, commercial sectors as well as community groups and representatives

Collaboration with local authorities

“The willing is there but the reality is that we run the community safety partnership and the police come along but don’t drive it or feed into the agenda.”

“They introduced an impact zone. It worked okay, but we weren’t informed and we could have helped them in the process and made it much better. We could have foreseen some of the problems and coordinated it with some of our resources. It’s an example of great operational ability but limited strategic capability.”

“The Met should be honest about what impact the resource reductions, whatever they are, will have, so that it sets the context for the difficult decisions that will then need to be made.”

“The narrative has been about local policing… but the reality has been centralisation of resources and the re-badging of staff as being neighbourhood policing resources that are in reality not deployed on neighbourhood policing.”

48 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 70 “It is perhaps understandable that the Met has to reconfigure resources and is not able to dedicate staff to neighbourhood policing in the way that it had in the past but it is disingenuous to present changes as if they are an improvement to neighbourhood presence and engagement.”

“Our local police’s commitment to safeguarding, the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, integrated offender management and the youth The work on offending team means that we have joint working and information sharing Multi-Agency approaches that are making a real difference. But as important as these Safeguarding approaches are, the Met should not forget the importance of continuing Hubs, offender a visible police presence – this will always be a critical part of what the management and public see as a preventative approach to policing.” Local authority consultees – various youth offending teams continually There is little doubt that there is some excellent partnership work cur- has been cited as rently undertaken between the Metropolitan Police and its local authority evidence of strong partners. The work on Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs, offender collective working management and youth offending teams continually has been cited as evidence of strong collective working. However, as the above quotes show there is also some significant concern about:

•• The commitment of the Met in some places to engage fully with local bodies. •• The degree of transparency about the resources that the Met devotes to some areas. •• The way in which the Met consults about new initiatives or changes to its policing approach – often too late in the day. •• The degree of communication between Met local, specialist units, and local authorities. •• And, of course, visibility of policing presence.

A key aspect of the evidence provided to us by local authorities is that they are not unrealistic about the resource constraints that police are under and will be increasingly under. Local authorities themselves have been through enormous changes and severe cuts. Their concern is more that changes are done in a consultative way, with options appraised and complete transparency about how resources were deployed and with what impact. For example, resource deployment might need to recognise the fact that London is a city that changes shape population-wise throughout the day. Boroughs want to have a clear borough-based local policing leader, ie the borough Commander, and some stability in terms of local personnel. But other than that they know that rationalisation will take place and resources have to be flexibly deployed. They hanker for an ‘honest, grown- up conversation’.

49 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 71 Many cases of good collaborative working were presented and have been identified previously. For example, the Safer Sutton Partnership Service (SSPS) has had some success. SSPS is a joint police/council service comprising:

•• Police Safer Neighbourhood Teams (18 ward-based teams x 6 officers) •• Drugs and Alcohol Action team •• Council Community Safety staff (domestic violence, ASB etc) •• Crime Prevention Design Advisors •• Safer Parks Teams •• Emergency Planning •• Management of the public CCTV system •• Media and communications unit •• Safer Schools •• Volunteers •• Volunteer Cadet Corps •• Mental Health Liaison •• Management Information Unit

These services are all brought together under a single line manager, directly accountable to the Council Chief Executive and the Borough Commander and are responsible for all of the longer term community safety problem solving and building community confidence in Sutton. SSPS was established in 2004 with the direct involvement of Lord Tope (as the then Metropolitan Police Authority Link Member and local Lead Councillor for Community Safety) and Sir (now Lord) John Stevens as Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It bears a striking resemblance in form and structure to the Memphis initiative outlined above. SSPS manages multi-agency liaison and problem solving and acts as the main interface between Safer Sutton Partnership Board (the statutory Community Safety Partnership and Drug and Alcohol Action Team body) and participant agencies. Key to its work are the joint problem solving structures and processes through which public priorities are addressed. Working closely with academia on practical application of research, intelligence (through Neighbourhood Security Interviews work with Professor Martin Innes of Cardiff University) is used as a key neighbourhood level driver for needs analysis and priority setting. The lead local authority, Sutton, identified the following benefits from the approach:

•• Greater public accountability for services •• Demonstrable financial efficiencies •• Holistic budget management of diverse funding streams •• Evidenced improvements in effectiveness •• Cohesive policy setting •• Direct lines of management accountability •• Enhanced community confidence •• Greater sense of shared ownership for community safety issues.

50 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 72 From 2004–05 to 2010–11 fear of crime fell across all major crime types, fear of anti-social behaviour fell by 40 percent, there was a 27 percent reduction in violence against the person, 67 percent reduction in criminal damage, 70 percent reduction in theft of motor vehicles and £750,000 of cashable efficiencies from 2006–07 to 2013–14. Co-funding of services forms a key component of the initiative. The council disbanded its own Parks Police and commissioned two Safer Parks teams from the Met. It also commissioned the Met to monitor the council CCTV system. This is embedded in the local Police Control Room allowing a fast time response, without need for intermediary. The system offers on average 50 evidential enquiries per month and was instrumental in the apprehension within minutes of the ‘Halloween hat’ murderers as well as Sutton’s acclaimed response to the public disorder during August 2011. Elsewhere, similar co-funding has occurred. For example, Hackney borough council has invested significantly in an Integrated Gangs Unit to pool resources with the Met and other partners.58 There are many other examples of collaborative working. So the goal with respect to local authorities is to ensure that the best becomes the norm wherever possible. The proposals below are designed to achieve that.

Proposal Any sensitive resource redeployment that may impact efficacy should only be undertaken following consultations to fully identify risks, identify alternatives, and explore collaborative opportunities.

Collaboration with the NHS Again the the plea from consultees here was for greater consistency of approach across London. A lack of consistency in responding to domestic abuse in London was pointed out by a voluntary sector consultee. It was matched with a call for a better partnership between the Met, local authorities and the NHS to ensure greater consistency of frontline responses and follow-up (eg through engaging with the voluntary sector). The NHS and the police have access to information that could precipitate early intervention. There is some concern about the touchpoints between the NHS and the police with some worries expressed about the lack of a clear protocol for ensuring that GPs and health service administrators have a defined contact within the NHS. This was articulated as follows:

“It would be enormously helpful to have a liaison officer for London to assist with criminal investigations and the wide range of other reasons for interaction with the Met.” NHS consultee

There is a sense that the informal links with the police at a local level (eg with GPs) has frayed. For example, we heard a case of a GP who had a patient whose family had gone to Syria and feared their involvement with ISIS or similar. However, the GP didn’t want to call 101 as they felt they

58. Greenhalgh and Gibbs, “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service.”

51 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 73 may lose control of the process – an informal conversation with a known specialist or local trusted officer could have dispensed the appropriate advice. The NHS itself has gone through significant change and, indeed, fragmentation over recent years. So there is a sense here of two services changing simultaneously and gaps emerging. There were examples of specialist resources in the police, for example with regards to health in criminal justice settings, being redeployed without consultation with the key NHS representative involved. Mental health is a particularly acute area; 18 percent of people in the capital are living with a mental health problem; 25 percent of people taken into custody have a pre-diagnosed mental health problem or present with suicidal or self-harming behaviour. A significant minority of Met officers have daily encounters with victims, witnesses and suspects who have Police are often mental health concerns; 15–20 percent of incidents are linked to mental the public service health and mental health issues account for 20 percent of police time.59 with the exposure Lord Adebowale identified twelve concerns on mental health and to early-warning policing in London ranging from failures of central comms command to problems of inter-agency learning and failures in operational learning.60 signals for a mental Police are often the public service with the exposure to early-warning health issue and signals for a mental health issue and so a key agency in early intervention. so a key agency in There are a number of initiatives underway, not least the East London early intervention mental health triage pilot. The Adebowale report identified the need for:

“More joint training; better relationships on the ground [between approved mental health professionals] and the police; better information sharing and communication… the need for strategic as well as operational expertise on the ground; greater involvement of safer neighbourhood teams; and the need for better awareness of mental health issues.”

The challenges for the NHS itself are just as significant. The East London NHS Foundation Trust has established a 15 bed triage facility at Newham University Hospital that assesses the needs of those admitted with mental health concerns quickly with rapid attendance by mental health professionals to assist the police, victims and detainees was noted in the Adebowale report. Therefore, when the system pulls together as it has in East London, the patient’s needs are better met and service resources are deployed efficiently and effectively.

Proposal The Metropolitan Police, NHS trusts, NHS England, the Office of London Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) should consider formulating a comprehensive plan for how the police and the NHS can work effectively together in London. All NHS Trusts (including Mental Health Trusts), NHS England and the Office of London CCGs could sign up to the London community safety index recommended earlier in this report. However, before that an analysis of the touchpoints, inefficiencies, and gaps in provision should be undertaken to ensure that the police and the NHS locally and beyond are working more closely together.

59. Adebowale, “The Independent Commission on Mental Health and Policing Report.” p. 11. 60. Ibid. p. 16.

52 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 74 Proposal Out of this analysis, a London wide multi-agency compact between health and police services from early intervention to emergency treatment is needed involving pooling of expertise, systems, funding and knowledge.

Collaboration with the criminal justice system The average offence to completion time in London is 167 days which is 13 days more than the national average.61 Not only this, but inordinate amounts of time and cost are created by a lack of a streamlined approach in terms of sharing evidence, ensuring the absence of last minute delays and creating a clear and reassuring process for victims and witnesses. This is not simply about efficiency, it is about ensuring that victims are supported in a stressful situation. It is particularly an issue with vulnerable victims and witnesses. Support for victims and witnesses will be covered in the section on trust and engagement later in this report, but the way in which the police, prosecution service and courts operate together (whilst safeguarding critical lines of independence) to help victims, witnesses and, indeed, suspects is important. Support from voluntary sector support groups and referral to them is crucial. As Baroness Newlove’s report pointed out:

“Cases were cited where rape victims, having waited six months to go to court and who have been supported in preparing for their court visit, are then told at the last minute that the case had been adjourned whilst the defence gather more information or issues with incomplete case files are resolved. The same is also said of the general level of information and updates given by court services on the progress and delays in courts.”

“No prior contact from anybody before the court date. I had to call the police and court myself for an update and to find out what was going on.” Victim62

Criminal justice as an end-to-end multi-agency process needs a re appraisal. This is a responsibility for the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, voluntary groups and the police. The Newlove report lays down a formidable set of challenges that require a collective response. In addition the policing budget, the current Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime has called for the devolution of the £700m criminal justice budget (covering courts, CPS, probation and prisons) so the London’s Mayor has oversight and commissioning responsibility for end-to-end criminal justice:

“With budgetary control and oversight of the whole system, London could ensure all services collaborate and integrate at a local level, investing in joint IT platforms and shared premises to yield major back office savings and lower estate costs. Such a system works in New York and it

61. MOPAC, “Annual Report 2013/2014” (London, 2014), www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ files/MOPAC Annual Report 2013_14.pdf. 62. Helen Newlove, “Review of Victim Services in London,” accessed September 30, 2015, www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Review of victim services in London.pdf.

53 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 75 would improve scrutiny, allow for more co-commissioning and the joint investment needed to speed up the system and grip prolific offenders. The alternative is to continue with business as usual, at huge cost to taxpayers, not to mention victims.”63

Devolution of the criminal justice budget to London would give the GLA the autonomy to allocate criminal justice resources through a network of partners and service providers including local authorities, voluntary sector partnerships, and neighbourhood police themselves. This will accelerate the ability to provide an effective programme of interventions including restorative justice approaches and rehabilitation initiatives. This opens the possibility of attracting new sources of investment and developing neighbourhood-based community justice through centres such as those demonstrated in Red Hook in New York.

Proposal Work with other funders [and partners eg Victim Support, Rape Crisis] to develop a robust and consistent outcomes framework which measures and monitors how victims are coping and recovering in London (as per Newlove64). This should form one component of the Community Safety Index proposed above.

Proposal Improve the way that victim data is recorded and shared across the criminal justice system including with victims (as per Newlove recommendation 10).

Proposal The end-to-end oversight and commissioning of criminal justice in London should be devolved to London’s Mayor as has been suggested by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The Mayor will endeavor to devolve resources to borough and neighbourhood levels wherever possible and appropriate.

Collaboration with business small and large In the course of our consultation we heard from a variety of businesses and community groups who saw the possibility for an enhanced set of relationships between the police and business. Based on these observations and other considerations we propose a series of mutually beneficial relationships between the police and an array of businesses:

•• Business Crime Reduction Partnerships (such as Safer WestEnd) where the Met and groups of businesses work together to reduce crime in a given area should be expanded in scope and number. Where a robust plan and support is in place, there may be the possibility of greater co-funding of partnerships assuming they have been shown to be effective. Insurance companies and local authorities as well as businesses may be able to provide some support in this regard.

63. Reform, “New Frontiers of Criminal Justice Reform,” no. March (2015), www.reform. uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/New-Frontiers-of-criminal-justice-reform_6.pdf. 64. Newlove, “Review of Victim Services in London.”

54 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 76 •• Further investment can be made in developing the skills and information flows between the police and private security attached to businesses and licensed premises setting. The Met Police have already started to share intelligence with security managers and door staff to help identify and manage repeat offenders. Again, this could be something, if the training and response was of high value, that could be co-funded. Open engagement with the police should always be a key consideration when it comes to the licensing of premises. •• In the field of financial services, much activity is undertaken by financial institutions themselves to protect their customers from theft and fraud. This is to be welcomed. Where there are new techniques of fraud, it is important that the police inform the public about how they can be protected. The police and financial services should continue to cooperate to ensure the public has the right protection and the right information. •• There are issues with how the Met procures and applies products and services from the commercial sector. We heard examples of successful pilots, especially of technology, where organisational priorities shifted and so there was no follow through. Often bespoke products and services are ordered when there are better value off-the-shelf solutions. Contracts need to have greater flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing technology (for example, the iPhone has only been with us for eight years). •• The balance of risk and responsibility between technology platforms, their users and the police is in flux. There is the need for much greater clarity about who is responsible for what (for example, when does online behaviour on social media platforms move into the criminal sphere?). The providers of major social platforms benefit from good online behaviour as do the police and the users of the services. The police have an enforcement and education role and so do the platforms themselves. Users have personal responsibility and can help point to poor behaviour in others. A better public mapping and clarification of all these responsibilities would help the public better navigate this relatively new domain.

The broader point here is that the relationship between the police and The relationship the commercial sector is critical in keeping London safe. The best out- between the police comes arise from active engagement between the police and the services and the commercial we use whether those services are recreational, technological or financial sector is critical in services. Where products are not properly adapted to prevent crime there is a direct need for engagement. Indeed, on products such as smartphones keeping London safe this type of engagement takes place. There will be occasions when companies act lethargically or ignore police advice. In those circumstances, it is right that the police raise their concerns clearly in public. However, it is better for the police, companies and the public if issues are resolved before they reach this point.

55 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 77 Design principle three: enhancing trust and legitimacy MOPAC see four key drivers of confidence in policing: public engagement, public perception of whether the police treat people fairly, public perception of effective policing and the public perception of their concern about anti-social behaviour. MOPAC states: “Providing a visible policing presence is a component of the ‘effectiveness driver’, but not its sole measure of effectiveness”.65 The MOPAC public attitudes survey shows that it is what police do and how they do it that is more important than seeing officers on the street. Community engagement and problem solving are significant to public confidence, especially for local residents. There is a tension between visibility and effectiveness. Resources could be deployed extensively on visibility but in times of acute scarcity this diverts resources away from where they could be more effectively deployed to deal with and prevent crime and address public safety concerns. This tension should be acknowledged in public debate about policing London. Efficient models of police deployment should not disengage from a series of targeted, proactive, strategic and operational engagements with Londoners. At the strategic level, the community liaison mechanisms under the Safer Neighbourhoods Board process established through MOPAC should be fully supported by the Met. Community representatives should be properly empowered through their relationships with the police as has been pioneered in Haringey following the 2011 riots. Moreover, capacity should be further developed by the police within various community organisations to help leverage impact on reducing crime and risk of harm. Voluntary groups, especially those engaged in supporting victims and witnesses, also need to be supported in developing their capacity. This is not an alternative to the police handling the relationship with victims and witnesses with compassion, empathy, and responsive- ness, but it is a vital supplement to police direct engagement. This is the operational challenge. The process of policing, its effectiveness, perceived fairness, and respectfulness is a vital component of legitimacy. With legitimacy comes more effective policing: citizens are more respectful of law enforcement, they are more cooperative (and this matters when it comes to countering severe threats such as terrorism and investigating almost all criminal activity), and they are more engaged in helping the collective work of community safety. It takes a great deal for trust and legitimacy to be continually replenished. Just a few bad examples can tarnish the legitimacy of police, especially with regards to particular communities or particularly vulnerable people who are at the harsh end of perceived and real injustice or insensitivity. A police service that, with the support of others, works relentlessly to replenish trust and legitimacy aims to meet targeted and personalised needs. Trust and legitimacy in this model, the traditional British Model of Policing, are not something seen as an onerous additional responsibility. They empower the police as well as the public. Our consultation shows significant endeavour and some degree of success in this regard but some considerable distance to travel also.

65. MOPAC, “Annual Report 2013/2014”; MOPAC, “Review of the Transition to the Local Policing Model” (London, 2015). p. 6.

56 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 78 Past surveys have revealed that satisfaction levels with the police tend to decline after victims and witnesses come into contact with the service. The Met should strive to measure success through improving satisfaction levels once contact is made. For example, they could implement a similar strategy to the NHS with their Making Every Contact Count campaign. This campaign encourages all NHS staff who come into contact with members of the public to have a productive conversation about health. The Metropolitan Police could use professional development of staff to ensure their interactions go beyond improved safety for victims, to share their wealth of knowledge on preventative practices. This could include sign- posting members of the public to partner agencies, and raising awareness among those they come into contact with – beyond the individuals who are formally involved with the police as victims, witnesses or suspects. In turn this could support outcomes and satisfaction. The Met should consider regular polling which includes qualitative measures which underpin satisfaction. Below we suggest how trust and legitimacy can be strengthened.

Community involvement in London’s safety The importance of the Safer Neighbourhoods Boards (SNB) process, in which MOPAC invests £1m a year, has already been noted. Much more can be done at a borough level to highlight the work of these critical bodies and to ensure that there is proper and representative public engagement beyond a group of active members and community representatives. Some concern was expressed to us that, in some areas, the Met has withdrawn slightly from the process of engagement with community governance since the establishment of SNBs. There is also a need for an active layer of engagement that is necessary. Some of this is supported by the work of Neighbourhood Watch schemes. We have articulated a need to go even further in some circumstances. The Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) is a platform whereby ‘local authorities, housing associations, local voluntary sector organisations, licensed private security firms, NHS trusts, charitable organisations and some companies in the leisure industry (such as those who act as stewards in sports stadia)’ are accredited to help police in its work, including with some enforcement powers. If policing and community safety is to become a more shared, collective endeavour then this is precisely the approach that the police will need to adopt. This could include community groups (who could be incorporated as a legal organisation for the purposes of the scheme). These groups would need to be stringently vetted. There is always a vigilantism risk but by extending this scheme, the risk could actually be reduced by careful expansion of CSAS. This was suggested to us with regards to particular communities, eg the Orthodox Jewish community, albeit with safeguards. Policing through this sort of partnership could help open channels of communication and develop trust. As one community consultee said:

“Small amounts of engagement can save a lot of time in the future. Most of the crimes solved have been with the support of the community.” Community consultee

57 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 79 Of course, London is not a static city so engaging on the basis of place is not always the most effective approach. Innovations such as the Neighbourhood Link scheme which provides text and email updates will need to be expanded considerably. If the police are to deploy their resources in a targeted fashion, constant communication by other means is critical. This is where the power of social media is so important. However, these forms of communication cannot simply be London is not ‘broadcast’. There must be a two-way element to them albeit with a static city so acknowledged constraints of time and resource. Increasingly, police in engaging on the London are showing ‘personality’ through engagement on social media basis of place is and it is becoming an important means of ensuring the right messages are communicated as well as enlisting the power of the crowd, for exam- not always the ple in searching for missing people. Targeted communications, including most effective with vulnerable or at risk communities, can enhance understanding of approach both the police and citizen and ensure a greater openness to the dialogue. Social media used wisely enables the police to extend its reach and relationship building as long as it is seen as genuine engagement. Of course, the issues that lie at the heart of tensions between the Met and London’s citizens cannot be ignored. Deaths in custody (hence the importance of independent custody visitors), stop and search, engagement with communities following controversial incidents, the treatment of some victims by the Met, the relationship with protest organisers amongst many other things have all rightly drawn attention. Tensions undermine trust and legitimacy. For example, stop and search is still an enormous driver of tension despite its more limited application. The Met’s StopIT campaign has reduced stop and search by half and doubled the arrest rate from stop and search.66 As Miller et al have concluded: “Searches reduce the number of ‘disruptable’ crimes by just 0.2 percent”.67 The burden on community relations and legitimacy is intense. As MOPAC note:

“The use of stop and search tactics continue to cause concern against some groups, and can be particularly damaging to communities’ confidence in the police when they are conducted without due respect and civility.” MOPAC 2014

A recent reflection on developments in policing in the US, in particular relationship to race, advocated police adopting a simultaneous strategy of ‘strategic voice’ and ‘tactical agency’.68 ‘Strategic voice one’ requires that police articulate their perspective on wider societal factors that are driving crime and risk of harm from truancy to lack of civic amenities. Community engagement in this sense becomes participation in public discussion. The authors note that ‘strategic voice one’ involves articulating that:

66. MOPAC, “Annual Report 2013/2014.” 67. The Police Foundation, “Policing and Crime Reduction: The Evidence and Its Implications for Practice.” p. 12. 68. David H. Bayley, Michael Davis, and Ronald Davis, “Race and Policing: An Agenda for Action,” New Perspectives in Policing June, no. 2015 (2015): 1–20.

58 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 80 “Effective crime prevention requires that all the resources of government — welfare, education, health, sanitation, recreation, public transport — be focused where criminality is concentrated. It requires whole-of- government planning and implementation.”

The community dialogue advocated in this section is not one-way. ‘Strategic voice two’ involves the police leaders explaining ‘publicly and repeatedly’, what is involved in combining effective law enforcement with liberty. This process of articulating the police voice as a means of generating a greater sense of procedural justice is as crucial as the police being open to a sense of justice within London’s communities. It is intrinsic to policing by consent. ‘Tactical agency’ governs police behaviours as crucial in generating a sense of legitimacy of procedural fairness.69 It ranges from explaining why particular actions are taken at any given time to assessing how those who come into contact with the police feel they have been treated. The key proposal we make here incorporates both ‘strategic voice’ and the behaviours that contribute to constructive ‘tactical agency’ in the range of police actions.

Key proposal The Met should revisit its community engagement strategy as a critical component of trust and legitimacy. Good community engagement increases levels of trust over time (measured through surveys), empowers and involves communities in their neighbourhood safety, and ensures a two way flow of relevant information. This refreshed strategy would include:

• Clear guidance on a select range of community engagement techniques based on the best available evidence of ‘what works’ from within the Met. This would of course be supported by evidence of workable models from the London Policing Impact Unit once that is established. • Further development of community groups through the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme. • A deeper engagement with Safer Neighbourhoods Boards. The Met should work closely with MOPAC to explore how these can be widened and provided with even more targeted and relevant information. It might well be necessary to provide means for greater online engagement where necessary to supplement the good use of social media in many boroughs (eg the @MPSHackney Twitter account).

Supporting victims and witnesses The 2014 Newlove report commissioned by MOPAC reviewed victim services in London. It pointed out improvements in care for victims since the launch of the Total Victim Care initiative in 2012. With regards to support from the Metropolitan Police, victim satisfaction has risen to above 70 percent in all London boroughs, and the gap in satisfaction between

69. Anthony Bottoms and Justice Tankebe, “Criminology: Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach To Legitimacy in Criminal Justice,” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 102, no. 1 (2012): 119–70, http://www.academia.edu/3033140/CRIMINOLOGY_ BEYOND_PROCEDURAL_JUSTICE_A_DIALOGIC_APPROACH_TO_LEGITIMACY_IN_ CRIMINAL_JUSTICE.

59 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 81 white and black and minority ethnic (BME) victims has narrowed to 5 percentage points. In line with the information approach advocated in this report, it is important that recording of victim and witness characteristics is undertaken so that the support, especially that which vulnerable groups receive, can be understood, tracked and responded to. This is a key recommendation of the Newlove report. Current monitoring regimes do not routinely record additional key characteristics of the victim (eg disability, sexuality, and historical victimisation). Moreover, the majority of victims do not routinely report crime as revealed by the Crime Survey for England and Wales.70 Half of victims rate quality of support within the criminal justice system as ‘average’ despite very good work in many cases. As Newlove concludes:

“The existence of good working relationships between services and the positive experiences of many victims of being supported through their journey of recovery should not be overlooked. However, the effectiveness and consistency of services varies across the capital.”71

This underlines the point made in the previous section about support across the criminal justice system. Newlove was also concerned that changes in the profile of victims is not being matched by the provision of additional support.72 As one of our consultees pointed out:

“There has been a shift in customer services in recent years away from a one-size-fits all model to an individual, tailored, customer centric approach. Some individuals require or desire different levels of support, recognising and supplying this will increase both satisfaction and efficiency.” Business consultee

A greater degree of self-reporting is necessary, it was suggested during our stakeholder consultation. Sometimes a situation simply requires a crime to be recorded and a crime number to be issued. If a victim required a visit or follow-up, that could be requested. Equally, if a police officer on issuing a crime number felt a follow-up was necessary that could then be Targeted support initiated. The traditional phone service would, of course, be available to can also improve those who did not feel comfortable with this process. Once a case is under individual wellbeing investigation, a victim (and potentially witness) should be able to moni- and safety tor its progress – a process that could be made easier with devolution of criminal justice institutions. Targeted support can also improve individual wellbeing and safety. The London borough of Havering identifies the needs of its citizens based on the active engagement of high-need groups such as the vulnerable elderly. It is a good example of what is possible. The borough needed to save as much as £40m by 2014. The challenge of making significant budget savings was further complicated by the fact that council tax was already

70. Newlove, “Review of Victim Services in London.” p. 5. 71. Ibid. p. 49. 72. Ibid. p. i–iii.

60 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 82 relatively high compared with other boroughs and yet there were already low unit costs to run services. The council thus became concerned with the question of how to deliver services more efficiently while protecting those that really mattered to local people. It was decided that the council would move away from universal, prescribed services towards personalised services targeted at people who really need them, meaning that they would meet needs better and make the requisite savings. However, in order to fulfil this ambition there was a need for greater insight to enable the council to target its users more effectively. Havering Council began developing a tool to target residents based on their characteristics and preferences. In 2011, the council built a bespoke segmentation using their own customer data sets and from the Primary Care Trust (the predecessor body to Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs)), as well as new data from Mosaic (a customer profiling tool designed by Experian). The council created 12 different segments, specific to the population of Havering, which allowed them to pinpoint at a household level the communication preferences of residents and which services they used and didn’t use. This segmentation tool enables the council to “target the right services at the right people in the right way.” The tool was successfully put into practice through the council’s consultation project, which was designed to ascertain the needs of residents aged over 65, and increase this group’s awareness of services available to them. A key element of this approach was the use of volunteers to meet with high-needs residents face-to-face to ascertain how they could make better use of council services, the NHS and the benefits system. This was focused impact in action. The benefits to the police and others arising from early intervention (eg by installing the right assistive adaptations in a house to prevent a serious fall with the distress and costs associated with that) have not been calculated but they are likely to be significant. Emerging HMIC guidance reinforces this approach:

“Leaders within the police are working to shift the focus of officers and staff to what is causing most harm in communities. This means officers are being asked not just to look at offences presented to them, but also to respond to the impact on the individual needs of the victim, particularly when they are vulnerable.”73

The work of improving support for victims and witnesses cannot be shouldered by the Met and MOPAC alone. In fact, there are many organisations that are much better placed to support both victims and witnesses, for example, Victim Support, Women’s Aid, Age UK, or Rape Crisis. However, there is a need to support the capacity of a range of partners so that they can help the police in their efforts. London’s capacity to prevent crime, care for witnesses/victims, and safeguard the vulnerable depend on this. The Met (with MOPAC and others) needs to be strategic in developing the capability of others to prevent its resources being stretched. Helping public agencies such as schools and GPs provide the best

73. HMIC, “State of Policing: Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/2014.” p. 46.

61 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 83 advice and support is part of this mission. This approach to supporting the voluntary and public sectors can be widened into other fields such as crime prevention through further support of the work of groups such as Only Connect which attempts to prevent young people from ever becoming involved with crime, meaning that people don’t become victims in the first place. All of the proposals below are based on the same approach: put the infrastructure in place, do what is necessary to meet immediate needs, and support others to deliver specialist services that require more intense resource commitment. A good analogy is the model of palliative care provided by hospices. Hospices are usually facilities run by independent charities, but are specialised to provide more specific support (end-of-life care) than available in hospitals. Local hospices may be part-funded by CCGs, but large national charities (such as Macmillan Cancer Care) may ensure standards for staffing, and make grants for capital infrastructure and capacity- building across a network of local sites. NHS frontline medical staff provide the majority of referrals to hospice services, with hospice care also delivered within hospitals and the homes of patients. In this model, the Met supported by MOPAC and the national administration acts as a foundation for the best victim and witness support possible.

Proposal ‘Total Victim Care’ could be taken even further:

•• A fully integrated and individualised support structure should be built. Notwithstanding appropriate safeguards (eg data protection), all case history should be accessible to the victim online or via the 101 phoneline and this should be available to voluntary and public bodies who support individual victims or witnesses. •• As every victim/witness is different, the level of support they require varies. Self-reporting/needs assessment has a role to play for some victims. Care should be taken in Metropolitan Police processes to ascertain the level of support needed prior to resources being committed. Options for support should be given at an early stage to the individual with initial advice on what is the most suitable based on an understanding of the individual’s needs. •• Peer groups of support for victims and witnesses through the voluntary sector should be encouraged by investing in infrastructure of information and referral to link this up but leave it to the voluntary sector and community groups to operate. This could form the basis of a ‘victims and witnesses’ platform accessible through met.police.uk that serves to ensure that experienced people are able to help others on a peer-to-peer basis.

62 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 84 Restorative justice

“The evidence in support of restorative justice is clear-cut. An extensive body of research shows it is one of the most effective and cheapest ways of reducing reoffending and increasing victim satisfaction, yet, as Alex Murray, a Superintendent in the West Midlands police, points out, restorative justice is ‘perhaps the most over-evidenced and under-practised tactic.’”74

“Trying to introduce Restorative justice into the Met has been an uphill struggle. Restorative justice is now embedded in Statutory Policy so it is a requirement and yet the Met remain very closed minded about it.” Voluntary sector consultee

The Ministry of Justice defines restorative justice as the process that Research brings those harmed by crime, and those responsible for the harm, into demonstrates communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to that restorative play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.75 justice provides Research demonstrates that restorative justice provides an 85 percent victim satisfaction rate76 and a 14 percent reduction in the frequency of an 85 percent reoffending.77 It is a potentially much more important tool in London’s victim satisfaction community safety and crime reduction arsenal. This could be an area

rate and a 14 for cooperation between the Met and those who specialise in evidential percent reduction restorative justice techniques. in the frequency The Restorative Justice Council advocates: of reoffending •• Restorative justice to be made available to every victim and offender in London through a multi-agency delivery partnership. •• Restorative justice to be used as the default response to low level crime and antisocial behaviour to save money and cut crime. •• Restorative practice to be used to deal with police complaints across the force, following the recent pilot of this approach.78 •• Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has significantly increased the use of restorative justice in the last few years. GMP estimates that on average a Level 1 restorative process takes one hour, while a warning takes almost five hours and a reprimand four hours. The use of restorative justice at GMP was estimated to have saved £700,000 over a 12 month period in a 2010 evaluation.79

74. Jonathan Sharples, “Evidence for the Frontline: A Report for the Alliance for Useful Evidence,” no. June (2013), www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/EVIDENCE-FOR-THE- FRONTLINE-FINAL-5-June-2013.pdf. p. 20. 75. Ministry of Justice, “Restorative Justice Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System for the Period To March 2018,” 2014, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/375581/restorative-justice-action-plan-2014.pdf. 76. J Shapland et al., “Restorative Justice: The Views of Victims and Offenders,” 2007, www.restorativejusticescotland.org.uk/Restorative-Justice.pdf. 77. J Shapland et al., “Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction?: The Fourth Report from the Evaluation of Three Schemes,” 2008, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/ http:/www.justice.gov.uk/restorative-justice-report_06-08.pdf. 78. Garry Shewan, “A Business Case for Restorative Justice,” 2010, www.restorativejustice. org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/The_business_case_for_restorative_justice_and_ policing.pdf. 79. Garry Coglan, “Restorative Justice and Policing Informaiton Pack,” 2014, www.rjc.org. uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Restorative justice and policing.pdf.

63 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 85 These recommendations should be given serious consideration as part of the Met’s evidence-based approach to reducing crime and increasing community safety.

Proposal There should be more sophisticated use of out of court disposal systems including an expansion of restorative justice in partnership with others such as Restorative Justice Council, Youth Offending Teams and the London Community Rehabilitation Company. This work should also be evaluated by the London Policing Impact Unit. Given that for every £1 spent on restorative justice, it is estimated £8 is saved for the criminal justice system this could be an opportunity for a social impact bond based on payment for success backed by the Ministry of Justice and Home Office.

64 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 86 6. A major organisational challenge

In the previous section of this report, we concentrated on how the Metropolitan Police can work with others to fulfil its purpose. At the core of this report is a triple challenge: for the Metropolitan Police to work differently with others, for key partners especially in the public sector to share responsibility for keeping London safe to a greater extent, and for London’s public to become more active participants in London’s safety. This section focuses more exclusively on the Metropolitan Police itself. Through our work engaging directly with the Met and speaking to those it works with and serves, a number of challenges have emerged. In order to become the type of organisation mapped out in earlier sections of this report these changes, many of them cultural in nature, will be needed. This is a continuous process, not an event. As an important appendix to the independent review into Barclays’ bank business practices (the Salz Review) states, absolutely correctly in our view:

“The goal should be to change the tangible things about what the service does for customers and how people will do their work; gradually, this will change the culture. Fundamentally changing how we work (beliefs, behaviours, structures and systems) is the more challenging part and takes time.”80

Inevitably, this raises the question of leadership. The Met is an organisation with a workforce in the region of 50,000. Leaders are distributed throughout the organisation (and not all of them will be in recognised leadership positions). The mechanisms it has recently innovated to bring its senior leaders together periodically is an essential organisational innovation. Distributing the load of organisational change is an important task. As the College of Policing noted in its recent Leadership Review:

“Policing at its best is based on knowledge allied to professional judgement, not on hierarchy wedded to procedure and practice.”81

80. Anthony Salz, “Salz Review: An Independent Review of Barclays’ Business Practices,” 2013, www.home.barclays/content/dam/barclayspublic/documents/news/875-269-salz- review-04-2013.pdf. 81. College of Policing, “Leadership Review: Interim Report” 2015, www.college.police. uk/What-we-do/Development/Promotion/the-leadership-review/Documents/CoP_Leadership_ Review_Interim_report.pdf p. 14.

65 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 87 In a more information-driven, connected organisation, knowledge and professional judgement can be more distributed unless traditional hierarchy prevents it from being so. Policing is a hierarchical structure because there are times when it has to act with very clear lines of sight and an organisational unity, for example following a major incident where members of the public are placed in severe danger or even worse. But this is not necessarily the default position or, at least, what is required at all times. Cultural theory identifies three types of association that can both enable and constrain organisational change: hierarchy, solidarity, and individualism.82 The RSA’s chief executive, Matthew Taylor, explains this theory of change in the following fashion:

“First, change can be pursued using hierarchical, individualistic or solidaristic means; second, often the most effective solutions find some way Cultural theory of combining these sources of power (if they are not combined they will identifies three types often undermine good intentions); and third, that this is always difficult; of association that such solutions are contextually contingent and ‘clumsy’ because the three can both enable forms of power are inherently in tension with each other (indeed their and constrain power partly derives from their critique of each other).” organisational According to Charles Leadbeater, the most dynamic organisations change: hierarchy, can be understood as ‘creative communities with a cause’. FC Barcelona, solidarity, and Pixar, Pratham (the world’s leading educational social enterprise), and individualism Cambridge University’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology are all disparate examples of highly innovative organisations, but all had visionary leaders in common who were able to mobilise creative communities around a sense of mission and purpose. These creative communities were able to thrive because they neatly encapsulated and combined benign individualism, hierarchy and solidarity. The public sector in general is usually stronger on ‘hierarchy’ and ‘solidarity’ with less emphasis on ‘individualism’. This may sound like a good thing. It is, however, problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, organisations that are dominated by hierarchy can become frozen by management targets, initiatives and a compliance culture. An organisation that is solidaristic excels at cooperation but this cooperation can often become closed and collusive. Finally, without a counter-balancing individualism, which means creativity and initiative rather than self-serving behaviour, an organisation struggles to adapt to new circumstances with innovative solutions. Information flows can be curtailed and individuals de- motivated as they feel their voice, no matter how authoritative, is silenced. At their very worst, organisations that are dominated by hierarchy and solidarity are closed, demotivating, collusive, secretive, driven by tradition rather than innovation and open analysis, and face a constant adaptation and legitimacy deficit. During the course of this consultation, we heard descriptions of what one consultee described as ‘police culture’, ‘Met culture’ and ‘business culture’. ‘Police culture’ is mainly solidaristic, it is defined by a ‘canteen

82. The RSA, “Falling in Love with the ‘c’ Word,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.thersa.org/ discover/publications-and-articles/matthew-taylor-blog/2013/09/falling-in-love-with-the-c-word/.

66 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 88 culture’ and is important for team building and mutual support. However, it can become ‘us and them’ and we have seen in some police forces how it can become driven by secrecy and protectionism. Traditional ‘Met culture’ was described to us as police culture writ large. It is hierarchical in structure but is, in fact, fragmented, with historical tensions creating a degree of suspicion and disunity. It means that the ‘One Met’ vision, so important to achieving organisational goals, doesn’t quite fulfil its potential. Finally, the ‘business culture’ often reflects these ‘police’ and ‘Met’ tensions. Decisions about technology and procurement can become stuck and the freedom to innovate undermined. Often decisions are taken by one leader and then completely reversed once that leader is moved elsewhere, which happens far too frequently. This harms the ability of the organisation to take long-term decisions and to build the relationships necessary to achieving the vision of policing recommended here. The College of Policing has recommended:

“Reducing hierarchy and bureaucracy by adopting flatter structures and increasing the span of command was something frequently mentioned by external leaders.”83

To achieve such a flattening requires leaders who are comfortable operating in such an environment. The challenge is for leaders to pursue a clear purpose to inspire an organisational transformation from closed and rigid forms of hierarchy and solidarity to an organisation where:

•• Solidarity is shared outside as well as within the organisation (hence our proposals on collaborative approaches towards collective impact). •• The hierarchy is flatter and conveys a sense of collective purpose. It has clear lines of commands and sets clear standards and expectations but does not over-burden the organisation with protocols that debilitate individual initiative. •• Individual problem solving is encouraged, albeit shared with others as needed, and an internal culture of initiative is cher- ished, albeit within the context of an organisation that at times of public risk has to assume a clear operational protocol. It aims to give its workforce the tools and knowledge they need to be creative in resolving knotty issues with others.

Peter Senge, Hal Hamilton and John Kania see the core of leadership in a complex system as enabling others within the system to adapt. They quote Ronald Heifertz on adaptive leadership:

“As Ronald Heifetz has shown in his work on adaptive leadership, these leaders shift the conditions through which others—especially those who have a problem—can learn collectively to make progress against it.”84

83. College of Policing, “Leadership Review: Interim Report”. 84. Peter Senge, Hal Hamilton, and John Kania, “The Dawn of System Leadership,” Stanford Social Innovation Review 13, no. 1 (2015): 26–33, http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_ dawn_of_system_leadership.

67 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 89 This is adaptive, systemic change (oriented around social situations) rather than technical change (oriented around ‘fixing’ problems with defi- nite solutions). For this, leaders require the ability to see the whole system rather than isolated elements of it. It requires the ability to develop trust over time through deep and empathetic learning. It requires a shift from reactive problem solving to a collaboratively created different future as explored in the previous sections. Such leadership is capable of operating with the long view in mind (closing the gap between rapid technological change and slow institutional development). To become leaders of this degree of sophistication will require greater learning from other settings, including many of the partners we have mentioned throughout this report. For developing such leaders we propose the following:

Proposal More varied continuous professional development including placement within partner organisations – public and private – and vice versa. A leaders’ exchange programme could be established linked to collaborative projects. In return, the Met should be more open to expertise and leadership from outside. Medium-term (two to five years) civilian contracts in specialist areas such as mental health, cyber-security, and business management should become far more common and, most importantly, these staff should be treated as equals within the Met organisation.

And we also propose:

Proposal Systems leadership (ie where multiple agencies and interests share a common problem) should be recognised as a key leadership capability. A programme of development that identifies and develops those who have demonstrated a capability to operate and lead in a systems context. That programme should be provided by a top-class outside partner such as one of the many high quality business and public administration schools in and around London.

The Met currently has a programme ‘Leading for London’ which touches on some of these approaches. The proposal above is aimed at those who are on track to become superintendents or above. It should be an introduction to the latest thinking in public and policing reform, management and leadership and would be a post-graduate level. Met leaders should focus on three core organisational change factors when it comes to its people:

•• The importance of greater continuity in roles to establish longer term perspectives and relationship formation both outside the organisation and inside. •• A more diverse organisation (in terms of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, disability etc and in terms of personal traits, knowledge and skillset). The ‘Londoners first’ recruitment

68 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 90 policy85 is helpful in this regard and the second-language requirement pilot is also an interesting innovation.86 •• Increasing unity of status and regard within the Met: this includes between ranks, between officers and staff, and between functions (especially borough-based versus specialist units).

These factors are essential to completing the journey towards ‘One Met’ in our view. The importance of greater continuity was expressed by a number of local, voluntary, community and public partners throughout the consultation. It was a very strong theme. The importance of greater diversity is clearly understood by the current leadership of the Met and, indeed, their inability to have all the necessary recruitment tools at their disposal to improve the Met’s diversity is a frustration. The College of Policing also notes:

“External leaders… supported the notion that multiple entry points could enhance diversity of thinking and offer benefits to a whole organisation.”

And the issue came up on a number of occasions in our consultation. Privileged policing For example: powers are necessary but they “The culture and lack of diversity on some specialist teams in the Met are an underpinning is concerning.” to modern policing Local authority consultee rather than its By reducing internal divides there can be a better unity of purpose. totality Many of the proposals in this report rely on specialist skills. Others require significant outside support whether it is deploying advanced analytics, putting in place the right technology platforms, or evaluating impact. The position of police constable is a privileged and important one. That is not weakened by a more open organisation; in fact, it is strengthened. Privileged policing powers are necessary but they are an underpinning to modern policing rather than its totality. There is no reason why a flexible, modern, outcome-driven, collaborative organisation can’t exist whilst the primacy of the British model of policing is safeguarded and, indeed, enhanced in its impact. The three factors – continuity, diversity and unity – outlined above are captured in the following proposals.

Proposal Minimum tenure (in normal circumstances) for neighbourhood and borough officers should be introduced. The same should be considered in roles that are dependent on significant collaboration with external partners.

85. London City Hall, “Commissioner and Mayor Announce Met Police to Recruit Exclusively from London Residents,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.london.gov.uk/media/ mayor-press-releases/2014/07/commissioner-and-mayor-announce-met-police-to-recruit. 86. The Guardian, “Budding Police Constables Must Speak Second Language in Met Pilot Scheme,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/20/police- constables-second-language-metropolitan-pilot-scheme.

69 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 91 Proposal Met training and recruitment programmes should be shifted to an arms- length body potentially run by a partner such as a leading recruitment agency to reduce the chances of current cultures being reinforced. This body would be tasked with meeting the leadership, skills, diversity and cultural objectives of this report. It would manage the programme of external exchange and recruitment of officers/staff with specialist skills for shorter placements.

Proposal The distinction between officers and staff at every level has to be broken down. This means challenging some traditional police attitudes firmly. Staff should be seen as equals at every level of the organisation and status and grades should reflect this.

Finally, there is the issue of a ‘business culture’ where decisions can get stuck in the process and can default to short termism. Much work is underway to make the right decisions with regards to procurement processes, technological investment and new headquarter facilities. It is important that these changes are made with the type of organisation outlined in this vision in mind. It is also important that major investments are made with ‘passive provision’ for adapted future operations engineered in. Cost savings made on the capital front can be redeployed to support some of the organisational and human infrastructure recommended both in this and the previous section. As a number of consultees have remarked, there are cost savings to be made through shared services (eg back office functions) and across police forces (eg common marketing literature with tips on keeping personal property safe). It also appears very difficult to get an understanding currently of how resources are devoted to which activities against a range of outcomes within the Met. That makes resource deployment more difficult to understand, prioritise and communicate to partners.

Proposal An all-London public multi-agency technology strategy is desperately needed. This would also explore the scope for co-location of services at London-wide level (ie with London Ambulance Service and London Fire Brigade) but also scope for local co-location. This should be led by the Mayor in partnership with the relevant bodies.

Concluding comments Enduring since the founding principles of the Met laid down in 1829, a safe metropolis is one where the public have mutual responsibilities alongside police officers. Today, London’s renaissance as a growing global metropolis depends on being safer together, developing strong and broad consensus to support the Met to become a focused impact organisation. Taken together, our proposals seek to recognise that it is only through London – its many communities, businesses and public bodies – adopting a collaborative approach that the city will be able to secure its collective safety. Moving swiftly, and making the investment necessary

70 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 92 for this transition, should become a priority for all Londoners, including the next Mayor. Safer Together is designed to provoke debate within the Met and beyond it. Our hope and expectation is that where the Met endeavours to follow the course of action outlined here others will provide it with the support and encouragement it needs. And we hope that London comes together around a new strategy to ensure and enhance community safety further. Policing is a common endeavour. We are safer together.

71 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 93 Bibliography

Action Fraud. “Law Enforcement Agencies Review the First Ever Economic Crime Victim Care Unit at City of London Police Event.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.actionfraud.police.uk/news/law-enforcement-agencies-review-the-first-ever- economic-crime-victim-care-unit-at-city-of-london-police-event-apr15. Adebowale, Victor. “The Independent Commission on Mental Health and Policing Report,” 2013. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_05_13_report.pdf. Bayley, David H., Michael Davis, and Ronald Davis. “Race and Policing: An Agenda for Action.” New Perspectives in Policing June, no. 2015 (2015): 1–20. Bayley, David H., and David Weisburd. “Cops and Spooks: The Role of Police in Counterterrorism.” In To Protect and To Serve: Policing in an Age of Terrorism, 81–99. Springer New York, 2009. Bottoms, Anthony, and Justice Tankebe. “Criminology: Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach To Legitimacy in Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 102, no. 1 (2012): 119–70. http://www.academia.edu/3033140/ CRIMINOLOGY_BEYOND_PROCEDURAL_JUSTICE_A_DIALOGIC_ APPROACH_TO_LEGITIMACY_IN_CRIMINAL_JUSTICE. Brodeur, Jean-Paul. “High Policing and Low Policing: Remarks about the Policing of Political Activities.” Social Problems, 1983. Cabinet Office. “The UK Cyber Security Strategy Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World,” 2011. Cardiff University. “UPSI Secures Grant to Advance Policing Research.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/ upsi-secures-grant-to-advance-policing-research-27773. City AM. “London Is Home to Europe’s Hottest Fintech Startups as 24 of the FinTech50 Come from the Capital.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.cityam. com/208497/europe-s-hottest-fintech-startups-are-london. Coglan, Garry. “Restorative Justice and Policing Informaiton Pack,” 2014. www.rjc. org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Restorative justice and policing.pdf. Coliandris, Geoff, and Colin Rogers. “Policing Domestic Abuse Effectively: A Blueprint for Success?” Australasian Policing 5, no. 2: 2. Accessed September 30, 2015. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=855777659495824;re s=IELHSS. College of Policing. “College of Policing Analysis: Estimating Demand on the Police Service,” 2015. www.college.police.uk/About/Pages/Demand-Analysis-Report.aspx. College of Policing, “Leadership Review: Interim Report” 2015, www.college.police. uk/What-we-do/Development/Promotion/the-leadership-review/Documents/ CoP_Leadership_Review_Interim_report.pdf. Colville, Ian., Annie Pye. and Mike Carter. “Organizing to Counter Terrorism: Sensemaking amidst Dynamic Complexity.” Human Relations 66, no. 9 (2013): 1201–23. http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0018726712468912. Office for National Statistics. “Commuting Patterns in the UK, 2011,” 2014. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/origin-destination-statistics-on- migration--workplace-and-students-for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom/ sum---commuting-patterns-in-the-uk--2011.html.

72 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 94 Crawford, Adam. “Community Safety and the Quest for Security: Holding Back the Dynamics of Social Exclusion.” Policy Studies 19, no. 3/4 (1998): 237–53. doi:10.1080/01442879808423759. Greenhalgh, Stephen, and Blair Gibbs. “The Police Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Rebalancing the Role of the First Public Service,” 2014. www.no-offence. org/pdfs/69.pdf. “Hammersmith and Fulham Domestic Violence and Abuse Strategy 2012–15.” Accessed September 30, 2015. www.standingtogether.org.uk/fileadmin/ user_upload/standingUpload/CCR/HF__VAW_Strategy_2.pdf. HMIC. “Everyone’s Business : Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse,” 2014. HMIC. “State of Policing: Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/2014.” Accessed September 30, 2015. www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/ wp-content/uploads/state-of-policing-13-14.pdf. HMIC., CareQualityCommission., HMIP., and Arolygiath Gofal Lechyd Cymru. “A Criminal Use of Police Cells,” 2013. www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/ publications/a-criminal-use-of-police-cells/. Rt Hon Dame Elish Angiolini. “Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London,” 2015. www.cps.gov.uk/ publications/equality/vaw/dame_elish_angiolini_rape_review_2015.pdf. House of Commons Health Committee. “Children’s and Adolescents’ Mental Health and CAMHS.” London, 2014. Innes M., and C Roberts. “Policing, Situational Intelligence and the Information Environment: A Report to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.” Cardiff, 2011. Jackson, Jonathan, Ben Bradford, Mike Hough, Andy Myhill, Paul Quinton, and Tom R. Tyler. “Why Do People Comply with the Law?” British Journal of Criminology 52, no. 6 (2012): 1051–71. doi:10.1093/bjc/azs032. Janikowski, W Richard. “Operation: Safe Community Report Summary – Crime Rate Trend Comparison of Memphis and Selected Peer Cities 2006–2013,” 2013. Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011 (2011): 36–41. Lemieux, Frederic. International Police Cooperation: Emerging Issues, Theory and Practice. Routledge, 2013. London City Hall. “Commissioner and Mayor Announce Met Police to Recruit Exclusively from London Residents.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/07/ commissioner-and-mayor-announce-met-police-to-recruit. London Datastore. “Daytime Population, Borough.” Accessed October 6, 2015. http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/daytime-population-borough. McGee, Caroline. Childhood Experiences of Domestic Violence. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000. https://books.google.com/books?id=AYlGFvUSdOoC&pgis=1. Ministry of Justice. “Restorative Justice Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System for the Period To March 2018,” 2014. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/375581/restorative-justice-action-plan-2014.pdf. MOPAC. “Annual Report 2013/2014.” London, 2014. www.london.gov.uk/sites/ default/files/MOPAC Annual Report 2013_14.pdf. MOPAC. “Review of the Transition to the Local Policing Model.” London, 2015.

73 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 95 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/MOPAC%20Review%20of%20 the%20transition%20to%20the%20Local%20Policing%20Model%20FINAL.pdf.

National Audit Office. “Financial Sustainability of Police Forces in England and Wales,” 2015. www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Financial- sustainability-of-police-forces.pdf. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Citizens Council.” NICE. Accessed October 6, 2015. www.nice.org.uk/get-involved/citizens-council. Newlove, Helen. “Review of Victim Services in London.” Accessed September 30, 2015. www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Review of victim services in London.pdf. Office for National Statistics. “International Migrants in England and Wales 2011,” December (2012): 1–26. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290335.pdf. Office for National Statistics. “Where Do We Commute to? Commuting Patterns in the United Kingdom, 2011 Census.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.neighbourhood. statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc193/. Operation: Safe Community. “Memphis Shelby Crime Commission Overview.” Accessed October 6, 2015. http://operationsafecommunity.org/overview. Reform. “New Frontiers of Criminal Justice Reform,” no. March (2015). www.reform. uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/New-Frontiers-of-criminal-justice-reform_6.pdf. Rotterdam City Council. “No Title No Title,” n.d. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2. Salz, Anthony. “Salz Review: An Independent Review of Barclays’ Business Practices,” 2013. www.home.barclays/content/dam/barclayspublic/documents/news/875-269- salz-review-04-2013.pdf. Senge, Peter, Hal Hamilton, and John Kania. “The Dawn of System Leadership.” Stanford Social Innovation Review 13, no. 1 (2015): 26–33. http://ssir.org/articles/ entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadership. Shapland, J, A Atkinson, H Atkinson, B Chapman, J Dignan, M Howes, J Johnstone, G Robinson, and A Sorsby. “Restorative Justice: The Views of Victims and Offenders,” 2007. www.restorativejusticescotland.org.uk/Restorative-Justice.pdf. Shapland, J, A Atkinson, H Atkinson, J Dignan, L Edwards, J Hibbert, M Howes, J Johnstone, G Robinson, and A Sorsby. “Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction?: The Fourth Report from the Evaluation of Three Schemes,” 2008. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/restorative- justice-report_06-08.pdf. Sharples, Jonathan. “Evidence for the Frontline: A Report for the Alliance for Useful Evidence,” no. June (2013). www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/EVIDENCE- FOR-THE-FRONTLINE-FINAL-5-June-2013.pdf. Shewan, Garry. “A Business Case for Restorative Justice,” 2010. www.restorativejustice. org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/The_business_case_for_restorative_justice_ and_policing.pdf. The Economist Intelligence Unit. “The Safe Cities Index 2015,” 2015, 39. http://safecities.economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EIU_Safe_Cities_ Index_2015_white_paper-1.pdf. The Guardian. “Budding Police Constables Must Speak Second Language in Met Pilot Scheme.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/ jul/20/police-constables-second-language-metropolitan-pilot-scheme. The Police Foundation. “Policing and Crime Reduction: The Evidence and Its Implications for Practice,” 2013. www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/

74 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 96 projects/policing_and_crime_reduction.pdf. The RSA. “Falling in Love with the ‘c’ Word.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/matthew-taylor-blog/2013/09/ falling-in-love-with-the-c-word/. What Works Centre for Crime Reduction. “What Is the Best Thing the Police Can Do to Reduce Crime?” Accessed October 6, 2015. http://whatworks.college.police.uk/ Research/overview/Pages/best.aspx. Wikipedia. “List of London Boroughs.” Accessed October 6, 2015. https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_London_boroughs. Williamson, Tom. The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions. The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008. Witness Confident. “Self Evident App.” Accessed October 6, 2015. www.witnessconfident.org/self-evident-app.

75 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 97 Appendix

Stakeholder engagement The following is a list of organisations that we engaged with through a process of consultation through written submissions, one-to-one interviews and/or participation in focus groups. We are deliberately choosing to identify organisations only rather than, or in addition to, individuals because we want to protect the anonymity of all those who generously contributed to our consultation as well as focus on the substance of the responses as opposed to drawing attention to particular individuals. We thank everyone sincerely for taking the time to contribute to the consultation.

Accenture Age UK Barking, Havering and Redbridge Trust British Transport Police Safer Neighbourhood Board Camden Safer Neighbourhood Board Canary Wharf Group Capita CBI Federation of Small Businesses G4S Hackney Council Havering Community Safety Partnership Havering Safer Neighbourhood Board Hillingdon Safer Neighbourhood Board Lambeth Council Lewisham Safer Neighbourhood Board London & Partners London Assembly Police and Crime Committee London Borough of Sutton London Communities Policing Partnership London Councils London First London Safeguarding Children Board London Stop and Search Community Monitoring Network Missing People MOPAC NHS (Health in the Justice System – London Region) NHS England Medical Directors for London NHS Mental Health Network Northgate Information Services Only Connect Redbridge Community Safety Department Restorative Engagement Forum Restorative Justice Council Revolving Doors

76 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 98 SafeLives (previously CAADA) South West London Neighbourhood Watch Telefonica O2 The Office of London CCGs Vodafone Wandsworth Council Westminster City Council William Collis Witness Confident Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Academic reference group The following individuals accepted our invitation to review and comment on draft materials. The views expressed herein are those of the RSA, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the academic reference group.

Perri 6 Ravinder Barn Ben Bradford Jennifer Brown Glyn Gaskarth Toby Gould John Graham Mike Hough Martin Innes Jonathan Jackson Thomas Jackson Joshua James Ian Loader Tris Lumley Rick Muir Chris Nichols Nick Parker Colin Rogers Melanie Simms Benjamin Bowling

77 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 99 The RSA: an enlightenment organisation committed to finding innovative practical solutions to today’s social challenges. Through its ideas, research and 27,000-strong Fellowship it seeks to understand and enhance human capability so we can close the gap between today’s reality and people’s hopes for a better world.

8 John Adam Street London WC2N 6EZ +44 (0) 20 7930 5115 Registered as a charity in England and Wales no. 212424 Copyright © RSA 2015 ISBN 978-0-901469-70-0 www.thersa.org Designed by www.soapbox.co.uk 78 Safer Together: Policing a global city in 2020 Page 100 AGENDA ITEM 7

Community Safety Partnership REPORT

Subject: National Probation Service (NPS) ‘E3 Programme’ – Impact on Barking and Dagenham Youth Offending Service

Date: 7 December 2015

Carina Heckroodt, Assistant Chief Officer, Barking, Dagenham, Havering Author: and Newham, National Probation Service

[email protected] Contact: 0208 514 5353

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 This report presents a summary of a recent letter from the National Probation Service (NPS) outlining a number of proposals to improve consistency in its working with partner agencies. In this report, the focus is specifically in relation to its work with Youth Offending Services (YOSs).

1.2 The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has been working closely the NPS on these proposals, which are still in draft. The YJB have been advised by a working group of representatives from Youth Offending Teams, the ‘NPS Reference Group’, which has been meeting regularly to consult on the current proposals. Some of the concerns raised by this Group are given within this report.

1.3 The Community Safety Partnership is recommended to:

 give consideration to the drafted proposals from the NPS in relation to its work with Youth Offending Services.

2. Background

2.1 The National Probation Service (NPS) was created in June 2014 as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme, which involved the outsourcing of a large portion of the probation service in England and Wales. These reforms replaced the previous 35 individual Probation Trusts with a single National Probation Service, responsible for the management of high-risk offenders; and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) responsible for the management of low to medium risk offenders in 21 areas across England and Wales,

Page 101 Protected

2.2 The NPS, as part of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is a national organisation covering England and Wales, with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for NOMS overseeing the entire NPS delivery structure. The NPS brought together parts of 35 former Probation Trusts to form a new organisation with over 9,000 staff and a caseload of 90,000 offenders.

2.3 Following the establishment of the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme, the NPS E3 Programme was created to define and implement the changes necessary to achieve a consistent way of working across the NPS in relation to its key partners. ‘E3’ stands for Effectiveness, Efficiency and Excellence:

 Effectiveness in better delivering on performance targets and securing the outcomes of reduced reoffending and public protection;  Efficiency in ensuring that every penny spent by the NPS makes the greatest impact; and  Excellence in the way that the NPS operate as an organisation and the outcomes we deliver.

2.4 To date E3 has focused on six priority areas:

 Court Delivery;  Community Supervision;  Custody;  Victims Services;  Approved Premises; and  Youth Offending Services

3. NPS and Youth Offending Services

3.1 Since 1998, Probation has played an integral part as a statutory partner in local Youth Offending Services. The NPS currently have responsibility for Probation’s contribution to more than 150 local Youth Offending Services (YOS). This has included the secondment of probation staff to work in local Youth Offending Teams (YOT), however the exact shape of the contribution varies across the NPS, specifically in the numbers and grades of staff.

3.2 The E3 Blueprint report provides three ‘End State Proposals’ in relation to its proposals for its work with YOSs work. These are;

 The National Framework (agreeing an overarching NPS national framework which clarifies the NPS responsibility in Youth Offending Work);  The Resource Model (a model based on the workload of each Youth Offending Team which will inform staff secondments); and  The Standard Workload (NPS staff seconded to the YOS will work with high risk cases and with cases who will be transferred to NPS when they are 18).

The National Framework

3.3 Subject to the outcome of the Review of Youth Justice, the NPS are scheduled to finalise an overarching NPS Framework which will confirms the NPS responsibility towards YOS work. The framework will provide clear secondment arrangements for

Page 102 Protected

both YOS and NPS as well as ensure a consistent approach to YOSs across England and Wales.

The Resource Model

3.4 The Resource Model will be based on the current workload of each YOS. Under the NPS Framework, the NPS will contribute resources to each YOS in the form of seconded members of staff. Second staffing will take place for a maximum period of 3 years to ensure that staff retain their probation skills and that the development opportunities offered by secondments are open to a greater number of Offender Mangers (OMs).

3.5 As a result of rationalisation of the resource model, it is anticipated that there will be an overall reduction in the numbers of staff seconded to YOS, and a reduction in cost to the NPS.

3.6 Currently, there are concerns among the NPS Reference Group regarding the proposal to deploy Probation Officers (POs) to YOTs, which, in the view of YOT representatives, should take account of accurate workload information which the Youth Justice Board (YJB) has yet to supply to the NPS.

The Standard Workload 3.7 The Standard Workload proposal provides that OMs will work with high risk offenders and those offenders who will transfer to the NPS when they are 18. The expected caseload for a full time seconded OM will be 25 cases; this takes into account the complexity and level of intervention required with YOS cases that are high/ and or transferring to the NPS. Where YOS caseloads are particularly low this may mean that the seconded OM does not work full time in the YOS.

3.8 There has been discussion within the NPS Reference Group regarding the tasks to be undertaken by NPS secondees. Whilst it is recognised that the NPS will want their staff to continue to undertake tasks specific to their skills and expertise with high risk offenders, the view of the Group is that there must also be room for local flexibility as determined by each YOS Head of Service and management board.

4. Impact on service delivery and staffing

4.1 The E3 report emphasises that negotiation with the YJB and individual local authorities will be required to agree the resource model and transition arrangements for each YOS. It is expected that in some areas, there will be a reduction in probation contribution, and that the NPS will need to agree arrangements to manage this transition in order to minimise the impact on local services. At the same time, areas are likely to see an increase in provision, and planning will also be needed to make best use of the additional staff.

4.2 Any changes to allocation of resources which could lead to an increase in burden on Youth Offending Teams must be accompanied by a New Burden’s Assessment via the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Ministers.

4.3 It is further noted that agreement with the YJB will be required for the provision of performance data in order to ensure that OMs are managing the correct cases, and that the transfer of young adults to the Probation adult service improves. The YJB are currently undertaking research and in order to inform ongoing discussions with

Page 103 Protected

the NPS and YOSs, including data collated from YJMIS and via a short questionnaire sent to all YOTs earlier in the summer. It is expected that the results from this will be circulated in December 2015.

4.4 The YJB further intend to provide a more robust and rich set of data, which will include, throughput, risks, as well as the wider roles and impact that probation staff may play. This additional data will then assist with assessing the efficacy of any resource modelling.

4.5 The NPS Reference Group continues to meet, however the YJB have also provided the opportunity for additional comments to be sent to [email protected].

5. List of Attachments

5.1 Appendix 1 – National Probation Service ‘E3 Blueprint’ Report

Page 104 X Page 105 Page

Effective. Efficient. Excellent. 2

Foreword 3

Chapter 1 Overview 4

Chapter 2 Courts 13

Chapter 3 Community Supervision 19

Chapter 4 Custody 24

Page 106 Page Chapter 5 Victims 28

X Chapter 6 Approved Premises 32

Chapter 7 Youth Offending Services (YOS) 37

Chapter 8 Management Structures 40

Chapter 9 Other Supporting Activity 44

Chapter 10 Implementation Approach 47

Chapter 11 Conclusion 48

Annex 1 E3 Programme Roles 50 3 Foreword

It is nearly eighteen months since the National Probation Service The Blueprint is in part about completing the job of Transforming (NPS) was formed. Throughout that time, our staff have delivered Rehabilitation (TR). TR formed the NPS as an entity but it did not consistently effective services to the courts, offenders and victims. establish common ways of working across the organisation. E3 That is a credit to the commitment of everybody. is also about preparing for the future challenges that we will face, including the continued expectation of reducing cost, driving But I know that maintaining delivery has involved a lot of hard work improvement, and creating an organisation that can support the and that there is more still to be done to make our systems work emerging shape of prison reform. better, to build our identity and to maximise our impact within the resources available to us. And we need to deliver our contribution To meet these challenges requires an organisation that has to the savings committed to as part of Transforming Rehabilitation established an evidence-based model of practice, applied to reinvest in those cases previously not managed by probation. consistently across the country, backed by a fair distribution of resource. The Blueprint sets us on a path to achieve that.

Page 107 Page As with any major change in how the system is organised, our immediate priority has been to stabilise the system. There is a long For some of you the proposals are likely to require changes to the list of small gains that have been achieved over the last year that way you work. For a very few, they may signal a more fundamental build the resilience of the NPS. Where issues have arisen, you’ve change in your role within the organisation. A great strength of increasingly shown the collective ability to fix them. probation staff is your commitment to the service and your ability to speak your mind. I encourage all of you to read the Blueprint and That is not to say that everything is perfect. I know from the time I’ve to work with us on how these proposals might best be refined and spent with probation staff that there are still frustrations. We must be implemented. realistic about the level of service that we can expect from others, but you have my commitment that we will continue to push for resolution to issues with central and other service provision. The focus on resolving the immediate issues we have faced as an organisation has necessarily meant our concentration has been on COLIN ALLARS what we do and how we do it, rather than thinking about the type Director of Probation of organisation that we want to create. That is the shift we need now to make. The proposals set out in this document paint a picture of what service delivery across the NPS will look like, and how we will shape ourselves for the future. 4

Chapter 1 Overview

The National Probation Service (NPS) was created in June 2014 as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme. The NPS brought together parts of 35 former Probation Trusts to form a new organisation with over 9,000 staff and a caseload of 90,000 offenders. The NPS, as part of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is a national organisation covering England and Wales, with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for NOMS overseeing the entire NPS delivery structure. However, the management arrangements for the NPS in England and Wales vary in acknowledgement of the distinct differences in the delivery landscape. Page 108 Page

X In Wales many of the areas of work necessary to make communities 1 safer and improve reoffending rates are devolved to the Welsh Government. This includes housing, substance misuse, physical and Overview mental health services, education, skills and training, child and adult safeguarding and local government (community safety). NOMS in Wales was established to reflect this unique situation. The Director of NOMS in Wales has overarching responsibility for the delivery of all of NOMS services in Wales, including direct responsibility for the NPS and public sector prisons and contract management responsibilities for privately contracted prison HMP Parc and the Wales Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). In England, the Director of Probation has direct responsibility for the delivery of probation services. Responsibility for public sector prisons and contract management in England sits with other directors within NOMS. 5

With the creation of the NPS in England and Wales, we inherited a • Effectiveness in better delivering on both our performance positive legacy from the former trusts of high performance which we targets and securing the outcomes of reduced reoffending have, to your great credit, maintained over the last year. The harder and public protection. We have successfully maintained legacy is that we have also inherited significant differences in how performance throughout a period of sustained change. That we do our job, how many people do it at what level, and at what is a huge achievement and is credit to the professionalism cost. And, of course Transforming Rehabilitation has fundamentally and commitment of our staff. But feedback from staff and changed the operating model for probation. partners as well as recommendations in recent audit and inspections have shown us there are opportunities to further There are differences in the way court reports are prepared, the improve service delivery services provided to victims, the contributions we make to youth offending teams, how approved premises are managed and • Efficiency in ensuring that every penny we spend makes resourced, and the types of cases managed by Probation Officers the greatest impact. We need to find ways to reduce what (PO) and Probation Services Officers (PSO). it costs to deliver services to offenders while ensuring that we continue to protect the public and reduce reoffending. As a national organisation we need to address these inconsistencies The relative efficiency of former Probation Trusts varied to be able to provide a quality, equitably resourced public service Page 109 Page significantly. We are committed to using the opportunity of across England and Wales. We have been working with the creating a national service to improve the overall efficiency Performance and Analysis Group in NOMS to develop a resource of the organisation. Our proposals will deliver our contribution allocation model that builds on the tried and tested Metropolitan Area towards savings for reinvestment in the additional offenders Capacity Model that was previously used by a number of Probation now being supervised by probation. But they will also Trusts. The model analyses the case load and activity within offender improve the quality of our provision management and courts and will allow an equitable distribution of staff and resources throughout the National Probation Service. • Excellence in the way that we operate as an organisation Getting the most from service delivery is in the interests of staff, and the outcomes we deliver. Most former Probation Trusts offenders, victims, our partners, and the public as a whole. worked to the European Excellence Model (EFQM) and many had achieved 5 star ratings. Our long term ambition within The E3 Programme was created to define and implement the the NPS is to replicate those standards changes necessary to achieve a consistent way of working. E3 stands for Effectiveness, Efficiency and Excellence. Those three words define what we are trying to achieve through the programme. 6

So what does this mean for us? Our proposals are based on evidence. E3 has looked at the evidence base on what is effective in reducing re-offending and risk of harm. It is worth recognising that much of what we do will not change. This has included a review of research into effective Probation Our purpose and the core of our work will not change. NPS staff will practice both in the UK and internationally, and discussion with HM continue to assist Courts and the Parole Board by preparing reports Inspectorate of Probation and the NOMS Serious Further Offence which incorporate accurate and evidence-based assessments (SFO) review team about their analysis of good practice. Even more and appropriate proposals. We will continue to work with the importantly we have worked with and involved experienced probation NPS caseload of mainly sexual and violent offenders, focussing professionals in the development of all of these proposals. on reducing their risk of harm and enabling them to avoid further In applying consistency we will also want to preserve the local offending. We will use Approved Premises (AP) to monitor and responsivity and partnership work that has been the driving force support the most dangerous of these cases. Our unique contribution of so much innovation over the last few years. That will continue to multi-agency partnerships such as MAPPA, MARAC and Prevent to be true, not least through the evolving relationships with the 21 will remain. We will work with victims to ensure that their voice Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Our aim through is heard. We will fulfil our statutory duty to contribute to Youth this programme is to become an organisation that is ‘consistently Page 110 Page Offending Services (YOS). innovative’. Consistent in that we work to an agreed and equitable We also recognise that most of the proposals that we outline in this structure and that our processes and practice are founded on document are not new. They are delivery models that are already evidence. Innovative in that we provide our managers and staff operating in parts of the NPS, and which were in place under with the opportunity to utilise their professional experience in the Probation Trusts. We know that they work. We also know that they way we work, including with local partners and in contributing to will release staff time and resource. the organisation’s continuous improvement. This model provides scope for flexibility to operate within different areas, including Wales We are committed to ensuring that any proposed changes to service reflecting the uniqueness of the devolved delivery landscape, and the delivery have been made with due regard to our Public Sector NOMS in Wales focus on increased integration of delivery of offender Equality Duty [PSED]. We acknowledge that any changes to service management services across custody and the community. delivery has the potential to impact positively or negatively on both service users and staff groups of particular protected characteristics. The intention of the E3 programme and this Blueprint is to show due care in identifying possible impacts and where necessary highlighting activity that should take place to either promote positive impact or mitigate against possible negative impact of proposals. We will continue to recognise differential need and are committed to ensuring services meet that need effectively. 7

It was always recognised that there would need to be change in 1.1 Vision how some of our work is undertaken and by whom, once the NPS had been established. The changes will for some staff be significant. The core role and purpose of the NPS is consistent with the 100 year They will remove some roles from the organisation and change what history of probation in England and Wales. Our role is to protect the we ask of others, in particular PSO grades. We intend to create public, support victims and reduce reoffending. generic job descriptions for core roles (Case Administrator (CA), We, alongside the rest of NOMS, have a simple vision: Senior Probation Officer (SPO), Head of Cluster/Function, PO, PSO), and these will be formally evaluated through the established job “Preventing Victims by Changing Lives”. evaluation process. These will cover the range of roles at each grade. Everything that we do should be with the aim of contributing to the They will support our goal of flexible and multi-skilled staff. delivery of that vision, whether that is in the advice we provide to For staff who read this document and see proposals that may change sentencers, the support we provide to victims, the approach we take their role we would offer reassurance. It is important to stress that we to the management and rehabilitation of offenders, the relationships do not believe compulsory redundancies will be necessary to achieve we build with partner agencies, or the way that we support our staff our ambitions. The NPS caseload is higher than we had planned to improve their ability to deliver.

Page 111 Page for. Implementation of the changes described here will release the As an organisation we have described ‘how’ we go about delivering capacity to absorb that work among our existing workforce, but in on that vision through a series of organisational principles some parts of the NPS and for some staff it will mean operating in a new way. • We believe in the capacity of people to change. We know that through excellent professional practice, strong We have called this document a ‘Blueprint’ because it sets out partnership working and by making clear what is expected for staff and partners an early and high level plan for what service of offenders, we can help them change their lives delivery in the NPS will look like in the future. This Blueprint sets a high level direction for the future shape of service delivery in the NPS. • We are accountable. We are proud of our role in protecting We are sharing it in the interests of transparency and to give staff the public which is always at the heart of our decisions and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on those proposals. We are collaborative. We work with individuals and with We want your help to support us in best making the shift to this new • national and local services to create a real and sustained way of working. Significant further work is required to translate these difference design principles into a clear organisational structure. • We are effective. Our work is focused on delivering results and building on our skills and experience. Our work is based on evidence of what works, and on continuous improvement. This means embracing evidence and innovation to provide a service the public can be confident in 8

• We are fair. We value the diversity of our staff, our We have not considered sex offender programmes as a separate communities and individuals, knowing that this strengthens review is currently underway. We have not included the role of our ability to be responsive and effect real and long-term Probation staff in prisons either. The Offender Management in change in how people live their lives custody review is taking place alongside the E3 programme. Its design principles focus on achieving better rehabilitation of • We are professional. We trust and support our staff to make offenders through the effective targeting of resources. These are the best decisions for public safety, investing in their ongoing clearly congruent with the aims of E3. While the full details and development, encouraging innovation and always striving for implementation plan are still being worked through, we do know that excellence a key design principle is that responsibility for Offender Management The aim of E3 is to help us better deliver against that corporate vision of those in custody should sit within the prison. It is likely that the and organisational principles. programme will lead to changes in probation work with prisoners, and we will need to ensure that E3 is fully aligned to these. 1.2 E3 Approach Sex offender programmes and probation work in prisons will be E3 has focused on six priority areas: reviewed as part of a second wave of E3 activity. That will also Page 112 Page include a more detailed review of both administration and corporate • Court Delivery support functions across the NPS. • Community Supervision We describe in more detail later in the document what changes • Custody there will be in each of the six priority areas and how we propose to implement them. These changes will mean that many of us will have • Victims Services to work differently and for some staff the changes will be significant. • Approved Premises Our new way of working will need to be underpinned by technology and processes that help staff in their job, and training support that Youth Offending Services • will bring the best out of our people. Our new way of working will also These areas represent the NPS core business, where there is most be based on a number of principles that have shaped the proposals resource and where there is the greatest need to achieve consistency in this document. of delivery and operational model. They have the most impact in These are: relation to the public, victims, offenders and staff. 1. The NPS will have a national, equitable approach to grading, role profiles and job descriptions. Staff doing the same job will work to the same job description, and receive the same level of support and core remuneration. 9

2. The NPS workforce will be multi-skilled with the ability to 8. The outcome of discussions and decisions about work across the organisation in different roles within the design, implementation and review will consider equality same pay band. There will be specialist teams but staff implications with the intention of mitigating any negative will be encouraged to move between teams on a regular impact on staff or service user groups covered by one or basis to preserve and develop their range of professional more protected characteristic. These considerations will skills and experience. be recorded and acted upon as part of the programmes’ Equality Analysis process. 3. NPS staff must be competent to carry out their work and remain professionally accountable for what they do. 9. The NPS will deliver against our commitments as set out Recognising the professional skills of staff, the emphasis in the TR Target Operating Model (TOM) and our annual for supervisors will move from routine countersigning of Service Level Agreement with NOMS. work to the provision of professional support and quality assurance underpinned by dip-sampling and quality audits. 1.3 Proposals 4. The NPS will be an organisation that continues to invest A summary of the proposals is outlined below: in the continuous professional development of our staff. Page 113 Page 1.3.1 Court delivery 5. The NPS will have a core delivery model underpinned We propose that court work is resourced to maximise the proportion by appropriate distribution of resource. This does not of court reports completed on the day consistent with meeting the mean “one size fits all” and variations to the model will needs of sentencers. be agreed where this reflects geography or local offender needs, based on evidence. • There will be dedicated court services teams who will prepare all the Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) requested in the courts 6. The NPS will ensure value for money in everything that they service and will conduct all the enforcement work of we do, while continuing to prioritise public protection. their court 7. We will ensure that the work undertaken in the NPS is The proportion of same-day short format reports will be evidence-based and meets a high standard of quality. • maximised, with an ambition ultimately of up to 90% of court There will be a focus on continuous improvement, and reports being completed on the day service innovation. • PSOs will form the majority of staff within the court teams, with PSRs reserved to POs only in certain specified circumstances • The RSR/CAS process will be streamlined to reduce duplication and support timely allocation 10

• An effective proposal framework will be developed to inform • The quality and timeliness of the parole process will be the recommendations of PSR writers improved. A quality audit framework will be developed. OMs will have greater access to Public Protection Unit 1.3.2 Community Supervision Database (PPUD) to enable smoother information sharing. We propose clarifying the approach to community supervision. There will be a pilot to test whether routine Senior Probation Officer (SPO) countersignature of all Parole • A new seven category tiering framework will be rolled out Reports is necessary. We will press the case with partners which better reflects the risk and need profile of NPS cases so that OMs will contribute to most parole hearings via • Cases will be managed by an individual officer video link or telephone • High risk cases will be managed by POs. PSOs who have • The NPS will explore Multi Agency Public Protection undertaken the appropriate level of training will hold low and Arrangements (MAPPA) involvement starting earlier in some medium risk cases custodial sentences as a means of ensuring that prisoners undertake necessary work before their parole date • The Offender Supervisor role where it exists will be removed Page 114 Page in favour of the delegation of certain specified tasks in ii. Recall support of the Offender Manager (OM) • The proposals aim to make sure that alternatives to recall • The use of group supervision in certain specified are considered where suitable circumstances will be explored • Staff will be expected to use measures short of recall 1.3.3 Custody where it is safe to do so, e.g. Secretary of State warning We propose changes that will streamline processes and improve • Whilst ACO/Head countersignature of recalls remains quality in parole work, recalls and the management of foreign national the norm, additional arrangements to support this will be prisoners. explored and piloted i. Parole • Prompt use of MAPPA to drive risk management and sentence planning will be used to ensure that where it is • Our proposals aim to make the parole process more assessed as safe re-release will be pursued efficient and make effective and appropriate use of release provisions • To reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, executive re-release will be used effectively in appropriate circumstances 11

iii. Foreign National Prisoners (FNPs) 1.3.6 Youth Offending Services (YOS) • It is proposed that FNPs will be managed by specialist Subject to the outcome of the Youth Justice Review, we propose divisional/regional teams potentially co-located with Home standardising the provision of resources and clarifying the role of Office Immigration and Enforcement (HOIE) and prison staff. seconded staff. This proposal is dependent on the outcome of the Offender Management in Custody review and plans for expansion of • A national framework will be agreed with the Youth Justice electronic monitoring, and also requires clarification of the Board (YJB) which clarifies the NPS responsibility in Youth numbers of cases affected Offending work and the expectations of secondments 1.3.4 Victims • The framework will include a resource model based on the workload of each Youth Offending Team, staff will be We propose harmonising the processes and staffing of victim seconded in accordance with this contact work. • NPS staff seconded to the YOS will work with high risk • A national case management system for victim work will be cases and with cases who will be transferred to NPS when

Page 115 Page rolled out they are 18 • Victim administration will be delivered through specialised 1.3.7 Management structure hubs either at national or divisional level We propose introducing more consistency in the management • A framework will be developed to reflect differing levels structures in use across the NPS. of Victim Liaison Officer (VLO) activity in different cases • Each Local Delivery Unit (LDU) cluster will be managed by • VLOs will work in specialist teams, the VLO role will be a Head of Cluster with direct line management responsibility reviewed and evaluated for SPOs 1.3.5 Approved Premises (AP) • Additional support will be provided for complex LDU clusters We propose a standardised approach to referrals, staffing and the • Case Administrators will be line managed by Senior Case regime of AP. Administrators • All AP will become accredited as enabling environments • Administrative support will be provided to reduce time spent by senior staff on administrative tasks • A standard referral process will be established, using an electronic referral form in nDelius • Staff roles and grades will be standardised 12

Percentage of NPS Costs 2015

Sex Offenders 3% Victims 2% YOTS 5%

Approved Premises 12%

Community Supervision 41%

Prison (Pre Release) 17% Page 116 Page

Court 20%

This chart illustrates the breakdown of expenditure on the E3 priority areas. 13

Chapter 2 Courts

2.1 What does the model look like now? Following Transforming Rehabilitation the NPS has continued to provide a service to the courts but has felt the pressure of the new demands of providing a service to the CRCs and in particular the introduction of the Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool and Case Allocation System (CAS) processes. Changes to speed up court processes have also impacted on expectations of probation. Whilst the former trusts all provided court services (as per the specifications), the NPS inherited many different ways of delivering them and a wide range of costs. In some former trusts the work was

Page 117 Page largely delivered on the day in court by PSOs whereas others relied X heavily on POs preparing reports away from court. The range of what 2 is delivered (SDR, FDR, Oral), differing court team grade mix and Courts variations in cost per report are significant. The E3 Court delivery proposal originates in the work led by the NPS Deputy Director for Courts and the Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group, to create a national model for court work delivery following the creation of the NPS.

2.2 What do we want the future model to look like? The main objective of this set of proposals is to take the best of what is done in the NPS and to create a court delivery service aligned to the courts reform programme (and the NPS contractual requirements) which is known for its quality, reliability and value for money. We will continue to offer the same services to courts but do so using our resources more efficiently and effectively, and in a more consistent manner across England and Wales. 14

This will mean dedicated court teams doing the work that flows from The E3 proposal concludes with an exploration of removing the their court, delivering as many reports as possible on the day, mainly management of courts from the LDUs and keeping it within a delivered by appropriately trained PSOs. Reports will be delivered to separate divisional line management. This was a response to the a consistently high quality and in a format commensurate with their view that without this the courts would always struggle to deliver complexity, with SDRs reserved for those including assessments of best practice, potentially under-resourced and lacking the resilience dangerousness. to deal with staffing gaps or spikes in workload.

CRCs will receive their allocations on time, enforcement and report 2.3 End state proposals writing practice will be consistent across the NPS and variations will reflect only local geography. There are eight proposals within this work package, as follows: The Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group wanted to explore 2.3.1 Dedicated court services teams will prepare all the PSRs using the model for report delivery in Wales as a potential national requested in the courts they service and will conduct all the approach. There is evidence that it offers excellent performance enforcement work of their court. with on the day reports nearing 90%, largely written by PSOs. This The proposal will allow for the development of improved report

Page 118 Page suggests excellent value for money and a good fit with Transforming writing, with appropriate and consistent advice and prepared at Summary Justice. Colleagues in Wales are satisfied that the quality the most efficient level. The teams will be backed by dedicated of reports is good. administrators. The proposal is dependent upon the NPS obtaining sufficient space in court, the realisation of the Digital Courts The Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group also wished programme, as well as access to appropriate IT and information from to explore the model for enforcement practice in London which other agencies. NPS senior and local managers will continue to work manages enforcement through a hub supported by dedicated with our criminal justice and other partners making the case for our administrators. This was in response to the need to create a national requirements and ensuring that it is understood that without these model to replace a variety of legacy trust arrangements. The driver we will be constrained. for this was the view that this would lead to improved quality and efficiency and probably a reduction in costs. There is, however, an It is recognised that there is a risk that staff in court teams could acceptance that some areas of England and Wales are better suited become detached from the LDU and could find it difficult to move to a hub approach than others and we recognise that geographical back to offender management but the risk can be mitigated by challenges will need to be considered. consistent and appropriate mobility expectations across the NPS, as referenced earlier. 15

The proposal is that court teams will prepare all reports and will rely 2.3.3 The maximum number (likely to be up to 75%) of reports on information from Offender Managers as they prepare reports on will be prepared by PSOs. known offenders in NPS and the CRCs. There are good arguments We therefore propose that appropriately trained PSOs will form the for and against this, but a focus group of NPS operational courts majority of staff within the court teams, with PSRs reserved to POs staff did not support the alternative of Offender Managers in the NPS only in certain specified circumstances. Clearly in some parts of the writing pre-sentence reports on these cases, instead preferring that country this is already in place and is working well. Indeed it is the Offender Managers prepare progress reports which they then pass to practice in Wales which combines excellent on the day productivity the court team. with extensive use of PSOs (with a PO backup) on which this proposal is based. 2.3.2 Our ‘customer’, the Courts is clear that they wanted to deliver a higher proportion of same day delivery reports. In some parts of the country it is POs who are principally in court and The NPS has thus far not set a target for the proportion of court the suggestion that court teams should be predominantly POs was reports to be completed on the day. The proposal is that, the considered. It was rejected because Wales offers a very persuasive, challenges notwithstanding, there should be an NPS target. So cost-effective model based on PSOs delivering good quality work, we propose that we should aspire to 90% of all reports to be allowing them to exercise their skills to the full.

Page 119 Page short format and on the day, (70% oral, 20% written) with only the remainder remitted as Standard Delivery Reports. (It is recognised PSOs will use their skills properly, working to the maximum of their that this is ambitious, more so for some divisions so this is an end- role boundary. This will allow the focus of POs to be on the more state target and would be unlikely to be realised before April 2017). complex work. However it is recognised that in some divisions not all PSOs have the skills to deliver the work envisaged. • In the short term it is proposed that 75% of reports should be short format and prepared on the day, (55% oral, 20% Our initial review of the PSO job description and role boundaries written) with 10% of reports remitted as SDRs and the supports the view that this proposal is achievable. remaining 15% short format reports prepared later The proposal will require a period of adjustment to allow some PSOs To achieve these targets effective local systems to provide required to be trained and develop the necessary experience to operate in information in a timely manner will be essential. this new context. For some divisions, a re-profile of the workforce will also be necessary. PSOs will prepare reports on a wide range of cases. They will not be expected to complete reports on sex offenders and we will not require them to write reports on domestic abuse or high risk and complex cases until they have been trained to do so. 16

2.3.4 Administrative hubs will be created for courts. • Reconsidering when the static and dynamic versions of RSR The Court Strategy and Operations ACO group was keen to explore should be used how the administration of court work could be delivered more We will continue this work collaboratively with colleagues across the efficiently given the changed and increased volume of NPS work at system recognising that any decision to change arrangements may court. The original proposal was that administration for court work impact on others. would best be provided through a hub. 2.3.6 Effective proposal framework. What is now envisaged is not a physical hub but one which is virtual To support the development of consistent good quality reports we and possibly combined with other areas of activity. It is suggested propose that the NPS will develop an effective proposal framework though that this proposal should be deferred until later so that the to be used by staff preparing reports. This will be based upon NPS can respond to later developments with the digital courts the work developed by Commissioning Strategy Group (CSG) on without a second wave of major disruption to the administrative staff effectiveness, build upon existing proposal frameworks and will who support court work delivery. support demand management strategies. 2.3.5 Streamlining RSR/CAS. 2.3.7 Divisional enforcement hubs.

Page 120 Page The proposal is that the process of determining whether an offender It has been proposed that enforcement activity will be grouped into should be allocated to the NPS or the CRC and of notifying divisional hubs supported by specialist teams including enforcement colleagues in prison about this should be streamlined. This is a officers. This role, covering all magistrates’ enforcement work across complex issue and the ideal resolution will allow staff to complete the a division could produce efficiency of process and scale, particularly RSR as quickly and efficiently as possible, reducing double-keying in a metropolitan area. and duplication but allowing CRC and prison colleagues to get the information they need in time. In some rural areas due to travel distance and the lower volume of enforcement cases, generic court teams are arguably best placed The RSR is a predictor based on the most current and relevant to manage all work flowing from court including the administration research into future behaviour. It was originally intended to be used of enforcement work. not just for allocation but also for ongoing risk assessment. E3 has been considering ways in which the process could be made more Part of the proposal is to have administrative hubs (either virtual or efficient while still providing sufficient information to allocate cases. physical units) to act as a single point of contact for all divisional No final decisions have been made. The types of options being enforcement work. However, changes resulting from digital courts considered are: may mean hubs are not fit for purpose in future and would need to be changed soon after their inception. • Reviewing the format of the risk assessment in the CAS The NPS needs to examine whether other administrative work could • Reducing the information required in cases that are also be undertaken from a hub, making the hub more resilient. automatically allocated to the NPS 17

Pilots have been established in the North West (NW) and North East This model does though risk detaching LDUs from their courts so (NE) divisions. The NW pilot has an administration hub and enforcement they will be unable to draw on court staff when under pressure (and officer role, a model which has worked well in London for some time. vice versa). Using the resource flexibly may be challenging over The NE pilot has administrative hubs with a generic court PSO role large geographical areas. External dependencies (e.g. offender undertaking enforcement in courts, a rural model. The pilots are still management in custody review, court closures) may impact on court in their early stages and evaluation is not yet complete. structures and spans of control and significant changes to NPS governance structures now may be premature. While the outcome of the pilots is not yet clear this is not yet a confirmed proposal but it is included for information. The E3 board This option is being piloted in the North West as is the alternative will review the outcome of the pilots before making a final decision model in the South West and London (in effect the status quo). By about whether or not this should be a formal proposal. Meanwhile, January 2016 the interim results of the NW pilot of this model will the work being undertaken to review job descriptions will include the be available. It is recommended that following this there will be a Enforcement Officer role. As stated earlier, there is currently a variation further review and the option will either be confirmed as a proposal in the pay “banding” of Enforcement Officers with some at pay band or withdrawn. 3 and others at band 4. Our view is that the Enforcement Officer role 2.4 Impact on service delivery Page 121 Page can appropriately be undertaken by band 3 staff. This is subject to the review of the job description and the job evaluation process. Our approach is consistent with commitments being made by all 2.3.8 A review of the management structure for courts. Criminal Justice partners to improve speed and quality of delivery. There has been discussion about arrangements for the management Preparing more reports on the day depends on getting the of courts and specifically an option that courts could be led by a information the officer needs to make an informed judgement about dedicated Head of Function outside the LDU/Cluster structure. The risk and a professional proposal. This enables us to protect potential rationale for this consideration is that it will ensure centrally agreed victims and to support the delivery of speedy justice, something strategy and policy is implemented quickly and consistently across cited frequently by victims as important. This is a particular issue in the country and is not vulnerable to local interpretation or local domestic abuse cases. resource pressures. We will continue to work with the police to make sure that court This could improve the resourcing of court work and management, teams are able to get the information they need (on the day) to and allow managers to move resources within the court work prepare reports. We appreciate that safeguarding information is function, without relying on local LDU/Cluster offender management difficult to get on the day in most areas but it is rarely crucial to the staff. In theory this is possible now but in practice does not happen. sentencing decision. 18

Our proposals mean that the skills of PSOs will be fully used, while The complement of PSOs varies significantly across the NPS divisions utilising POs for those reports that only they can prepare. The and some may need to increase the number of PSOs to implement proposals will improve NPS productivity and fewer people will be our proposed new way of working. Given that the NPS is not using sentenced without reports. Clearly this requires having enough PSOs as fully as possible and there is considerable pressure on POs, appropriately trained PSOs in each division (see below). these proposals will benefit both grades of staff allowing PSOs to fulfil their potential and POs to concentrate on the work that only they have We believe that dedicated court teams will provide an improved the qualification, training and skills to deliver. service and relieve the burden on field teams by preparing reports as efficiently and effectively as possible. We will need to guard against Excellent administration will underpin the successful delivery of the the risks that staff in field teams lose their PSR writing skills and proposals and while it is possible to implement some administrative become less familiar with court processes and that the court staff changes for enforcement (virtual hubs where these do not exist become detached from the field and find it hard to return to offender already), it would be a mistake to engage in major administrative management work. change now, before the impact of digital courts is clear. In the next phase of E3 an administrative review will be needed to reshape how A national proposal framework (evidence-based) will support the and what we do to work alongside the changed court service.

Page 122 Page delivery of a consistent, effective and efficient service in court ossacr England and Wales. 2.6 Conclusion 2.5 Impact on staff We believe these proposals will enable the NPS to continue to provide the level and quality of service required by courts and CRCs These proposals will have the greatest impact upon PSOs. To deliver within the financial and staffing resources available to us. more reports they will need to undertake training (beyond what is in the current VQ3 qualification) so that they are able to conduct risk assessments (including on domestic abuse cases) and are able to complete OASys. There is the potential for some modules from the forthcoming Community Justice Learning programme (which will replace the PQF) to meet this need. This is something which is being explored further. 19

Chapter 3 Community Supervision

3.1 What does the model look like now? The NPS directly manages offenders who pose the highest risk of harm and who have committed the most serious crimes. At any one time approximately 40% of our caseload (42,500 offenders) are managed in the community. The current operating model for community supervision (including pre-release work) varies across England and Wales and is reliant on approaches developed in the legacy Probation Trusts. The existing tiering framework does not adequately reflect the new NPS case profile and work was required to better categorise the caseload to

Page 123 Page enable appropriate and proportionate allocation of resources. In X addition there is varying practice in relation to the allocation of work 3 to Probation Services Officers (PSOs) which is inefficient. Community Supervision This proposal has been informed by a review of the current tiering framework in consultation with practitioner groups, and a review of role boundaries and resource allocation processes to ensure appropriate and efficient allocation of work. The final outcome of the Offender Management in Custody review is likely to impact upon pre-release work. 20

3.2 What do we want the future model to look like? 3.3.2 An individual casework approach- this model requires that one to one supervision is generally delivered by the individual with The main driver for this work-package proposal is to produce a management responsibility for the case. This promotes the concept standard operating model for community supervision which delivers of continuity, acknowledges the importance of the relationship a high quality, effective and value for money service. It supports the between the worker and the offender and reduces inefficiencies that development of a consistent approach to workload, with equitable can arise from the transfer of information between those involved spans of control and a fair distribution of work. The design of the which is required when working to an Offender Manager/Offender operating model aims to ensure that the NPS provides opportunities Supervisor model. There are also clear lines of accountability for innovation and scope for improved service delivery and between Offender Managers and team managers. partnership collaboration. Given the profile of the NPS caseload any future operating model Diagram 1 – Community Supervision Tiering Model needs to ensure consistent and defensible allocation decisions whilst Risk of Serious Harm maintaining flexibility in the scope of the Probation Services Officer role. A unified approach supported by an appropriate training and D1 C1 B1 A D2 + Additional C2 + Additional B2 + Additional Page 124 Page quality framework is required to provide organisational assurance and Factors* Factors* Factors* support individual practitioner development and effective practice. Final tier MAPPA calculated D2 C2 B2 Level 2s following RSR 0-2.9% RSR 3–6.8% RSR 6.9%+ and The NPS future operating model builds upon the E3 design principles completion or or or and learning from best practice in former Probation Trusts. The of ISP OGRS 0-74% OGRS 75-89% OGRS 90-100% Level 3s or or or opportunities provided by being part of a national service will be Low (or no) Medium RoSH High/Very High maximised, including our ability to promote effective practice RoSH RoSH throughout the organisation, provide staff development and learning Monitor Change Control and influence partners to improve outcomes for offenders. Offender Management & Offender Supervision Activity 3.3 End state proposals *Additional factors MAPPA cat 1 level 1, Child protection plan, IOM, vulnerability 3.3.1 The introduction of a revised tiering/case allocation model (defined by ‘yes’ on OASys section 8, present risk of suicide, self-harm or based on static risk factors and clinical judgement to better reflect vulnerability) the NPS caseload profile (diagram 1). This framework will determine the grade of Offender Manager most appropriate for the case. 21

3.3.3 PSOs will manage some medium risk of serious harm cases 3.3.5 We are also keen to explore the potential for volunteers to (up to C2 on the new tiering framework) supported by a relevant support the work of the NPS. The use of volunteers was a feature in learning and development pathway. This will provide opportunities some former Probation Trusts and provided an additional resource to for PSO grade staff to be involved in more complex cases than is support OMs and interventions staff in the supervision of offenders. the case in some areas currently, but also provides safeguards to Becoming a probation volunteer was for some a positive route ensure reasonable and defensible decisions regarding allocation. into future employment in the service. Given the profile of the NPS There will be a period of transition to ensure appropriate training and caseload it is acknowledged that any steps to utilise volunteers professional support is established. needs to be a carefully considered and managed process but we are supportive of this as a principle for further exploration. Given the 3.3.4 The model will include ‘case management support’ for Offender size of the NPS there may be economies achieved through a national Managers with a range of specific tasks undertaken by other relevant approach and managing volunteers/mentors may be best achieved grades to enhance offender supervision. Further work will be through contracting with a provider, as is planned for circles of undertaken to identify relevant tasks that support the aims of the support for sex offenders. E3 programme, examples could include; 3.3.6 Targeted delivery of supervision in groups in certain Completion of referral forms (utilising available assessments Page 125 Page • circumstances will be further explored. It is acknowledged that any completed by the case manager) use of group work based methods needs to be carefully considered. • Gathering of information from other professionals/ agencies There are a number of possible options available in relation to the use (as directed within the Risk Management Plan completed by of group based work that could be considered: the offender manager) • The group delivery of intervention packages that are specific • Sharing of information with other professionals/ agencies (as to the NPS cohort (i.e. not provided by the CRC on the rate directed within the Risk Management Plan completed by the card). These might include packages that address stalking offender manager) behaviour, housing for sex offenders etc • Attendance at multi-agency meetings (not MAPPA or Child • The group delivery of intervention packages by the NPS Protection Conferences - the offender manager should attend where this can be done on a more cost-effective basis these) than is provided via the rate card, or by accessing existing community resource, e.g. by e-learning • Accompanying the offender manager on Home Visits in complex cases The work on group-based delivery remains in development and further detail will become available as the design work progresses. 22

3.4 Impact on service delivery 3.5 Impact on staff The individual casework model has significant overlap with the The NPS will be an organisation founded on the continuous current approach to service delivery and is well understood by professional development of all its staff. While Probation Officers service users and partner organisations. Having a single named will remain the core operational grade of staff within the delivery of offender manager responsible for the management and supervision community supervision, Probation Services Officers will have a clear of the case will result in increased contact time, facilitating a strong role in community supervision, including the offender management professional relationship between the worker and the service user. of some medium risk of serious harm cases. Some efficiencies will be realised through the rebalancing of cases and the more effective Research evidence supports the importance of continuity of case use of PSO grade staff in some areas. management. HMIP reviews (Hanson and White 2006, Rice 2006) record the potentially serious risks of “building in discontinuities”. The model seeks to ensure flexibility in the scope of the PSO role, Kemshall (2008) notes that where risk is assessed and managed responding to the individual characteristics, risks and needs of the by different staff, the result can be failures in the delivery of risk offender. It is acknowledged that there will be a training requirement management. In more therapeutic terms, the end-to end model to underpin the introduction of this approach given the expansion

Page 126 Page set out in the Offender Management Model (2006) and reaffirmed in PSO work, albeit that training needs may not be consistent although in a different form in the recent Offender Management across divisions. A training needs analysis will be undertaken and review (2015) is consistent with research findings that long term a clear learning and development pathway established. New routes contact with a single worker is beneficial (Partridge 2004 quoted including completion of VQ3 Diploma in Probation Practice and in McNeill and Whyte 2007). Further, research evidence supports where relevant modules from the forthcoming Community Justice the importance of clear accountability, so that it is clear in every Learning programme, will be agreed to ensure defensible decisions case who is doing what and at which point. This is supported in and appropriate professional development. Sheppard’s review of failures in mental health cases (D Sheppard quoted in Kemshall 2008). The NOMS SFO team have noted that The model is well understood by NPS operational staff and this will in SFO cases which are managed by a PO as OM and PSO as OS, represent an incremental, rather than a radical change. There will there is a tendency for both to cite a lack of clarity about their roles be clarity about the types of cases that are suitable for allocation in the case. to Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers. The case manager will be responsible for the offender management and The individualised approach lends itself to flexibility in working supervision of the case with opportunities to access a range of arrangements e.g. mobile working and arguably enables a more task-based support and group-based activity in some cases. responsive approach to individual needs.

3.6 Conclusion Community supervision is a core part of our business and our priority is to deliver an effective and value for money service to the public in order to reduce re-offending and help to build safer communities. The NPS future operating model seeks to build on the principles of effective, evidence-based practice and utilise learning from all parts of the organisation to inform a national, coherent and effective delivery of services to offenders which is affordable and sustainable into the future. In summary our proposals are; • A revised tiering model to better reflect the NPS caseload • An individual casework approach Page 127 Page • PSOs to manage some medium risk of serious harm cases supported by a learning and development pathway • Exploration of the concept of ‘case management support’ across a range of specific tasks • Targeted delivery of supervision in groups where appropriate 24

Chapter 4 Custody

4.1 What does the model look like now? Work with offenders in custody will continue to be a large proportion of NPS work. The NPS aim in relation to Parole, Recall and Foreign National Prisoners (FNP) work will continue to be work undertaken by PO and PSO grades according to the risk level they are able to manage. The NPS caseload predominantly comprises of offenders serving lengthy custodial sentences for serious violence and sexual offences including Foreign National Prisoners serving 12 months or more and subject to deportation. Page 128 Page

X Since 1st June 2014, the NPS has had responsibility for the 4 completion of all parole reports. These reports are critical in enabling the Parole Board to decide who may be safely released into the Custody community on parole licence to the NPS. The NPS has access to the Public Protection Unit (PPUD) database designed to support the General Parole Process (GPP) and used by all the agencies involved in the GPP, i.e. PPCS, establishments, and the Parole Board. However, the NPS current access is limited and we use it predominantly to identify and plan for Parole Reports. A pilot in Wales allows Offender Managers to have enhanced system access to improve the availability of information and documentation. The current process for assuring the quality of parole reports consists of SPO countersignature of all reports and retrospective audits of a sample of reports. These measures have not produced the necessary improvements in the quality of the assessments which underpin the reports. 25

If offenders on licence are recalled to custody their cases are 4.2 What do we want the future model to look like? reviewed routinely by the Parole Board at set intervals which can involve an oral hearing. The Public Protection Casework Section We intend to focus on the early part of the sentence to ensure that (PPCS) has the power of executive release without referral to the prisoners undertake work with the aim of reducing risk to make parole board where the OM supports this, however this has been release safe. A review of the timing of the MAPPA process will under used. Similarly, PI 24/2015 encourages practitioners to look be undertaken to ensure the most effective and comprehensive for creative and responsive ways to secure compliance short of recall assessment is available when needed to inform targeted sentence (whether in the form of additional restrictive measures or supportive planning and improve information sharing. protective measures) and we are yet to see its full effect given its We will make the best use of the interventions in custody and those recent implementation. eligible will be able to access them early in their sentence with The NPS work with Foreign National Prisoners is undertaken professionals involved in the case working together more effectively. differently across the divisions. Each division has a FNP single We intend to make better use of technology in all areas of work point of contact (SPOC) and this has improved information sharing with prisoners and in strengthening information sharing with other and links with Home Office Immigration Enforcement (HOIE) which agencies.

Page 129 Page reduces gaps in service delivery and ensures prisoners can access appropriate prison interventions pending the confirmation of their Following release, we will consider the use of alternatives to recall immigration status. Wider developments also impinge in this where this is feasible and appropriate to manage risk. area of practice, including use of electronic tags, and the recent We will enhance quality assurance of custody work by probation announcement of a prison in Jamaica for returning Jamaican staff, especially in respect of Parole and Recall reports and reviews. nationals. It is therefore important that the policy of the NPS, Prison Front loading quality assurance into the parole process will lead to Service and HOIE are closely aligned. better quality reports delivered on time so parole hearings are less Additionally as part of the court process, the NPS is required to likely to be adjourned as a result and there will be a corresponding inform the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) about increase in the release of suitable prisoners at first parole hearing. remand cases allowing checks on immigration status to be made We envisage working with colleagues in PPCS to maximise the use by HOIE. of telephone and video conferencing in more of our cases so that Offender Managers waste less time travelling to prison visits and oral hearings. 26

With regards to the recall of prisoners we have inherited different We believe that by improving the quality of parole reports we will approaches from the 35 trusts. Similarly, there are differences in the mitigate the risk of removing the bureaucratic routine SPO signature. review of risk assessment and sentence plans following return to custody, and access to interventions which need to be completed We also propose a wider use of ROTLs for attendance on accredited to facilitate and reduce risk, prior to release. programmes, where these are not available in prisons. Work with Foreign National Prisoners also needs to be harmonised We want to ensure a better use of PPUD information and an across the NPS, particularly focusing on enhancing joint working with improved process will enable us to have access to all the HOIE and prisons. We intend to standardise the work undertaken documentation to prepare and complete good quality parole reports with Foreign National Prisoners (FNP). on time. 4.3.2 Recall 4.3 End state proposals Our proposal is to improve the quality and timeliness of recall, 4.3.1 Parole thereby ultimately reducing the number of oral hearings. Additionally A proposal has been made to review when the MAPPA process when appropriate we want to use executive re-releases more effectively where release has been recommended and encourage

Page 130 Page should commence, to ensure that there is a robust and comprehensive risk assessment, risk management and sentence staff to be more creative in using alternatives to recall in appropriate plan available at the earliest opportunity. This will inform realistic cases. and achievable objectives and maximise opportunities for release at the first parole hearing in the right cases. This proposal will be explored further with operational colleagues and Head of MAPPA at NOMS. This is with a view to finding the best way of securing the outcomes the proposal seeks to achieve. This proposal would require changes to the statutory MAPPA guidance and it falls to the MAPPA Responsible Authorities National Steering Group (RANSG) to consult all agencies involved, including police forces and the Prison Service and to agree any proposed changes going forward. Our proposal is to improve the quality and timeliness of parole processes. To achieve this we will develop a Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) that will allow the parole board to flag up cases that do not meet the required quality standard, support the use of the Parole Manual and enable dip sampling of cases through the offender journey. Linked to this there will be new and regular parole and oral hearing training for Offender Managers. 27

4.3.3 Foreign National Prisoners Working with partners in a coordinated way will enable decisions We are exploring establishing specialist divisional units to be to be made much faster and provide a better quality report and responsible for the management of FNP who meet HOIE deportation information about offenders. An earlier, more comprehensive risk criteria and where possible, co-located models such as hubs assessment including access to interventions and intelligence sharing (physical or virtual). Using the IOM approach to better coordinate will improve service delivery for all offenders and in particular, for FNP. with HOIE and a specialised workforce will provide a more effective Specialist working in FNP hubs will improve staff knowledge and in way of managing this group of offenders. The Foreign National Unit turn have a positive impact on offenders. We will ensure that care would hold the responsibility for managing Foreign National Prisoners and priority is placed on training when staff move into areas during the course of their sentence, through to deportation and of specialised work. release. The unit would need to have direct links with local LDU/ Clusters within the division in order to arrange for the OM transfer 4.5 Impact on staff should the offender be released into the community. There is no change in the way staff are being asked to carry out the However, we have to work at a slower pace to allow for the Offender activities in relation to parole reports or recall. In both these areas of Management in Custody review to develop further before we can work a revised quality framework and the increased level of feedback Page 131 Page provide clearer details about FNP work. In the meantime a pilot FNP will enable continuous improvement in quality. unit (in Maidstone) in South East and East Region (SEER) will test out these proposals. Moreover, a comprehensive risk assessment and sentence plan that links to key professionals will support the aim of enabling more safe 4.4 Impact on service delivery release of prisoners at an earlier point in their sentence. The QAF process will ensure that the author has a full understanding Improved use of PPUD will enable better tracking of parole reports of the case and takes into account the victim’s perspective to and enable staff to respond more promptly to any difficulties in produce a good quality report. This will enable the Parole Board to preparing these. make an informed and rigorous assessment of risk without having to seek additional information. This will ultimately mean that parole A greater use of telephone and video conferences will reduce staff eligible prisoners or executive re-releases are released without travel time to attend oral hearings. This will of course be dependent delay, which will in turn have a positive impact in respect of prison on suitable telephone and video equipment being available for staff population pressures. to use and Parole Board and prison support. There will be some more complex cases where the attendance of the OM in person is appropriate. 28

Chapter 5 Victims

5.1 What does the model look like now? The NPS has a statutory duty (Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) to consult and notify victims of sexual or other violent offences about the release arrangements for offenders where they are sentenced to 12 months or more in custody or those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. This statutory duty is supported by the requirements of the Victims Code and guidance on the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS). The VCS requires the Victim Liaison Officer (VLO) to contact and offer the victims of offenders a service within two months of the sentence Page 132 Page being passed. The victims who choose to participate in the scheme X may make representations about the offender’s licence or discharge 5 condition, and receive certain information about the key stages of the offender’s sentence from the VLO. The NOMS specification Victims for the provision of victim liaison confirms the VCS as a service for communicating and providing information to victims, not for counselling or advocating for them. Where appropriate, referrals can be made to organisations who can more appropriately provide support, counselling and advocacy services. The NPS can exercise discretion to offer the VCS to victims who do not statutorily qualify (usually the offender is serving under 12 months) but present a high risk of harm to the victim. These are usually cases involving stalking and harassment, hate crimes or domestic abuse. 29

There are approximately 27 Victim Contact Units (VCUs) across There is no specific change being proposed to any of the roles or the NPS. They have different staffing arrangements; some have the work that administrative staff and VLO will do, other than to administrative hubs based separately from VLO staff, other provide clarity and consistency of task. Within the context of the administrative staff are based within the VCUs and some units broader programme, we propose a flexible workforce that will have have no administrative support. Some VLOs are co-located within clear roles, duties and responsibilities and enhance the relationship Offender Management Units and others hold surgeries to strengthen between offender management and victim liaison. the interface between OM and the VLO. Some VLOs are employed as band 3 and others at band 4. A significant variation is that VCUs There will be a consistent approach to victim liaison within the NPS use a variety of databases, which makes it difficult to obtain national and how the activity is organised. Specifically, this relates to how data or to share information. There is a pressing need for a national tasks are apportioned to administration and VLO functions. system. In addition to this there will be a national database with a nationally agreed framework for victim contact cases. We have inherited arrangements with no clear equitable, measurable allocation of cases based on low, medium and high complexity 5.3 End state proposals considerations, where VLO workloads vary and resource is not Our proposal is to standardise the operation for the Victim

Page 133 Page equitably allocated. Liaison Unit (VLU) in line with the service specification for victim Some VCUs do not have (or do not have the required level of) services. Successful delivery will see the effective organisation of administrative support; and this is exacerbated by the lack of, or administration processes which will allow (and maximise) the VLO limited functionality, within the existing local victim databases. These resource to focus specifically on the quality of the engagement with databases vary significantly in type and levels of functionality. Some the victim. Our proposal is dependent on the implementation of a lack the ability to record information effectively, to generate letters, new Victim Case Management System (VCMS) and the associated and to provide prompts or relevant data. training of all Victim Services staff to use the system to best effect. Without the VCMS, the organisational proposal for administration will 5.2 What do we want the future model to look like? not be possible. This approach will enable effective management of the expectations of victims and other services, and achieve a more We will have a delivery model which will provide clarity as to the unified, consistent VLO work force. Finally, there is scope for further specific roles of administration and victim liaison; and within this, harmonisation, for example, the provision of templates and checklists we will establish a consistent set of processes which clearly identifies to ensure best practice is followed. who is responsible for doing what. This approach will enable us to maximise the quality of the engagement between the VLO and the As stated earlier, there is currently a variation in the pay “banding” victim, whilst organising administration into a lean, consistent model. of VLOs with some at pay band 3 and others at band 4. Our view is that the VLO role can appropriately be undertaken by band 3 staff. This is subject to the review of the job description and the job evaluation process. 30

5.3.1 Administrative Hubs 5.3.2 VLO work Our proposal is to separate out the victim administrator role, using As stated above, it is important that we develop an organisational actual or virtual hub models, thus enabling VLOs to focus on the direct approach to measuring the victim caseload. This will allow the work with victims. The hubs will receive referrals, engage with agencies development of a consistent approach to resource and workload for information, maintain records and provide support for the service. management, which will ensure the NPS is directing the right amount They will increase efficiency through the provision of a consistent of resource, in the right place, at the right time (maximising impact ‘pathway’ of victim engagement and ensuring specific actions are and effectiveness). The illustration below provides an initial draft achieved. Furthermore, they will provide a single point of contact for proposal by which cases could be considered, according to level of stakeholders (including external agencies), which will significantly involvement required. However we need to do more work to refine improve the coordination of information relating to victim-offender the details of this approach and model further. contact; and therefore reduce the risk of poor victim experience.

As Low & Medium, plus more regular face to face HIGH contact, more liaison with OM/partnerships, check safety plan still applies. Attend oral hearing if no other COMPLEXITY agencies can attend. If risk increases refer to Page 134 Page MARAC/MAPPA and attend these meetings.

As Low, plus face to face contact to assist with MEDIUM personal statement. Send written updates to MARAC/ COMPLEXITY MAPPA/attend oral hearings if no other agencies can attend. If risk increases, move to high support.

Send initial letter/leaflet, follow up, receive and assess information from others if assistance is accepted & LOW complete Risk Assessment. Carry out a visit (face to face) and, write up notes of meeting and send to the victim. COMPLEXITY After that, contact the victim when you receive triggers for ROTL, HDC or release on licence and update the victim annually. Sign post if required. 31

5.4 Impact on service delivery 5.6 Conclusion We believe that the ‘separation’ of the administrative hub from the We believe that by separating the administrative hub from VLO role, VLO victim engagement work and the establishment of a Single Point the organisation will achieve role clarity between the administrator Of Contact (SPOC) will significantly improve the quality, timeliness and the VLO role. Consequently, there will be better consistency and consistency of the information we receive and enable follow up of service delivery to victims and the wider criminal justice service at key points within the process. In addition to this, there will be an across the seven regions. The ultimate result will be that VLOs will improved flow of information gathered by the SPOC from within the be able to focus more time on victim engagement work. The strong NPS and from outside wider criminal justice agencies. For example inter-relationship between the work stream and the VCMS project will from witness care and independent domestic violence advocates ensure that the new approach to data management can maximise the (IDVAs), which will enhance the quality of information/intelligence efficiency of the victim liaison process; improve the effectiveness of received by the VLO; and consequently enhance the engagement the current delivery model; and improve the service for victims. work with victims.

5.5 Impact on staff Page 135 Page Our proposal to have a divisional hub will mean changes to processes and the potential relocation of some administrative staff. This will provide significant benefits in service delivery. 32

Chapter 6 Approved Premises (AP)

6.1 What does the model look like now? Approved Premises (AP) provide accommodation, oversight and support to the most complex and challenging cases managed in the community. Their residents are almost all on licence, having committed serious sexual and violent offences, and most are assessed as high risk of serious harm. There are currently 101 AP across the NPS, of which 89 are directly managed by the NPS (the rest being independent AP). They vary in their number of residents (nine have fewer than 15 beds, seven have more than 30), and also in staffing structures. Whilst they are all required to operate within the

Page 136 Page framework of the AP Manual (PI 32/2014), in practice there are

X a range of models of operation. 6 The main E3 proposals for AP address referrals, an operating model and a staffing model. We want to harmonise AP provision across the Approved Premises (AP) NPS, using best practice as the benchmark and ensuring value for money. The proposals would be likely to mean changes for most AP, although all proposals are currently in place in some part of the NPS and so have been tested out in practice. 33

6.2 What do we want the future model to look like? 6.3.2 Standard electronic referral process AP will continue to make a vital contribution to the management of We will roll out a standard electronic referral process, accessed serious offenders in the period after their release from prison (and to through nDelius. This will be a more streamlined process, reducing a lesser degree prisoners released on temporary licence). They play duplication. In particular we envisage a significant reduction in an important role in the NPS, with staff who are skilled and trained to demands on AP managers, some of whom report spending 30% of manage their residents in a positive and constructive way. They will their time dealing with referrals, many of which are being considered work together with other AP in their division and across the NPS to by other AP at the same time. It will facilitate inter-divisional decisions ensure that AP places are available for those who need them most. and also resource-sharing. It will also mean an equitable distribution The AP remit will be far more than simply providing accommodation; of the most challenging residents. Offenders will be placed where during their stay residents will undertake evidence-based individual possible in their home divisions, but where placement across and group activities designed to support their rehabilitation. Our divisions is necessary this will become easier to arrange. The ICT ambition is that the referral process should be smooth, staff groups requirement for this is likely to be met quickly. Staff in AP and LDUs will be skilled and resilient, and that offenders should move on having will need some familiarisation training in the new process. benefited from their period of residence. We anticipate this will mean offenders receive a more equitable Page 137 Page 6.3 End state proposals access to AP and that it will enable us to prioritise AP places for the most challenging cases, so supporting their rehabilitation. Our proposals are: 6.3.3 Divisional management of referrals 6.3.1 Enabling Environments Standard In order to ensure the smooth running of the referral process, All AP will become accredited by the Royal Society of Psychiatrists it will be managed by a central ‘referral hub’ in each division. as ‘enabling environments’. Approximately half of AP are already These arrangements are already in place in some divisions. accredited or in the process of being so, and we expect the remainder will be accredited within three years. We anticipate that 6.3.4 Standard Operating Model this should improve the quality of staff interaction with residents, AP come in different shapes and sizes, they operate within different enable them to manage more difficult residents, reduce the level of neighbourhoods and vary in their resident mix. As a result they will recalls, and have a positive impact on parole. Training for staff will continue to have their own individual character. Notwithstanding this, be required over the next three years to achieve accreditation. we believe they should have a common framework for their focus and activities and that they should all have a standard operating model. 34

The E3 AP work package has sought to define more clearly the i Double cover at all times purpose of the AP within the NPS through defining their functions and emphasising the essential elements of an enhanced regime. There will be a minimum of two waking staff on site at all times. We have concluded that AP have three inter-related but distinct There will be agreed minimum and maximum shift patterns. functions: public protection, rehabilitation and accommodation This will ensure security and appropriate oversight, as well as services. We will map the key AP processes associated with these compliance with health and safety expectations. Recognising tasks in EQUiP to ensure consistency. that this includes a contingency, we will look at how this capacity might most productively be utilised. Each AP will deliver an enhanced regime. We define this as purposeful activities, linked to resettlement and based on an ii AP Manager for each premises understanding of desistence research, which are underpinned by There will be a dedicated AP manager (expected to be the key worker relationship. The activities will include life skills, band 5) for each AP, who will be responsible for the smooth education, employment and social skills. We believe that this will running of the premises, the line management of staff, and improve outcomes for residents and reduce the levels of recalls. risk management decisions. Some AP currently have band 4 deputy managers on site with an SPO manager shared Page 138 Page A variety of arrangements are currently in place for procurement of aspects of enhanced regime; at present there are no proposals to between more than one AP, however we have concluded that change this. a single manager for each premises is the best model. We anticipate that the improvements detailed above will free up We will introduce the concept of ‘standard’ and ‘complex’ AP. We will management time currently spent on reviewing referrals to calculate this using returns to NOMS, using the criteria of level of risk enable greater focus on managing the premises. We will need of residents and the number of beds in a premises. It should result to be clear what cover arrangements are appropriate when in small number of ‘complex’ regimes which will require additional managers are absent. staffing levels. iii Area Manager Role 6.3.5 Standard Staffing Model An Area Manager (indicative band 6), with devolved budgetary There will be a standard model for staffing which will apply to all AP. responsibility, will manage clusters of AP. Clusters will be Larger AP will have additional staffing to reflect their greater numbers determined by the number of ‘complex’ and ‘standard’ AP of residents. The proposed model focuses on the staffing required and geography. for the range of tasks undertaken in AP, and is affordable within the current budget. This arrangement is currently in operation in several divisions. It enables more detailed attention to AP than can be achieved where the direct management is included in the portfolio of the Divisional Head of Public protection. 35

iv Day and night staffing vii Out of hours enhancements We wish to prioritise the vital role played by key workers AP staff receive additional payments to reflect out of hours (indicative band 3) in AP in face to face work with residents, working. Processes for payment vary across the NPS. liaison with colleagues and partners and in purposeful We propose to negotiate a harmonised system for these activities. This work is most effectively undertaken during the payments, which is fair and reflects the working pattern. day time, and these staff will therefore work primarily during the day. We will explore shift patterns which may include The E3 work package has also looked at areas including Health and weekend day time working. Work which focuses more on Safety, Management Information and Quality Standards. We intend to “accommodation” services will be undertaken by residential use the outcomes of this work to make further improvements in the workers (indicative band 2) whose working hours will include quality of AP services. overnight and weekends. The second member of staff present Further work streams are working on the Strategic Direction during night and weekend hours provides security and of AP, including the physical AP estate, facilities management, monitoring services. In the light of this role profile we intend independent AP and AP for women. They will review the capacity, to explore the pros and cons of contracting out this work resident profile, and layout of AP with the aim of matching NPS Page 139 Page through a national contract. Evidence from AP which currently need to resource, equity across the country and compliance with the use this staffing model is that with a well-managed contract Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). These work streams will make and appropriately trained contractor staff there is no increase firm proposals following this large-scale review. We anticipate that in incidents. There will always be a senior manager on the this review will enable improved efficiency and effectiveness in the ‘out of hours’ rota to provide support where necessary and to running of the AP estate. authorise recalls.

v Administrative support Each AP will have a 0.5 receptionist/administrator, and a 0.5 financial administrator to support the work of other staff.

vi Standard payments to sessional staff We have inherited arrangements which mean that sessional AP staff are currently paid different rates. We propose to harmonise these arrangements so they are paid at a standard rate, with additional payments for those working in London. The standard staffing model should reduce our reliance on sessional staff so that there is better consistency of staffing in AP. 36

6.4 Impact on service delivery We will aim to harmonise arrangements for payments for out of hours working to be fair to staff alongside properly reflecting the work to be The changes we propose are predicated on Offender Managers done and to ensure equity across the AP estate. managing their offenders in AP and AP staff managing the AP and its service delivery. AP staff would be better trained, better able 6.6 Conclusion to manage challenging residents, and offer an improved level of rehabilitative interventions. We expect that this would result in a We believe that these proposals will lead to an efficient and effective reduction in recalls of AP residents and more positive move ons. AP estate across the NPS which has a single purpose and consistent We anticipate that there will be greater equality of access to AP places structures in key areas such as staffing, referrals and interventions. across the NPS and that this will enable better prioritisation of places We are confident this will mean that AP can continue to provide for those who most need them. We anticipate that the increased clarity appropriate accommodation to those offenders who need it most, with about the function and operations of AP will have an impact on Parole beneficial effects on the reduction of serious harm and reoffending. Board decisions to release in more finely-balanced cases. As noted above, the E3 proposals are likely to mean changes for

Page 140 Page most AP. Where these involve significant staffing changes, these will need to be planned in order to minimise the impact on service delivery.

6.5 Impact on staff As noted above, the improvements to the referral process are expected to free up staff time. The process of accrediting AP as enabling environments will mean staff become more highly trained. Focussing on purposeful activities and on formal key work will enhance the role of key workers, who will have more consistent contact with the residents and will be able to undertake more planned work. This in turn will develop their skills meaning they are more easily able to move to other roles in the NPS for career development. Whilst there may be some concerns that concentrating the availability of key workers during daytime hours may reduce staff resilience to manage difficult situations at other times, this is not supported by evidence from the AP which already have this staffing model. 37

Chapter 7 Youth Offending Services (YOS)

7.1 What does the model look like now? Since Youth Offending Services (YOS) were set up in 1998, Probation has played an integral part as a statutory partner in local services. This has included the secondment of probation staff to work in local Youth Offending Teams (YOT). These staff contribute to the multi- agency work of the teams and in particular to the transfer of YOS cases to NPS or CRC at the age of 18. The NPS has responsibility for the Probation contribution to more than 150 local YOS. Currently the shape of this contribution varies across the NPS, specifically in the numbers and grades of staff, whether these are directly seconded staff or staff recruited by the YOT but paid for by Probation, and Page 141 Page

X whether additional funding or other support is provided. There are 7 also variations in the focus of work which seconded staff undertake. The proposals for YOS focus on harmonising staffing and working Youth Offending Services models, to ensure that these reflect both the needs of local services and best practice. The resources provided to YOS need to be (YOS) reviewed to ensure a level of consistency and value for money. The proposals take into account changes in the profile of youth offending and in sentencing policy over recent years which have resulted in an estimated fall of 60% in the volume of cases managed by YOS. The Ministry of Justice is currently undertaking a review of Youth Justice which may have an impact on these proposals. 38

7.2 What do we want the future model to look like? We expect that it will be easier for the NPS to monitor staffing cost than financial contributions. We will second staff for a period of three We will continue to support YOS work to fulfil our statutory years to ensure that they retain their Probation skills and that the responsibility. We are committed to the multi-agency focus in work development opportunities offered by secondments are open to a with young offenders and to a continued fall in youth offending.e W greater number of OMs. will continue to build and maintain positive links between Probation and YOS which benefit young offenders and the community. We As a result of this rationalisation of the resource model, we anticipate will ensure an equitable use of resources across different YOS. We that there will be an overall reduction in numbers of staff seconded to want seconded Probation staff to contribute their specialist skills YOS and therefore in cost. effectively in the most appropriate cases. 7.3.3 Standard workload 7.3 End state proposals Seconded OMs will work with high risk offenders and those offenders There are three proposals for YOS work. who will transfer to the NPS when they are 18. The expected size of caseload for a full time seconded OM will be 25 cases, this takes into

Page 142 Page 7.3.1 National Framework account the complexity of and level of intervention required with YOS cases which are high risk and/or transferring to the NPS. Where YOS Subject to the outcome of the Review of Youth Justice, we will caseloads are particularly low this may mean that the seconded OM agree an NPS framework which confirms the NPS responsibility does not work full time in the YOS. towards YOS work. The framework will mean clear expectations of secondment arrangements for both YOS and NPS. It will ensure a 7.4 Impact on service delivery consistent approach to YOS which meets statutory requirements. We will need to negotiate with the YJB, and also with individual local 7.3.2 Resource model authorities to agree the resource model and transition arrangements. In some areas we expect there will be a reduction in probation The framework will include a resource model based on the current contribution and we will need to agree arrangements to manage this workload of each YOS, with the contribution being in the form of transition carefully to minimise the impact on local services. Other seconded members of staff rather than financial. Seconded staff areas are likely to see an increase in provision and planning will also will be band 4 POs. In YOS where the resource model requires an be needed to make best use of the additional staff. additional member of staff to be seconded, there is scope for us to negotiate with the YJB about whether the additional resource should Agreeing the focus of the seconded OMs’ work means that they will be a band 3 PSO, as is currently the situation in some YOS. This will make effective use of their risk assessment and intervention skills. apply in some of the larger YOS. It should also mean good quality risk management and a smooth transfer to the NPS for relevant cases. 39

OMs who have undertaken a secondment will be able to contribute 7.6 Conclusion to an increase in understanding and practice in work with young adults in the NPS. We believe that E3 provides an opportunity for the NPS to agree an updated framework for the NPS contribution to YOS, which makes We will need to agree with the YJB an arrangement for providing the best use of probation qualified staff and contributes to public performance data so we can ensure that OMs are managing the protection. correct cases and that transfer of young adults to the Probation adult services has improved. The progress of the Youth Justice review may affect the timescale for putting these proposals into effect.

7.5 Impact on staff These changes will provide OMs with a valuable development opportunity to be seconded to the YOT for a set period during their

Page 143 Page career, using their probation skills in a multi-agency setting to work with the most challenging young offenders whilst maintaining their NPS links. We recognise that it will be important to support them in maintaining their knowledge and training in NPS work to ensure that they can remain flexible and mobile members of staff and so that they can continue to contribute to good practice in the light of their experience in youth justice. We are aware that some staff who have been seconded to YOS for extended periods may have specific training needs on returning to the NPS. We will take this into account in planning the arrangements for their return.

Chapter 8 Management Structures

8.1 What does the model look like now? The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) oversees the entire NPS delivery structure. The Director of Probation and the Director of NOMS in Wales report to the NOMS CEO. Across the NPS as a whole there are 69 Clusters of Local Delivery Units (LDUs) covering 152 Local Authority areas. This is in line with the expectations of the Transforming Rehabilitation Target Operating Model that LDUs would be aligned with local authority areas and map to other partnership arrangements including Criminal Justice (Police Page 144 Page Force) Areas and Community Safety Partnerships. There are some X core areas of business that are managed outside of the LDU Cluster 8 Structure such as Approved Premises, Victims Services and NPS Management Structures seconded prison staff. As with other parts of the NPS business, there is a variety of management structures across the country. There are inconsistencies in relation to the tiers of management and in some instances the grades and pay bands of staff undertaking similar roles. In addition, the proposed new models of delivery include changes to existing management structures. This Blueprint addresses some of these with others to be considered in the next phase of the E3 Programme. 41

At the LDU Cluster level, there is some consistency throughout At the LDU Cluster level we want a resource model and management England and Wales in that there is a Head of each Cluster of LDUs. structure that takes into account the local variations in workload and Within that, however, 26 Clusters have Deputy Heads while 43 complexities. We want to ensure that there is consistency in relation do not. This variation is partly due to the different arrangements to pay bands and grading throughout England and Wales where in former Probation Trusts and subsequently internal Divisional managers are fulfilling similar roles. decisions. A review by the NPS Senior Leadership Team has concluded that, when looked at nationally, taking into account Middle managers play a vital role in probation through supporting and caseloads, staff numbers and partnership responsibilities, there is enabling frontline staff to undertake good quality work with service not equity in the provision of Deputy Heads across LDU Clusters. users. Crucially they ensure that national policies are translated into action in local settings. We want middle managers to continue In both Offender Management and Approved Premises we currently to provide this leadership. In particular we envisage a change in have middle managers performing similar jobs in different pay bands. emphasis from a routine countersigning role to more structured E3 provides an opportunity for these to be harmonised through the quality assurance activities, with the aim that we consistently get revision of Job Descriptions and the job evaluation process. things right first time and that there are clear lines of accountability. With regards to the management structure for operational To support operational managers in concentrating on core tasks, we Page 145 Page administration, there is a mixture of line management arrangements see administrative staff as key to the delivery of the future operating for Case Administrators. In some parts of the country they are line model so it is critical that we have in place a management structure managed by Senior Probation Officers (SPOs) and in others by that supports and leads them most effectively. Senior Case Administrators (SCAs). E3 has enabled us to review and we propose a common line management structure for Case 8.3 End State Proposals Administrators. The line management structure in Clusters will be that Heads of 8.2 What do we want the future model to look like? Clusters directly line manage SPOs. This will ensure clarity of line management and accountability structures across the country. We want the NPS to have a management structure that provides the clear and effective leadership required to meet our objectives. The management structure must be one that reinforces accountability and enables the implementation of the new operating model. Staff will be supported in continual professional development. To achieve this, we propose that the high level NPS Divisional structure will remain unchanged with Deputy Directors leading each Division and reporting directly to the National Directors for England and Wales. 42

Heads of Clusters will retain both operational and strategic Our proposal is that Case Administrators will be line managed by responsibility for their LDU Clusters. There are a number of Senior Case Administrators. This will provide specialist administrative partnerships to which the NPS has a statutory duty, which require oversight while also allowing SPOs to focus on line management of attendance at Boards and resources to be made available. Nationally Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers. there is variation in the grade of staff that attend such meetings. National partnership frameworks are being produced to specify which There are a number of options under consideration for the line grade of staff will be required to attend meetings. Of the partnerships management of SCAs. We are clear that they will be within the that have been reviewed so far, the early indication is that operational line but are still considering who should best line manage Safeguarding Boards and MAPPA SMBs will require the attendance them. of Heads of LDU clusters. YOS management boards will be attended We are exploring the possibility of establishing a Quality Development by SPO grade. MASH and MARAC are likely to sit at Probation Officer role across the NPS as an effective way of supporting Officer level. The other key partnerships will also be reviewed. managers and front line staff in improving practice. We acknowledge that there is considerable variation between 8.4 Impact on Service Delivery LDU Clusters in relation to the volume and complexity of cases, Page 146 Page geography, partnership and court responsibilities. There is a strategic The revised LDU Cluster model will in, some cases, change the commitment to maintaining the LDU Cluster alignment with Local responsibilities of LDU Cluster Heads where there are currently Authorities which means that it is not possible to equalise the Deputy Heads in place. It should be noted, however that not all workloads of LDU Clusters. To mitigate against this a tool has been Clusters have Deputies and therefore this model will bring more developed to identify the most complex LDU Clusters. It is proposed consistency. The introduction of a tool to identify the most complex that the most complex LDU Clusters should have additional support. Clusters and the provision of additional resource to support them The type of additional support that is being considered is twofold: will mean that there is a more effective and equitable distribution the provision of additional administrative support for ACO/Heads of resources. to manage a variety of processes and interfaces, and additional management resource to support performance and quality as well The proposed case administration management model is intended as partnership working. to have a wider positive impact on the quality of case administration which will support improved quality of service delivery overall. As part of the Approved Premises model we propose that an Area Manager with devolved budgetary responsibility will manage clusters of AP. We anticipate clusters will consist of seven or eight Approved Premises. 43

8.5 Impact on staff With regards to the proposal to have Heads of LDU Clusters directly line managing SPOs we acknowledge that this will mean that existing Deputy Heads of LDU clusters will cease to undertake this. The process of moving from the current position to the new model will be carefully managed and the staff involved will be consulted appropriately. As already stated compulsory redundancies will not be necessary. The Case Administration line management model is intended to positively support CAs in undertaking their role by providing specialist administrative management. It also widens career and professional development opportunities for administrative staff. It will also support more effective line management of POs and PSOs. Page 147 Page 44

Chapter 9 Other Supporting Activity

Throughout the work of the E3 programme we have gathered and noted the requirements for ICT and estates. We expect to see improvements in the effectiveness of our ICT systems as a result of digital improvements and greater in-house investment. Throughout the programme a common theme has been that the functioning of nDelius affects operational efficiency and that improvements are needed to its speed and efficiency. This will continue to be a priority for the NPS. Specific IT requirements are a key element in the success of the proposals in several work packages – e.g. laptops for staff working in courts and seconded to youth offending teams, a single case management system for victims Page 148 Page work and an electronic referral process for Approved Premises. Work X will continue to ensure that these are in place in tandem with the E3 9 changes.

Other Supporting Activity 9.1 Facilities and Estates Over the last two years there has been a great deal of work on estates resulting from Transforming Rehabilitation. We will continue to work with the MOJ to ensure alignment of our needs and the estate, and specifically the needs identified under the E3 programme. These include sufficient space in every HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) court building to facilitate an NPS co-located Court Services team, and locations for the hubs proposed under the enforcement, victims, Approved Premises and foreign national offender proposals. 45

Our estate will change significantly over the next two years as a Space at Court result of the estate implications of the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme. CRCs have set their own estates strategies and in many HMCTS has undertaken a consultation on proposals to close a areas this will see them move out of buildings that are currently number of courts. It is likely in the future that there will be fewer shared between the NPS and CRC. We have developed our own courts but each hearing a higher number of cases. We will require strategy in response to our emerging business needs and CRC sufficient and suitable space in courts, underpinned by more modern plans. The guiding principle in that strategy has been to ensure an ICT equipment, if we are to produce the majority of court reports on operationally viable estate while taking opportunities to reduce the the day which that kind of case turnover will require. We are working overall cost of the estate. Every pound spent on buildings is a pound with HMCTS, ICT and MOJ Estates to achieve that requirement. that is not available to invest in services to offenders. Approved Premises We will for example close some of the offender contact centres from which we currently work, and open some new buildings. This The AP estate operates at or close to full capacity. Through E3 programme of moves has started and will continue over the course we have started work to review the current AP estate and identify of the next two years. opportunities to increase bed spaces, through both remodelling of current facilities and identification of new sites that are suitable and Page 149 Page Throughout, we will maintain an estate that is sufficient to meet our where securing planning permission is potentially realistic. We are operational needs. also comparing caseload forecast by region to the estate supply to ensure we seek to invest in the areas that need it most. This work Specific Estates Requirements will produce a future estates strategy for AP that we aim to have completed by April 2016. The proposal to create administrative ‘hubs’ will require space to be found in the MOJ/wider Government estate to locate these Facilities Management small teams. The location of those hubs within the division has not been agreed but there is an argument to co-locate with the current Facilities Management services, which includes services such as divisional operational support hubs where space allows or with MOJ security, cleaning, maintenance and, in some APs, catering, are colleagues. currently provided to us by Amey, Interserve and Sodexo through a contract held by the Home Office. The proposal to develop group interventions for offenders would require an increase in the number of group or programme rooms We are working with MOJ Estates to secure a tighter grip on these in the estate. With planning and some re-modelling it is envisaged contracts and to ensure they better meet our needs. The current that there will be sufficient capacity in the estate following the contracts will be transferred from the Home Office to MOJ by April implementation of the TR Estates Programme to increase the number 2016. This will bring contract management closer to the operational of group rooms. Further work will be required to identify specific local frontline and allow us to better voice our views on service delivery. requirements and estate and IT cost implications 46

In parallel, we are contributing to work to replace these contracts early in 2017 and there may be options to link these with existing NOMS contracts so securing better value. We have run a series of workshops with staff already to highlight what is and isn’t working in current provision. An Operational Reference Group will be set up to contribute to both finalising those requirements and evaluating bidders’ proposals through 2016.

Learning and Development, CJL We appreciate that there will be a need for support and development for some staff in some areas of the work. This is particularly the case for PSOs working in courts and community supervision in parts of the country where they will be taking on tasks they have not previously undertaken. We are committed to ensuring that all staff have the skills Page 150 Page to fulfil their roles well, and planning is already in hand to provide this. The new probation qualification scheme, Community Justice Learning (CJL), will be launched in April 2016. This will replace the current Probation Qualification Framework (PQF) and open up potential progression opportunities for staff in NPS and CRCs. It will be a work based programme comprising vocational qualifications and academic awards in a modular system. Employers will be able to sponsor learners to achieve the level of accredited competence required for the role and there will also be the opportunity for individuals to invest in their own progression, if they choose to do so. The academic awards will be accredited by universities and the procurement exercise to award those contracts is in progress to ensure a seamless transition for PQF to CJL. The numbers of learners recruited and sponsored through CJL will be determined by local workforce planning. 47

Chapter 10 Implementation Approach

The most important consideration in the implementation of any change programme is safeguarding operational delivery. We need to ensure the services we provide to the courts, offenders, and victims are prioritised throughout. Our approach to implementing the E3 proposals will put operational stability first. That does not necessarily mean going slowly. Some of the changes we propose to make are to address current issues. They will improve service delivery and we should put them into place as quickly as we can. While this will mean the pace of change will be relatively fast our view is this is more effective than spreading the changes over a long period. Page 151 Page

X But wherever a change requires other things to be put in place first to 10 prepare the ground we will do this. For example, suitable training for staff whose role is changing. Implementation Approach The exact timeframe for implementation will not be set until we have confirmed the design. But our starting point is that we want to start to see changes adopted from April next year. That will require intensive activity between now and then. Many of the changes are inter-related. Ensuring we have the right staffing levels in court will require the release of staff from elsewhere in the organisation. Because of that, many of the changes will need to be implemented as a whole rather than phased. Implementation will be managed at a divisional level to both provide assurance that the business is ready to make the changes and to manage the dependencies between different change activities. A change of this scale needs specialist support and we will be recruiting a temporary team to help managers implement these changes locally. 48

Chapter 11 Engagement

A number of different mechanisms have been put in place during the planning stage of the Programme to include staff input into the operating models outlined in the Blueprint document. Staff engagement activity has been taking place throughout the lifetime of the Programme and this will widen significantly during the mobilisation and implementation phases. Work package areas focusing on aspects of the operating model (e.g., courts, community supervision, etc.) have been largely made up of operational and management leads from each division working directly in that given area. In some work packages there have been focus groups of operational staff. This has allowed valuable input into designs from subject matter experts right

Page 152 Page from the start of the E3 Programme. Engagement with the wider staff

X group has been necessarily more limited. 11 We are publishing this document to provide a basis for staff and stakeholders to give us your views on the changes we propose and Engagement how they might best be implemented. Feedback on the Blueprint and the E3 Programme more generally can be provided through a variety of different means. One mechanism for capturing feedback will be via an online survey. This will ask for your view on a series of specific design questions. Alternatively, you can send more general questions or feedback directly to the E3 Programme team via [email protected] 49

A further valued resource for feeding back E3 related issues is via our Divisional staff E3 Champions. Our Champions have been working directly with the Programme to cascade key messages out to Divisions and also to encourage feedback from staff back to the E3 Programme team. A series of national events have been organised to allow staff at all levels to comment and ask questions on the Blueprint. These will be held on 9th, 13th, 16th and 20th November. Divisional events will also be taking place locally to allow more specific Divisional awareness activity. In addition to your individual thoughts, we are encouraging discussion of the Blueprint in teams with briefing material available to support managers to discuss this document.

Page 153 Page 50

Annex 1 E3 Programme Roles

Led by Diamond Gaddu • To provide support to the Programme Board and Chaired by Michael Spurr Workstreams to deliver the NPS E3 Programme • Accountable for all activity undertaken within the Agency • To act as a PMO to coordinate the flow of reports • To monitor the progress into Programme Board, of NPS E3 Programme by assisting workstreams in exception reporting as needed • NEMC • To act on recommendations • To coordinate the deployment of specialist resource between workstreams based on Page 154 Page priorities X 1 Programme Programme E3 Programme Roles Office Board Chaired by Colin Allars • Commissioned by NEMC to manage delivery of the NPS E3 Programme • Responsible for setting Chaired by NPS Deputy Workstream the direction for the E3 Director Board Programme, including agreeing priorities, timescales, budget and approach • Commissioned by the Programme Board lead analysis, design and To manage delivery of the implementation on that theme area • programme as a whole against plan, budget and To make recommendations to • quality PB on initial priorities, outcome of analysis, design options, and To manage dependencies implementation approach • between workstreams To report to PB on progress • To report to NEMC on against plan and to escalate risks • progress, escalating risks as and issues where PB level action appropriate is required AGENDA ITEM 8

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Draft Homelessness Strategy 2016-21

Date: 7 December 2015

Author: Neil Pearce Contact: [email protected] 020 8227 5733

Job title: Housing Strategy Officer

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 Under the Homelessness Act 2002 local authorities are statutorily bound to review their homelessness services every five years, setting out a comprehensive assessment of emerging trends and examining interventions employed to prevent homelessness in the first instance and tackle crisis presentations when they occurred.

1.2 On the basis of the review the Council is expected to prepare a prevention strategy charting activities to tackle and mitigate against homelessness over the next five year period.

1.3 The Draft Homelessness Strategy 2016/21 seeks to comply with that duty and the presentation of the report to the CSP is part of the public consultation process due to end on 16 December 2015. The final version is expected to be approved by Cabinet in January 2016.

1.4 It is recommended that the CSP Board:

 note and comment upon the Draft Homelessness Strategy as part of the public consultation process.

2. Draft Aims of the Homeless Review

2.1 Through various data sets the statistical review examines the current climate around crisis presentations and homeless preventions to provide an analysis of the pressure points in homeless policy and create the subtext for the prevention objectives of the strategy.

Page 155 Unprotected 2.2 The headline figures of the review suggested that residents seeking homelessness advice continues to rise. By November 2015, almost 3,000 people had contacted John Smith House for support. However the number of applications accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless, in priority need and therefore owed a duty fell from 853 in 2013/14 to 764 in 2014/15.

2.3 A summary of the main homeless trends suggested:  termination of assured short-hold tenancies in the private rented sector has become the largest cause of accepted homelessness  parental ejection from the family home or the inability of the owner to continue to accommodate the client is the second largest cause  the highest cohort of clients in priority need were households with children or with someone pregnant  applicants deemed homeless, eligible for advice but not in priority need rose dramatically

3. Draft Aims of the Prevention Strategy

3.1 Planning services for the next five years requires an appreciation of the current and emerging trends identified above which will be exacerbated by the second phase of welfare reform and the lack of private rented supply.

3.2 Tackling these problems has to be balanced against diminishing resources and the cultivation of a different ethos to housing crisis resolution. This has to recognise:  Local authority resources are likely to be squeezed much further  Prevention initiatives and self-resolution will be critical in managing demand  Housing advice services will have to be creative and integrated  That resources and support has to be targeted at the most acute circumstances  Partnerships with external providers and the voluntary sector needs to become robust  Innovation in housing supply and choice is essential

3.3 Despite the financial constraints, the borough aspires to continually improve its housing advice services and ensure that our approach to homelessness is fit-for- purpose and creates a customer journey that provides appropriate housing solutions.

3.4 The strategy sets out fifty two strategic actions for consideration or improving services to meet nineteen expected outcomes under the following four strategic objectives:  Reducing demand through prevention  Enabling pathways away from homelessness  Creating an integrated service at first contact  Providing appropriate accommodation options

Page 156

Draft Homelessness Strategy London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2016-2021

One Borough, One community: tackling homelessness

Page 157 CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 3

2. Policy Context ...... 5 - National Policy Context ...... 5 - Local Policy Context ...... 7 - Regional Policy Context ...... 10

3. Homelessness Review ...... 12 - Responding to homelessness ...... 14 - The duty and main causes of statutory homelessness ...... 17 - Resources and preventing homelessness ...... 21 - Non-priority homeless and support for vulnerable people .. 28 - Temporary accommodation ...... 39 - Housing supply ...... 46

4. Homelessness Strategy Objectives 2016-2021 ...... 52 - Overview ...... 52 - Objective 1: Reducing demand through prevention ...... 53 - Objective 2: Enabling pathways away from homelessness . 58 - Objective 3: Creating integrated services at first contact .... 63 - Objective 4: Providing appropriate accommodation options 69

5. Consultation Schedule ...... 75

6. Action Plan 2016-2021 ...... 77 (to be completed post-consultation)

2 | P a g e

Page 158 1.Introduction

The borough recognises the importance of having a robust homelessness strategy in place which sets out the Council’s services, resources, pathways and interventions in preventing and alleviating the experience of homelessness.

In preventing homelessness and attending to crisis presentations when they occur, the borough has to ensure there is comprehensive, universal assistance and advice to support people in making informed decisions about the options available to them.

In a number of circumstances the services which the Council and its partners provide are critical because all too often individuals affected by the loss of accommodation become and stay homeless through a complex combination of reasons. These range from domestic violence, addiction, debt, worklessness, poor health and wellbeing and sometimes through no fault of their own. This leads to isolation and a disconnection from pathways to essential support which help identify and break that downward cycle.

However, fundamental to our approach is the view that homeless people should be able to pursue options which allow them to resolve their own homelessness. Following in the Council’s civic objective of a creating a socially responsible community, residents are encouraged to take responsibility and to become more resilient at a time of pressured and finite availability of accommodation.

As a result of the Homelessness Act 2002 every local authority is under a statutory duty to review their homelessness services every five years, setting out a comprehensive assessment of trends in homelessness. Subsequently the borough is expected to prepare a prevention strategy charting activities to tackle and mitigate against homelessness over the next five year period.

There has been significant change since the publication of Barking and Dagenham’s previous homelessness strategy in 2008 and the Council has taken stock of the changing policy context of homelessness when providing services to tackle it. The introduction of the Localism Act 2011 and the on-going reforms to welfare have been major influences in how local authorities approach housing need, homelessness, benefit entitlement and the delivery of affordable housing. Fiscal consolidation at a national level has led to reduced funding, requiring the Council to target its prevention strategy around carefully managed and finite resources.

Against that challenging context, Barking and Dagenham remains committed to working with partner agencies and the voluntary sector in strengthening its housing

3 | P a g e

Page 159 advice services and preventing homelessness in the first instance. Based on the evidence of its review, the borough has set itself the following objectives:

 To reduce demand through prevention (prevention)  Enabling pathways away from homelessness (prevention)  Create integrated services at first contact (presentation)  Provide appropriate accommodation options (provision)

These objectives underlie the principles of the Council’s ambition which aims to reduce demand, encourage responsible choices and behaviour change, manage expectations and tackle root problems by integrating service delivery and developing partnerships more effectively.

4 | P a g e

Page 160 2.Policy Context

2.1 National Policy Context

The introduction of the Localism Act 2011 and on-going welfare reform has challenged the approach of how local authorities assess and meet housing need, prevent homelessness and manage resources to deliver affordable housing and advice services.

Developing and embedding an efficient seamless, multi-agency approach has been the driver of national and regional policy announcements with local authorities increasingly expected to be more innovative in preventing homelessness in the first instance, reducing demand and cope with crisis presentations with more efficient use of resources.

2.1.1 Cost of Homelessness and Making Every Contact Count

In 2012, the Government published the Making Every Contact Count report, drawing on the need for effective joint working to prevent homelessness. Based on the findings of the No Second Night Out strategy on rough sleeping in 2011 and the Cost of Homelessness review, it encouraged the design of locally integrated services which tackled the roots of homelessness, such as troubled family upbringings, health inequalities and addiction, involvement in crime and improving access to work and training opportunities, as well as creating financial resilience.

The National Practitioner Support Service has been developed to support local authorities seeking to lead in the continuous improvement of homeless advice and prevention services. Where the authority meets the ten corporate local challenge objectives it can apply for a Gold Standard as a measure of high quality standards.

2.1.2 Reform of the Welfare System

The Government’s first tranche of welfare reform between 2012/15 had significant impact for housing services and homeless prevention in Barking and Dagenham, precipitating a surge in housing advice and a significant rise in homeless presentations based on familial ejection and loss of rented tenancies.

1,600 council tenants were affected by the reduction in Spare Room Subsidy for under-occupancy and 537 were subject to the £500 a week Total Benefit Cap with a resulting inability to afford rent payments. The reduction averaged between £35 and £323 per week.

5 | P a g e

Page 161

Reforms to the eligibility for the Single Accommodation Rate, changes to disability benefit, the devolution of local Council Tax Support and reductions in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) levels have aggravated tenancy sustainment as well as diminishing the supply of available lets for social placements in the private rental market.

The second phase of welfare reform unveiled in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015 is expected to exacerbate existing problems. Proposals to remove automatic housing support to 18-21 year olds, the four year freeze in main rates of working age benefits and tax credits coupled with a further reduction in the Total Benefit Cap of a non-working family to £23,000 are likely to escalate the pressures upon the housing advice service. Projections for the numbers affected are still being collated by Revenues and Benefits in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions.

2.1.3 Localism Act 2011

In the Localism Act 2011, the Government devolved powers to encourage local authorities to tailor local policies and housing demand to local circumstances. The agenda allowed councils:

 to revise access to social housing supply with reforms to allocation policies;  to offer different types of tenure  to end their homelessness duty with direct offers of accommodation in the private rented sector.

In response Barking and Dagenham adopted a new Housing Allocation Scheme in 2014 which introduced:

 residential qualifications  reformed local preferences  reserved the right to create flexible tenancies for specific circumstances  affordable housing options for working families  the discharge of its homelessness obligation into the private rented sector.

2.1.4 Housing and Planning Bill 2015

The Housing and Planning Bill is currently passing through its committee stage in Parliament and could have implications for housing supply in Barking and Dagenham. The introduction of Starter Homes as an affordable housing product could reduce the number of generally affordable social housing tenures provided in the borough and the impact of forthcoming regulations on housing association Voluntary Right to Buy will be monitored carefully.

6 | P a g e

Page 162 2.2 Local Policy Context

Notwithstanding the response to recent Government reforms, the Council has continued to rationalise resources and cement multi-agency working through its corporate strategies to prevent homelessness:

2.2.1 Corporate Strategies

One Borough, One Community; London’s Growth Opportunity

In 2014 the Council unveiled its corporate vision of encouraging civic pride, enabling social responsibility and growing the borough’s sense of opportunity. This included commitments to help residents shape their own quality of life, take responsibility for themselves, homes and communities as well as integrating services for the vulnerable, building high quality homes and supporting investment in housing.

Housing Strategy 2012/17

The borough’s overarching housing strategy resolves to improve the quality of life of all residents through thriving sustainable communities and by addressing the needs of residents living in different types of tenure. It prioritises tackling homelessness through prevention activities and providing suitable housing options where crisis presentations require the Council to act.

Tenancy Strategy Statement 2012

Working in partnership with housing associations to deliver homes which address local need, the Council recognised the importance of allowing providers a flexibility of housing tenure. The borough’s tenancy statement emphasises a desire for registered providers to give due regard to the Council’s view on rent levels and accommodation for working families.

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2015

The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) is the annual assessment of current and future health and social care needs of a population. It provides a holistic outlook of the socio-economic issues facing the borough, including recommendations for public policy commissioners on strategic outcomes in reducing homelessness.

Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2015/19

Housing, homelessness and fuel poverty are recognised as determinants of public health and critical to increasing the life expectancy of people living in Barking and

7 | P a g e

Page 163 Dagenham. The strategy pledges to close the gap in life expectancy and to improve health and social care outcomes through integrated services.

Growth Strategy 2013/23

Aspirations for growth are entrenched in the 20-year plan which establishes the priorities of attracting investment, creating a higher skilled workforce, building businesses and widening housing choice.

2.2.2 Corporate Programmes

The reduction in resources has meant that the Council is addressing the provision of services creatively. To reduce demand the Council is focussing on more effective early interventions, nudging behaviour change and encouraging self-reliance while developing seamless integrated responses when demand is presented in the most acute of circumstances.

This overarching approach is captured in the Council’s evolving corporate Ambition 2020 project coupled with the Housing Transformation Programme’s development of Housing+ as a multi-disciplinary model of housing service delivery.

2.2.3 Demography and housing supply issues

Continuing change to the demographic and the socio-economic profile of the borough coupled with rising demands for a mixed supply of housing has intensified the need to have responsive services which can prevent homelessness in the first instance and provide adequate accommodation in the worst case scenario.

Deprivation

Barking and Dagenham has areas of high deprivation and is ranked 12th of 352 local authorities in the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation. It also has the lowest household incomes in the capital, with almost 25% of those in work on the minimum wage; 10.4% of its population is unemployed and 60% in receipt of some kind of welfare entitlement. While there have been improvements in educational attainment and regeneration projects continue to attract new investment and employment opportunities, housing affordability remains a barrier for many in accessing accommodation.

Population

Barking and Dagenham’s population has seen unprecedented change in recent years. The 2011 Census recorded a significant overall population increase of 13.4% to 185,911. Barking and Dagenham has the highest population percentage of 0-19

8 | P a g e

Page 164 year olds in the country including a 50% increase in 0-4 year olds, placing a huge pressure on school places. In addition there has been the largest decrease in the 65+ age group in London.

Household size

Trends identified in the borough’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment and Housing Needs Survey 2011 saw the number and size of households increasing giving Barking and Dagenham the highest occupancy rate in the capital. Conversely, cultural shift towards smaller families, trends towards divorce and familial breakdown has led to the borough having the highest percentage of lone parent households in all of England and Wales.

In terms of homelessness the shift to smaller households manifested itself between 2012 and 2015 with an increased number of homeless presentations based on persons not being able to live with parents or in the familial home and therefore pressurising demand for one-bed, two-bed or shared accommodation.

Diversity

The ethnic diversity of Barking and Dagenham underwent significant change between 2001 and 2011 with the number of foreign-born nationals residing in the borough increasing by 205%. Since 2001, there has been a 30% decrease in the borough’s White British population and the Black African population has grown by over 20,000, which is the largest increase of the Black African population in London. The White Other population has also continued to grow from 4,348 in 2001 to 14,525 in 2011. Like much of east London, the enlargement of the European Union since 2004 has seen the borough become a destination for migrants from eastern Europe and the former accession countries.

The potential for rough sleeping and homelessness from the new communities has recently been exacerbated by new regulations in place since 2014 preventing migrants from accessing Job Seekers Allowance for three months.

Housing Affordability

The cost of buying a home in Barking and Dagenham is still 11 times more than the total median annual household income of the borough (£25,499) and affordability continues to hamper the ability of residents to access home ownership. Average house values were recorded at £278,604 in September 2015 but despite Barking and Dagenham remaining one of the most affordable places in London to purchase a home, property prices continue on an upward trajectory.

9 | P a g e

Page 165 It is conservatively estimated that between 12,000 and 14,000 homes supply the private rented market (PRS) in the borough representing 17% of all stock and continuing to grow. The PRS has quadrupled in a decade but demand is once again outstripping supply. Analysis of quarterly returns from local letting agent surveys recorded an average rent level of £1,231 per month in September 2015 with 62% of respondents expecting further rent increases placing pressure on the budgets of vulnerable households. The anecdotal survey suggested that three quarters of landlords were pitching their lets to in-work tenants in recognition of the borough being an attractive low-rent hub for professionals.

Importantly, figures from the Ministry of Justice in June 2015 illustrated that sustainment of home ownership and private tenancies were under strain with 1 in every 45 homes subject to a possession claim. With wages only just beginning to return to pre-Recession levels and falling levels of housing welfare, there has been a significant three year spike in homeless applications based on repossession of the home and lets due to mortgage and rent arrears.

The supply of affordable homes was identified as a decisive issue in the 2011 Housing Needs Survey which recommended an additional 1,333 new affordable homes a year, particularly around family-sized accommodation and drawing on concerns of overcrowding and high levels of occupancy. 1,036 new affordable, intermediate and social homes have been delivered in Barking and Dagenham in the last five years however the recession, reductions in development grant and rationalisation among registered providers has led to only a trickle of new supply.

2.3 Regional Context and the East London Housing Partnership (ELHP)

The issue of homelessness also cuts across boundaries and Barking and Dagenham works to the strategic objectives set out in the Mayor of London’s Housing Strategy. The borough also works with the Greater London Authority and sub-regional partners to share information, best practice and harness resources around joint projects. In particular we co-operate with the East London Housing Partnership which is based in the offices of Barking and Dagenham.

The ELHP comprises the seven east London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Havering, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Redbridge and the City of London Corporation. The partnership collaborates on addressing the sub- region’s strategic housing needs and pressures. One of its core priorities is to contribute to minimising and preventing homelessness.

It created a homelessness and lettings group in response to having the highest housing need in the capital which was evidenced by increasing numbers of rough

10 | P a g e

Page 166 sleepers, significant levels of domestic violence, high volumes of placements from other sub-regions and greater loss of private rented tenancies.

The ELHP has been successful in recent years in helping tackle homelessness for households who are not necessarily owed a duty by the local authority. Projects like the East London Reciprocal Agreement, the Single Homelessness Project and the East London Women’s Project all provided housing solutions for victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and multiple needs clients who were either homeless or at risk of homelessness. The Women’s Project has to date assisted 29 clients with multiple and complex needs and the Single Homelessness Project supported 330 people with rent deposits and landlord support to ensure tenancy sustainment.

ELHP has also worked with other London sub-regions to help achieve cost reductions on temporary accommodation through the Inter-Borough Accommodation Agreements (IBAA).

This year the ELHP approved its Homelessness and Lettings Strategy 2015/20, binding sub-regional partners to the following clear commitments:

 Preventing homelessness before people reach the streets  Greater collaboration with regard to the impacts of welfare reform and Universal Credit  Improve services offered to single homeless people deemed not in priority need  Reduce and prevent homelessness caused by domestic violence, particularly against women  Adopt a No Second Night Out approach to rough sleeping

11 | P a g e

Page 167 3. Homeless Review

3.1.1 Homelessness Strategy 2008/13

The 2008/13 strategy outlined a number of key performance details at a time when resources were significantly greater and the emphasis was on initiating fresh prevention activities. As the policy context has significantly changed since 2008 this review only summarises some of the key results pertaining from the following objectives:

Early intervention  Developed joint assessments and protocols in relation to safeguarding children  Achieved the national target to end use of B&B accommodation for 16-17 year olds by 2010  Developed the East Street housing advice and The Foyer projects  Increased take up the Sanctuary scheme  All housing advice staff trained in substance misuse and domestic violence

Increased choice and promoting independence  Delivered 758 rent deposit tenancies by 2013  Increased the number of accredited landlords offering quality homes to 450  Returned 531 long-term empty private dwellings back to use by 2013

Partnership working  Worked with the East London Housing Partnership to deliver sub-regional approaches to single persons homelessness

3.1.2 Responding to homelessness

The Homelessness Act 2002 mandates the local authority to conduct a five-yearly review of current levels of homelessness, observe trends and analysis, illustrate prevention activity and interventions and examine the offer of advice, services and resources.

The impact of welfare reform, public funding reductions and a challenging housing market have heightened the demand for housing advice services and lead to the subsequent rise in housing applications over the last three years. Footfall and calls to the housing options team doubled to 2,449 by 2015; the total number of homeless decisions in 2014/15 stood at 1,900 and dwarfed the 408 recorded in 2011/12 while the number of preventative interventions against homelessness accounted for almost 2,000 cases.

12 | P a g e

Page 168 Barking and Dagenham has responded to the increased volume of need by continuing to build on existing partnership arrangements, training staff and tenants alike on the impact of welfare changes and sustaining tenancies, reshaping its allocations policy and planning for new models of housing provision in response to reduced resources.

Through various data sets the following statistical review examines the current climate around crisis presentations and homeless preventions to provide an analysis of the pressure points in homeless policy and create the subtext for the prevention objectives of the strategy. The review examines:

 The Council’s duties and the main causes of statutory homelessness;  Interventions and resources to prevent homelessness  non-priority homelessness and support for vulnerable households  temporary accommodation  housing supply issues

13 | P a g e

Page 169 3.2 The Duty and Main Causes of Homelessness

3.2.1 The Council’s Duties on Homelessness

In reviewing the local authority’s obligations under housing legislation, essential distinctions between various scenarios of housing need and where the duty applies needs to be made.

Priority homelessness – individuals who have been accepted by the Council as eligible for assistance, are homeless and in priority need, have met the legislative criteria and have made a homeless application:

• Council has a statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation • normally households who are going to be evicted or living in accommodation which is unreasonable for them to remain in • includes families, pregnant women and single vulnerable people

Non-Priority homelessness - applicants who are not assessed as in priority need but entitled to advice and assistance such as available options in the private rental market or support agencies

• normally single homeless people and childless couples • includes rough sleepers

3.2.2 Statutory homelessness in Barking and Dagenham

Overview

Residents seeking homelessness advice continues to rise. By November 2015, almost 3,000 people had contacted John Smith House for support. The number of applications accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless, in priority need and therefore owed a duty also fell from 853 in 2013/14 to 764 in 2014/15.

The slight decline in acceptances is a reflection of some of the prevention activities employed when residents make their initial approach.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis below highlights the number of annual applications made in Barking and Dagenham over the last five years and compares with the average number of applications made across the capital and the east London sub-region. It suggests that demand has slightly dipped through effective pre-intervention activities and is still lower than sub-regional and London average:

14 | P a g e

Page 170

Fig.1: Number of homelessness applications made in Barking and Dagenham compared to London and inner/outer London sub-regions 1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 LBBD 232 221 199 664 853 764 Outer London 702 727 787 967 1059 958 Inner London 764 919 935 915 902 938 London 723 789 838 949 1005 951

Source: DCLG Live Tables

The proportion of all homeless decisions which go on to be accepted by a local authority as statutorily homeless and eligible for support represents the homeless acceptance rate. In 2014/15, Barking and Dagenham had the 12th highest acceptance rate nationally and 9th highest in London.

Decisions on homelessness fell from over 700 to just over 400 in 2011/12 just before the impact of welfare and housing reforms started to bite. The succeeding year saw that figure almost treble to 1,186 decisions and rise to 1,900 by 2014/15. The eligibility of those approaches is captured below and shows a rise in households which are eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need but records a more dramatic spike in those deemed to be eligible but not in priority need:

15 | P a g e

Page 171 Fig.2: Number of homeless decisions

Homeless decisions 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Eligibility, unintentionally 221 199 664 853 764 homeless and in priority need Eligible, homeless and in priority need but intentionally 25 12 49 76 137 so Eligible, homeless but not in 197 46 82 425 557 priority need

Eligible but not homeless 269 128 324 336 275

Ineligible 27 23 67 100 167

Total decisions 739 408 1186 1790 1900 Source: P1E form on homelessness

16 | P a g e

Page 172 Fig. 3: Number of statutory homeless acceptances made in Barking and Dagenham compared to London, sub-regions and England 2009/15

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 LBBD 34% 31% 52% 59% 50% 44% Outer London 36% 35% 45% 46% 48% 52% Inner London 49% 49% 52% 48% 50% 57% London 38% 38% 45% 48% 53% 52% England & Wales 45% 43% 46% 47% 47% 48%

Source: DCLG Live Tables

3.2.3 Main causes of homelessness

The main reasons for homelessness are documented below illustrating an upward trajectory in the termination of assured short hold tenancies (ASTs).The breakdown of parental and familial relationships also accounts for a sizeable portion. The growth in terminated ASTs appears to be a reflection of capped local housing allowance and the impact of welfare reductions forcing private landlords to pitch their market to in- work tenants.

17 | P a g e

Page 173

Fig.4: Main causes of statutory homelessness 2010/15 Main causes of 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 homelessness Parental ejection or other 120 69 340 342 300 household ejection Relationship breakdown 22 28 81 55 53 Loss of assured shorthold 47 64 333 339 341 tenancy in PRS Mortgage arrears 5 4 20 20 6 Source: P1E form on homelessness

Fig.5: Reasons for statutory homelessness 2010/15

Source: P1E form on homelessness

18 | P a g e

Page 174

3.2.2 Priority need categories of statutory homelessness

To be accepted as statutorily homeless and receive assistance from the local authority, the applicant must have an established priority need defined under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and subsequently amended by the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002.

The following table depicts the different categories of those accepted of which being a household including dependent children is the most consistent factor.

Fig.6: Statutory homelessness by priority need 2008-

Main priority need group 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Household with 156 150 501 children/pregnancy 628 602 Single people 16/17-18/20 9 8 10 years 9 4 Physical disability 18 9 39 52 46 Mental illness 25 21 69 102 66 Source: P1E form on homelessness

3.2.3 Age profile of statutory homeless households

The most significant age profile of those accepted as statutorily homeless is 25-44 years of age.

Fig.7: Statutory homelessness by age profile 2008- Age 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 16-24 79 54 171 209 163 25-44 115 125 401 501 469 45-59 21 15 81 116 107 60-64 1 4 6 16 12 65-74 4 1 3 8 12 75+ 1 0 2 3 1 Source: P1E form on homelessness

19 | P a g e

Page 175 3.2.4 Family/household type of statutory homeless

The following graph represents the types of household which have been granted statutory homelessness acceptances. Lone parent households headed by a female translated into the largest cohort.

Fig.8: Statutory homelessness by household type Lone Parent One Person Couple Household with Household All Other with Dependent Children 2014-15 Household Total Dependent Groups Children Male Female Male Female Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant

Apr – Jun 44 6 92 21 27 4 194 Jul - Sept 43 6 100 22 16 4 191 Oct - Dec 59 6 103 18 19 3 208 Jan - Mar 36 9 98 19 2 7 171 Total 182 27 393 80 64 18 764 Source: P1E form on homelessness

3.2.5 Ethnic origin of priority homeless households

The following charts provide insight into the ethnic origin of accepted homelessness cases.

Fig.9: Statutory homelessness by ethnicity Ethnicity Statutory White Black Asian Mixed Other Not Total Homeless Stated 2010-11 133 59 19 2 5 3 221 2011-12 88 86 15 3 3 4 199 2012-13 340 206 38 61 2 17 664 2013-14 402 295 63 78 12 3 853 2014-15 327 276 71 74 12 4 764 Source: P1E form on homelessness

20 | P a g e

Page 176 3.3 Resources and Preventing Homelessness

3.3.1 Overview

Barking and Dagenham has striven to support vulnerable residents in housing need and offer homelessness prevention assistance against a very challenging financial backdrop. The borough has increasingly funded invest to save initiatives, rationalised its housing procurement options and utilised external funding streams to reduce rising expenditure on temporary accommodation and ensure reliable advice services.

Housing Choice and personal responsibility

A fundamental first approach is the view that homeless people and those at risk of homelessness should be able to pursue options which allow them to resolve their housing problems. This thinking is captured in the Council’s evolving Ambition 2020 programme.

Residents are encouraged to take personal responsibility and to become self-reliant so this strategy supports access to the right kind of information, advice and guidance on their options and the consequences of the choices they make. That includes training, employment, good tenanting skills and financial self-management to avoid homelessness and a review of all available housing choices and opportunities when crisis happens.

Faced with reduced government resources and the impending impact of the second phase of welfare reform, the Council has to target its prevention strategy around carefully managed and finite resources.

Barking and Dagenham remains committed to working with partner agencies and the voluntary sector in strengthening its approach to homelessness. However it will continue to seek to reduce demand on its services by:

 encouraging persons at risk to fully appraise all of their options  intervening early to create pathways away from homelessness  support independent living and self-reliance

Early intervention is a central feature of any prevention strategy and targeting our approaches at the primary reasons for accepted homelessness cases suggests there is a growing requirement for mediation, conflict resolution, counselling services, income maximisation and debt reduction services and parenting initiatives

21 | P a g e

Page 177

3.3.2 Resources

Housing Options

The Housing Options team play a crucial role in preventing homelessness through the provision of appropriate information and advice on available housing solutions, particularly encouraging self-resolution of peoples housing crises. Housing Options works closely with other housing advice teams including Choice Homes, accommodation services and the strategic delivery team.

Fig.10: Housing Advice Services at John Smith House, Dagenham

The need for housing advice services has also significantly increased over the same period with twenty three members of staff advising clients daily. The following table shows numbers visiting John Smith House seeking assistance:

Fig.11: Footfall to John Smith House 2013/15:

Que-matic reports – Footfall to Housing Advice Services

Numbers for March 2013 1436

Numbers for March 2014 2269

Numbers for March 2015 2449

Source: Que-matic internal reports, Housing Options Service

22 | P a g e

Page 178 Homeless Prevention Grant (HPG)

The Department of Communities and Local Government provides an annual non-ring fenced grant through the Council’s baseline and revenue support grant to fund activities related to the prevention of homelessness in Barking and Dagenham.

However, the amount of HPG provided to Barking and Dagenham fell from £600,000 in 2011/12 to £416,280 in 2014/15, representing a 31% reduction in grant.

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP)

The Department for Work and Pensions supplies an annual grant settlement to support housing benefit recipients whose entitlement does not cover the full costs of their rent. As a result of the recent welfare reform programme the distribution has been mainly targeted at mitigating its adverse impact upon tenants. DHP is now awarded in tranches and recipients are monitored case-by-case and awarded further payment on proof that they are proactively maintaining their rent and seeking training or employment.

Barking and Dagenham was awarded £1,176,392 in 2014/15 and payment has been used to counteract the risk of 1,393 cases of potential homelessness through rent arrears and to assist tenants subjected to income reductions through the Spare Room Subsidy. In 2013/14 the Council received £1,289,696 which assisted 1,369 households.

3.3.3 Prevention Initiatives

The introduction of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 required local authorities to advise and assist people at immediate risk of becoming homeless by making reasonable interventions to prevent the loss of existing accommodation. The crux of the Homelessness Act 2002 was the review of prevention policy every five years and the resulting development of prevention-orientated strategies.

Barking and Dagenham has deployed a broad range of preventative interventions to alleviate the risk of homelessness through debt advice, assisting with rent deposits, resolving housing benefit problems, family mediation and preventing house repossessions. These interventions have helped to sustain tenancies and accommodation, minimising the number of households who would otherwise trigger an obligation to be housed under the statutory homelessness route.

23 | P a g e

Page 179 Fig.12: Cases prevented from become homeless 2010/15 Homeless 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 prevention Total case 516 724 1856 2181 1947 prevented Source: Internal records, Housing Options service

Preventing loss of assured shorthold accommodation

The largest recent cause of homelessness has been the rise in private rented assured shorthold tenancies being terminated under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Although the reasons for this are difficult to measure, the Housing Options team currently work to prevent the loss of a tenancy under the following process:

 Check if the Section 21 notice to quit is valid  Check if the property is licensed  Explore if there are rent arrears  Contact the landlord and attempt to negotiate incentives for a new tenancy  Request a Call Credit 360 report  If there are no rent arrears make a referral to B&D Lets for affordable housing if customer meets the income threshold  Give customer a letter outlining their visit and actions taken

Preventing parental/others ejection from accommodation

Another recent major cause of homelessness has been the loss of accommodation due to parental ejection or where other parties are no longer in a position to accommodate the client. In such cases the Housing Options teams will adopt the following process:

 Contact the parent to confirm ejection/collect proof of abode for last six months  Attempt mediation where appropriate  Dispel myths regarding ease of access to social rented properties  Brief Visiting Officer on situation and complete an Excluders Questionnaire

Rent Deposit Scheme (RDS)

The RDS scheme allows for selected homeless households to sign up to a tenancy with a private landlord as a solution to their homelessness. The Council has assisted 903 households since 2008/09 by offering landlords four weeks rent as a deposit and an additional four weeks rent in advance in agreement for a 12 month tenancy and a guarantee that the tenant placed is given ‘good tenancy’ training.

24 | P a g e

Page 180

Fig.13: Number of tenancies created using Rent Deposit Scheme 2013/5 Year 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Tenancies 152 107 38 Source: Internal records, Housing Options service

Barking and Dagenham’s participation in the East London Single Homelessness Project also provided a rent deposit scheme for single homeless persons giving 23 individuals access to private sector tenancies between 2012/14.

Court Service Representation

Barking and Dagenham previously funded the role of a court advocacy advisor who attended court to protect vulnerable homeowners subject to possession proceedings from eviction. It successfully prevented almost one hundred possession orders from being granted between 2008/12. The scheme is now administered by the Citizens Advice Bureau in conjunction with Edward Duthie solicitors.

Tenancy Sustainment Measures

Sustaining tenancies is an effective way of preventing homelessness in the first instance and providing tenants with a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities is key. The Housing Options team helps in numerous ways by:

 providing ‘good tenancy’ training for clients with Rent Deposits  using a Tenant Relations Officer working through the private sector housing team  entering schools and explaining housing options in a creative way  joining landlord services on the Rent Arrears Eviction Panel to work on prevention options

3.3.4 Housing Access and Referral Team (HART)

The Housing Access and Referral Team has been an essential component in preventing homelessness and assisting independent living.

The team provides a gateway service offering advice and short-term support on matters including rent arrears, money management, benefit entitlement and securing suitable accommodation. To deliver this support HART works closely with other council teams and assists vulnerable persons with referral to appropriate agencies where additional support and independent living issues are evident. Where more intensive and longer-term support is required, HART refers the individual to East Living or the Independent Living Agency, the two external agencies contracted to provide housing-related floating support.

25 | P a g e

Page 181

Referrals to the HART team are growing with 404 people assessed in 2012/13, 419 in 2013/14 and 454 in 2014/15. The greatest demand continues to come from clients who have the primary vulnerabilities identified as mental health, living in temporary accommodation, physical disabilities or are teen parents. The greatest primary support need has been support because eviction is imminent, support connected with homelessness (meaning the person is in temporary accommodation and needs help to sustain it or is sofa surfing and needs help to secure stable accommodation), general housing options advice and rent arrears.

Fig.14: Primary vulnerabilities and primary needs of clients approaching HART team 2013/15 Primary 2013/14 2014/15 Primary Needs 2013/14 2014/15 Vulnerability Eviction Homeless/TA 154 61* 25 143 imminent

Mental health 93 142 Housing advice 16 90

Physical 89 72 Homelessness 29 72 disability Teen parent 8 60 Rent arrears 84 61

No needs 3 44 Forms/paperwork 37 29

Older person 16 13 Benefits/appeals 59 17

Drugs/alcohol 21 11 Move/MCIL 46 9 Learning Other service 19 13 17 7 disability need Resettlement Young person 9 13 17 4 need Domestic 3 6 Budget/life skills 56 6 violence

Offenders 2 4 Tenancy support 14 3

Other 2 15 Other 22 12 Source: Internal HART records *The reduction in the figure for homelessness for 2014/15 compared to the previous year is not an indication of fewer homeless/TA cases but the fact there were more cases with pronounced primary vulnerabilities, in particular mental health

26 | P a g e

Page 182

3.3.5 Employment and Skills support

Employment, education and development of skills are critical to ending the cycle of homelessness and poverty. Residents in employment are less likely to experience debt and social isolation while for households with children, attendance at school and participation in extra-curricular activities are the building blocks for social skills and obtaining technical knowledge to sustain employment in later life. Employment and education break the cycles of worklessness and homelessness.

The Government has taken the view that a key barrier to taking up employment in recent years has been the disincentives posed by low pay and benefit levels. The combination of welfare reform and the Work Programme has tried to address that imbalance.

As of September 2015 all young people are expected to remain in education or training up to the age of 18. Low aspirations have contributed to Barking and Dagenham have the highest percentage of 18-24 year olds claiming Jobseekers Allowance and rising numbers presenting as homeless due to familial eviction. Continued effort to get people into work has become crucial.

Barking and Dagenham’s Employability Partnership embeds joint working with the Adult College, Barking and Dagenham College, Jobcentre Plus and the Government’s Work Programme to feed through pathways into training, education and employment. Access to higher skills and higher incomes increases the chances of tenancy and home ownership sustainment reducing the risk of homelessness.

The Council’s JobShop service provides a range of employment support to borough residents, working in partnerships with other providers. The service is a key referral option for housing officers working with homeless or potentially homeless residents. In the first half of 2015/16 the service assisted over 500 residents into work and apprenticeships. Professional in-work benefit advisors support residents to make informed choices about the benefits of work and can assist with the claiming of in- work support.

27 | P a g e

Page 183 3.5 Non-Priority Homeless and Support for Vulnerable People

3.5.1 Overview

An applicant is owed a non-statutory duty if found to be homeless but is either intentionally so or not in priority need. There is only a duty to provide advice and assistance and not the same duty to procure permanent housing. Notwithstanding the lesser duty, local authorities are increasingly encouraged to work with partner organisations towards finding solutions for this wide-ranging group to prevent and relieve periods of homelessness.

Fig 15: Non-priority homeless cases in Barking and Dagenham 2010/15 Year 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Non-priority 491 186 455 837 969 homeless Source: P1E form on homelessness

In circumstances where the main homeless duty is not owed, the Council still works to prevent the risk of homelessness among vulnerable people through integrated services and supported housing options. Supported housing schemes encourage independent living and are tailored to the particular needs of the client group.

The next section of the review looks at particular client groups, who in some cases may be owed a duty but often make up significant numbers of non-priority cases. The review examines current services provided to vulnerable cohorts.

3.5.2 General Youth Homelessness

Youth homelessness numbers presented to the Council are relatively small but have grown from 19 in 2012 to 118 in 2013 and 119 in 2014. The surge has been through a loss of accommodation due to familial breakdown mainly with parents. The Council employ a social worker from the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) for four days a week to help assess the housing options of vulnerable young people at risk of homelessness. This is particularly pertinent where the Council establishes it has duties to offer services or accommodation to a child in need under section 17 and section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989 and has a protocol in place to deliver it.

In previous years shared accommodation support had been offered through the use of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) or through East Thames using The Foyer in Barking. But more recent procurement of suitable properties has not been successful

28 | P a g e

Page 184 and a rationalisation of assets by the Council has seen The Foyer utilised for much wider temporary accommodation.

Due to financial constraints the Council decommissioned The Foyer and a supported housing unit at Bevan House. However the Council has worked in partnership with East Thames and Look Ahead to facilitate a smooth transition supporting residents to relocate with Floating Support where necessary. The Council still maintains accommodation for mothers with babies at Summerfield House.

Reductions in funding have required the council to approach youths in crisis, holistically through integrated channels instead of through specialist officers. Those at risk will generally be indentified through Multi-Agency Pathway Panels (MAPP), youth offending panels and the Troubled Families Programme. In half of the boroughs schools Parent Support Advisers have become an integral method of mediation and support mitigating against youth homelessness.

Integrated Youth Services sit on the borough’s three MAP panels which serve to identify key workers for young people at risk of poor outcomes, including homelessness. IYS also acts as one of the delivery partners for the Troubled Families Programme, where risk of homelessness is one of the potential indicators. IYS has overall responsibility for the tracking and support of all 16-19 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET). Through 1-2-1 support provided to these young people IYS are able to identify and address housing need which may be preventing the young person from developing their potential.

Where appropriate the Council has sign-posted customers to mediation services in the case of familial conflict; suggested private rented sector options and YMCA facilities as well as JobCentre Plus support. The borough encourages referrals to:

 counselling services such as those offered by the Listening Zone in Dagenham  Night Stop which assists 16-25 year olds with the provision of emergency accommodation with local volunteers for one night or up to six weeks

However there is still scope for improving the integration of services to provide a positive gateway for youngsters at risk.

Looked after children and care leavers

Under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the borough is responsible for the assessment and needs of looked after children aged 16-17 and other leavers of care from the ages of 18-21 (or 25 if still in full-time education). In 2014/15 the Council had responsibility for 65 16-17 year olds and 230 people of 18 years plus. Of this

29 | P a g e

Page 185 cohort 20 were children of asylum seekers and 4 had high-level, high-cost disabilities.

The Council has reduced to zero the number of 16-17 year old care leavers housed in temporary accommodation and prioritised assisting clients in the preparation of applying for the Council’s housing register. This is to fulfil their statutory duty to provide reasonable move-on accommodation when they leave care. The accommodation needs of the 16-17 cohorts are administered by specialist providers such as Advanced Care, Crossroads and Silver Birch.

To promote independent living the Leaving Care Team requires mandatory attendance at employment skills workshops, job fairs, education enrolment opportunities and activity with Jobcentre Plus. Attendance in 2014/15 was slightly under 50% suggesting more work is required to foster financial resilience which can sustain tenancies.

Due to high demand for social housing, a significant number of care leavers have been placed in shared accommodation to promote independent living. Procured through the private rented sector, the most suitable accommodation are houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

Historically there have been 10 offers of social housing made each year with an average leaving care waiting list of 45. Ideally the service moves on clients by the age of 19 through offers of social housing or assured short-hold tenancy in the private rented sector but lack of supply has led to bottlenecks in accommodation. Care leavers over the age of 18 are staying longer in move-on accommodation such as HMOs, reducing available accommodation to the 16-17 cohort coming through the system. In turn accommodation costs are rising unsustainably.

Fig.16: Number of looked after children under Barking and Dagenham’s care 2011/15

No. of Looked after Year Children

2011 232 2012 232 2013 212 2014 223 2015 222 Source: Internal records, Leaving Care team

30 | P a g e

Page 186 Teenage parents

Although Barking and Dagenham still has the highest teen pregnancy rate in London, it has fallen by 26% in the last fifteen years. 154 under-18s conceived in 2014/15 and 59% ended in terminations.

The numbers of teenage parents and expectant mothers subject to the risk of homelessness is therefore relatively small, although the numbers continue to rise. The Family Nurse Partnership, the Baby Intervention and targeted personal advisors offer avenues of mediation and support.

Fig.17: Number of teen parents reported as homeless 2012/15 No. of Homeless Age of Homeless Teen Parents Year Teen Parents 16 17 18 19 2012/13 26 1 3 11 11 2013/14 32 0 3 21 8 2014/15 37 1 6 13 17 Source: P1E form on homelessness

3.5.3 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender persons

The Council is mindful of incidents of LGBT homelessness becoming more evident when previously it was considered a ‘hidden’ cause of homelessness and is working to capture more data in this area. The Council wishes to develop referrals for LGBT advice and support, particularly for young LGBT people and those suffering from domestic violence and abuse. There is currently a Public Health funded support programme for LGBT young people, Flipside, delivered by Integrated Youth Services. In addition, on its website the borough currently signposts support to the Albert Kennedy Trust and Stonewall for confidential advice.

3.5.5 People without recourse to public funds

People with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) are deemed to be destitute persons from abroad subject to immigration controls which prevent them from accessing welfare entitlement, certain services and public housing. Categories of NRPF households include:

 Those entering the UK illegally and are unknown to the authorities  Those entering the UK and overstayed on a student, spousal or visitor visa  Those with limited leave to remain on condition that cannot claim public funds  failed asylum seekers

31 | P a g e

Page 187  citizen of the European Economic Area subject to restrictions

The borough has a duty under the law to assist and advice NPRF households in finding pathways out of their destitution and in limited circumstances can offer accommodation and care services or financial support, particularly where children are concerned.

Since 2011 the number of cases have escalated and in October 2015 204 children of NRPF families were subject to section 17 assessments. Although housing services has worked on behalf of Children’s Services to reduce the temporary accommodation cost, there is a requirement to home these families during the lengthy assessment process which can average upto six months.

3.5.6 Supported Persons

The Council’s Adult Social Care team has been at the forefront of commissioning and procuring housing related services for many of the vulnerable groups generally found to be at risk of single persons homelessness. In 2012/13 the service assisted 4,889 clients and 3,862 in 2013/14. The Care Act 2014 places a duty on local authorities to prevent, reduce and delay needs for care and support.

Persons with learning disabilities

Barking and Dagenham commissioned a two year contract in 2015 for nine units of supported housing for clients with high-level learning disabilities. Through referrals from the Community Learning Disabilities Team tenants are helped to manage their finances to sustain their tenancies and establish long-term independent living until such a time as move-on accommodation can be arranged through nomination rights to council or registered provider housing. The Council’s HART team assisted 32 clients with learning disabilities in assessing their housing options.

Mental health

There is a higher risk of vulnerability and homelessness among mental health clients, particularly those suffering with severe and enduring illnesses like dementia or schizophrenia meaning support in tenancy sustainment is a critical intervention.

The North East London NHS Foundation (NELFT) has a mental health team working with housing options to facilitate the discharge planning and accommodation options of clients through its Resource Allocation Management Panel (RAMP). The RAMP in conjunction with housing and commissioning services, reviews the recommendations and package proposed by the client’s care co-ordinator which may involve residential care, a supported living scheme or a support in the community package

32 | P a g e

Page 188 Protocols are also in place with local hospitals through the Care Programme Approach which co-ordinates the discharge process through King George’s and Goodmayes, ensuring clients do not leave while being at risk of homelessness prior to a referral to housing services. The Housing Access and Referral Team dealt with 235 mental health clients between 2013/15 and the numbers continue to rise.

However the need for mental health accommodation for specific cohorts is growing and the lack of ‘step-down’ properties in social or private rented stock for clients ready for independent living means they cannot be moved on, which creates bottlenecks for other clients. The borough’s adult commissioning team and NELFT are undertaking a review of their current approach to mental health commissioning and housing-related provision.

Domestic Violence

1,991 domestic violence crimes were reported to the police in 2013/14 and Barking and Dagenham continues to have the highest domestic violence reported incident rate in London. The 2013 Government definition of domestic violence includes incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members. This can encompass psychological, emotional, physical, sexual abuse. This definition includes 'honour’ based violence, female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage.

Reducing domestic violence and abuse is at the centre of the revised draft Domestic and Sexual Violence Strategy which aims to help deliver a coordinated community response model and MARACs (Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference) which:

 Increases survivor safety.  Holds perpetrators accountable for their behaviour.  Challenges the social tolerance of domestic violence

Despite the fact domestic violence in Barking and Dagenham is high, the number of cases of homelessness caused by it have been gradually falling as demonstrated in the accompanying table:

Fig.18: Number of homeless cases caused by domestic violence 2010/15

DV reason for accepted 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 homelessness

Violent relationship breakdown 19 23 43 30 27 with partner

Violent relationship breakdown 4 2 12 10 10 with associated person

33 | P a g e

Page 189

One of the key elements of the preventing homelessness through domestic violence and abuse has been Barking and Dagenham’s support of a Sanctuary Scheme run through Victim Support’s Safer Homes Project and providing high level security improvements at the victim’s property to prevent assailants from entering the home, such as change of locks, extra locks on doors and windows, fireproof letterboxes and stronger doors. There were 1,517 referrals from Sanctuary between 2010 and 2014:

Fig.19: Number of persons at risk of homelessness but prevented through Sanctuary scheme 2010/15 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Homeless cases prevented by Sanctuary 16 136 917 295 153

Source: P1E form on homelessness

Troubled Families

As a result of the civil disturbances across London in August 2011, the Government established a Troubled Families agenda with a focus on turning around the lives of Britain’s most troubled families.

Between 2012/15, Troubled Families Phase 1 (TF1) worked with 645 families in the borough, a significant amount of whom had housing issues and the programme was able to reduce the demand on housing advice services. The Council had a 100% success with the cohort of families due to multiagency actions guided by a service level agreement with the Early Intervention team.

In September 2014, the Government announced that 51 high performing local authorities in the current programme, including Barking and Dagenham, would start delivering the expanded programme ahead of national roll-out in April 2015 and it is our task to evidence that we will achieve significant and sustained progress with 492 families over the 5 year period from 2015/2020

The 6 criteria that we have identified as being significant for this borough are

 crime and antisocial behaviour  poor health  domestic violence and abuse  children who need help  poor school attendance  unemployment

The scheme has had to evaluate sustained change within families evidenced by reduced demand on reactive services therefore achieving better value for money.

34 | P a g e

Page 190 There are links between anti-social behaviour and wider housing issues. Housing organisations play a central role in reducing anti-social behaviour and linking with the housing department benefits all through the de-escalation of eviction proceedings and reduced repair bills.

Prison client and ex-offenders

There is a pressing need to provide advice and accommodation to prisoners, some of whom will suffer from mental health and others from a history of substance misuse. There is also a particular need to steer away young offenders and those with short sentences from the risk of re-offending. The borough uses Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) to take into consideration the housing needs of these clients as well as offering floating support via Probation Services and the Youth Offending Team.

Occasionally some council tenant clients will enter prison and housing services will only hold their accommodation for a maximum of three months and in arrears. Resettlement teams try and manage the process but clients with longer sentences will work with their link officer to see what options can be found with housing advice or alternatively with homeless charity St Mungos. Younger clients may be directed to DePaul UK London Night Shelter.

The Council currently commissions the Crime Reduction Initiative (CRI) and Addaction to create pathways away from addiction and offending through via a prison link worker and into housing through tenancy and budget training.

Substance and alcohol misusers

In 2014 there were an estimated 1,079 drugs users in Barking and Dagenham of which only 45% were assumed to be seeking treatment. CRI also tackles substance and alcohol misuse through a referral system for treatment or advice called the Recovery Management Service. With the support of Horizon, a structured day programme is offered to counsel clients. Clearly addictions can be critical causes leading to loss of accommodation and rough sleeping.

Older and physically disabled persons

Historically there have been very low levels of older persons homelessness but demand for elderly adult social care is increasing as the older population is actually declining.

However promoting independence for older people is the corner stone of adult commissioning’s strategy for delivery. In Barking and Dagenham there are 31

35 | P a g e

Page 191 sheltered housing schemes over 23 sites designed for people aged 55 or over as well as those with physical disabilities.

Eight extra care schemes delivering 268 beds provide additional support to frail households while maintaining their independence.

Fig.20: Extra care schemes operating in Barking and Dagenham 2015

Commissioned Extra Care Council Extra Care Beds Beds Schemes Schemes

Harp House 36 Millicent Preston 33

Fred Tibble Court 31 Ted Hennem 41

Colin Pond Court 31 George Crouch 31

Darcy House 52 Fews Lodge 13

Nursing and residential care places are also provided where sheltered or extra care provision is no longer a viable option. In 2014 the Council had 324 older persons living in independent care homes both inside and outside of the borough plus the availability of 37 care bed at Kallar Lodge which specialises in dementia.

The Council is reviewing its approach to older persons housing need by establishing an older person’s pathway model and is due to be developed by April 2016.

3.5.7 Rough Sleepers

Rough sleepers cover a wide range of ‘roofless’ persons who are either sleeping or bedding down in the open air, buildings or places not designed for habitation. Rough sleepers tend to be in the most vulnerable categories of homeless often becoming roofless due to long-term mental health issues, crime, destitution, substance misuse or addiction. They have more likelihood of contracting communicable diseases such as tuberculosis or HIV and studies suggest that they live thirty years less than the average member of the public.

Housing legislation does not convey a duty upon the local authority to relieve rough sleeping but there is a very strong policy ethos to tackle the problem. The Government’s No Second Night report in 2011 and the creation of the Mayor of London’s Rough Sleeping Group in 2013 has prioritised action in the capital where rough sleeping has been increasing.

Rough sleepers usually have very complex needs and are disengaged from local services and support networks leading to a chaotic lifestyle that exacerbates their

36 | P a g e

Page 192 problems. Although some present themselves to night shelters where they can be put on a pathway of referral to social, mental health and employment services, many remain hidden to protect themselves and therefore do not obtain the assistance they desperately require.

In comparison to the rest of London, Barking and Dagenham does not have high levels of rough sleeping but with the sub-region attracting migrants from eastern Europe looking for established communities and links, there has been an anecdotal rise in rough sleepers. Ascertaining a credible baseline for the level of rough sleeping is challenging and local authorities are dependent upon Street Count and CHAIN reporting to gauge the numbers in the borough:

 Street Count – a bi-annual ‘on-the-spot’ survey conducted with partner agencies to evaluate the level of rough sleeping by counting the number of rough sleepers on a given night in the borough

 Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN) - real time reporting from agencies dealing with rough sleepers collated by St Mungos charity and funded by the Mayor of London

CHAIN monitoring categorises rough sleepers as ‘flow clients’ who have had no previous contact; ‘returner clients’ who have intermittent periods of rough sleeping and use of outreach services and ‘stock clients’ who tend to be regular uses of outreach support and likely to be permanent rough sleepers.

The socio-economic data of identified rough sleepers is not broken down by borough but the 2014/15 analysis of ‘outer boroughs’ (which includes Barking and Dagenham) suggested that 50% of rough sleepers were British and central and Eastern Europeans accounted for 29%. In all 79% of all rough sleepers were previously flow clients and had no previous contact with 8% being stock and 13% returners.

The following table shows the estimated number of rough sleepers in Barking and Dagenham compared to our sub-regional partners:

Fig.21: Number of rough sleepers compared to east London sub-region 2011/15 Borough 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 LBBD 17 12 14 27 Havering 7 18 11 25 Redbridge 57 83 83 121 Waltham Forest 46 72 75 118 Hackney 81 103 141 155

37 | P a g e

Page 193 Newham 79 124 202 221 Source: Annual CHAIN reports

There has been anecdotal evidence of rising levels of rough sleeping in the past year and the Council has re-established a new Rough Sleepers Forum to review what has traditionally been a low-level form of homelessness in the borough.

The Forum is currently organising a fresh set of rough sleeping counts and ensuring that arrangements are in place to deal with homeless assessments. The group is establishing clear pathways for those requiring assistance; working up a plan for those ineligible for assistance; developing links with the emergency services; monitoring those not exercising their right to reside under the European treaties; developing services for rough sleepers as part of the Severe Weather Plan and through the Warmer Homes Healthy People run with CVS.

3.5.8 Single homelessness

Local authorities are under no duty to provide temporary accommodation to single homelessness persons who are not in priority need and these are largely represented by single people and childless couples, particularly in the under-35s age group.

Barking and Dagenham are only obliged to provide advice and assistance in accessing alternative accommodation despite the biggest rise in approaches to the Council coming from those deemed homeless but not in priority need. This is a group where prioritisation and funding for homelessness services is dwindling across the capital.

Working with the ELHP through funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government, Barking and Dagenham engaged in the East London Single Homelessness Project providing a rent deposit and tenancy sustainment with 337 single homeless persons who had a connection to the area. Established in 2011 it helped to provide access to 23 private sector tenancies for single homeless persons.

Following the closure of the project, the East London Housing Partnership is bidding for a £300,000 Big Lottery Funding grant to carry on its work for single homeless households to provide advice and tenancy support. It plans to work with the Credit Union which will provide rent deposits guaranteed by the ELHP.

38 | P a g e

Page 194 3.6 Temporary Accommodation

3.6.1 Overview of temporary accommodation

Temporary accommodation is an interim solution provided by local authorities to satisfy the statutory duty to house homeless families until such time as that homelessness duty ends. Under the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 the accommodation must be suitable in terms of size, location and the health needs of the client. It must be properly managed, free of hazards and affordable. In particular families should not remain in bed and breakfast for longer than six weeks.

Such households are expected to pay rent and any other ancillary charges which may come with the accommodation. Some households will be eligible for housing benefit which may cover all or some of the costs.

There is no statutory cap on the length of time in which a homeless family may remain in temporary accommodation and the duty is owed until the client either:

 Moves out of their own accord or is no longer eligible for assistance  Moves into settled accommodation arranged by the council  Refuses a final offer of suitable settled accommodation  Is evicted for arrears or anti-social behaviour

For the accounting quarter of March 2015 Barking and Dagenham ranked as seventeenth highest in the number of total households in temporary accommodation with 1,317 dwellings being used. This is still lower than all our sub-regional partners except Havering. The following chart shows the number of statutorily homeless households in temporary accommodation across the capital in comparison to the sub-region and Barking and Dagenham illustrating that the borough remains below the average:

Fig.22: Numbers of statutory homeless in temporary accommodation by national ranking 2012/15

Statutory Homeless in National Temporary 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 Rank Accommodation

Newham 1 3,302 2,877 2,633 Brent 2 3,161 3,341 3,249 Haringey 3 2,997 2,869 2,832 Croydon 4 2,770 79 71 Enfield 5 2,764 2,226 2,143 Barnet 6 2,758 2,401 2,372

39 | P a g e

Page 195 Ealing 7 2,433 1,931 1,106 Westminster 8 2,397 2,283 2,450 Redbridge 9 2,152 2,063 2,113 Hackney 10 2,021 1,755 1,523 Tower Hamlets 11 2,007 1,935 1,845 Waltham Forest 12 1,990 1,469 1,325 Lambeth 13 1,865 1,533 1,276 Kensington & Chelsea 14 1,793 1,754 1,638 Lewisham 15 1,724 1,441 0 Brighton and Hove 16 1,456 1,266 1,064 Barking & Dagenham 17 1,317 1,386 1,188 Hammersmith & Fulham 18 1,197 1,139 1,203 Hounslow 19 1,108 1,087 1,067 Wandsworth 20 1,013 774 590 Source: DCLG Live Tables

The average length of stay in temporary accommodation ultimately depends on the availability and supply of suitable housing and the table below shows the average time spent between being placed in TA and being moved into permanent accommodation as of September 2015. The average waiting time is 20 months.

Fig.23: Average times spent in TA for homeless household in 2015:

No. of Waiting time cases 1 year 153 2 years 108 3 years 66 4 years 32 5 years 20 6 years 5 7 years 2 Total 386 Source: Internal records, Accommodation team

Although Barking and Dagenham succeeded in meeting the target of reducing use of temporary accommodation by 50% before March 2010, the pressures of welfare reform, housing need and limited affordable housing supply have seen TA figures rise ever since.

40 | P a g e

Page 196 Managing the growing demand for temporary accommodation against pressured budgets and in a highly competitive local housing market with spiralling rents has forced the Council to reassess its strategy of using such accommodation.

3.6.2 Supply of temporary accommodation

The Council has recently managed to rationalise some of its assets in the face of rising demand for temporary accommodation. The Council currently manages three hostel facilities, two of which were converted from former care homes for the elderly. A fourth hostel is due to open in February 2016 following the conversion of a former teacher’s accommodation unit.

116 flats in The Foyer in Barking have been taken over by the Council and voids are utilised for temporary accommodation as residents are relocated. In addition, the Council makes best use of all properties either decanted or earmarked for regeneration as well as procuring dwellings and rooms through private sector leasing, bed and breakfast arrangements and nightly lets.

The following table presents the various accommodation options and numbers used in Barking and Dagenham in November 2015:

Fig.24: Types of temporary accommodation used in Barking and Dagenham 2015

Temporary No. Of Accommodation Description Households Type Bed and 77 – B&B Last resort and emergency accommodation comprised of Breakfast (B&B) 71 – nightly self-contained and shared facilities procured on a nightly let and nightly let Lets cost basis accommodation The Council owns and manages a mix of contained and Hostels 103 non-contained hostels such as Riverside House, Butler Court, Boundary Road and Brockelbank Lodge Self-contained PRS accommodation leased by the Council Private Sector 891 through private landlords on guaranteed rent levels and Licensing (PSL) managed by landlords/letting agents GLA Empty Self-contained vacant PRS dwellings returned to use by Homes 13 GLA grant and managed by the Council on five year leases Programme units Housing Association Self-contained accommodation leased by the Council from 148 Leasing Scheme registered providers including Bevan House and The Foyer (HALS) Decanted properties on estate renewal projects awaiting Short-life housing 316 demolition Source: Internal records, Accommodation team

41 | P a g e

Page 197

The following table charts the overall rise in TA households and how the local authority has accommodated them. Note that the Council has continued to reduce use of B&B but sought to optimise its own assets for accommodation:

Fig.25: Number of TA households and type of temporary accommodation they are housed in 2010/15

Accommodation Type 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

B&B 42 154 180 65 47 Shared nightly lets 10 14 18 6 0 Self-contained nightly lets 0 0 18 107 91 Hostels 21 25 72 104 99 PSL/HALS 620 744 825 915 824 LA stock 0 144 146 189 256 Registered providers 8 0 1 0 0 Other 3 4 0 0 0 Total 704 1085 1260 1386 1317 Source: P1E form on homelessness

3.6.3 Financial and supply pressures on temporary accommodation

The impact of welfare reform has driven up the number of crisis presentations made to housing advice services which has seen households placed in temporary accommodation rise by almost 49% in 2013/14 to 1,386. The figure dipped slightly in 2014/15 to 1,317 but will remain under pressure as the second phase of welfare caps and reductions kicks-in.

With reduced resources the Council is trying to cut the cost of temporary accommodation and find innovative solutions to dealing with demand but within budget. The Council has targeted B&B and nightly let rates for savings because it represents a very expensive form of TA and the problem has been exacerbated in recent years by other local authorities using Barking and Dagenham for preventative placements. To control spiralling nightly let rates and prevent other boroughs outbidding Barking and Dagenham for much sought after local accommodation, the borough has joined with London Councils and sub-regional partners in agreeing the London Inter Borough Accommodation Agreement (IBAA) which includes the introduction of a maximum nightly let rates. The Council has increasingly sought to use its own buildings to manage temporary accommodation, reduce the associated costs and generate rental income. The return of The Foyer to TA, the conversion of buildings for the use as hostels and numerous decant estates awaiting regeneration has generated income for the Housing Revenue Account.

42 | P a g e

Page 198 Estate Renewal and Decant Programme

However significant progress on estate renewal regeneration schemes has added additional pressure. The removal of these general needs properties, the need for alternative decant properties and the subsequent loss of short-life dwellings for temporary accommodation has exacerbated the problem of supply.

Estate renewal schemes on Gascoigne East, Gascoigne West and Sebastian Court requires the movement of 274 tenants and the provision of alternative accommodation. In addition 28 households in temporary accommodation need to be rehoused. Futher regeneration schemes in Gascoigne, Thames View and Rainham Road South are expected to be completed by 2021 and will also require the movement of 878 tenants. This is to be managed in small programmes, working with housing providers to house some of the decants on new schemes as they progress.

Private Rented TA

The cost of private sector licensing arrangements has also posed significant financial burden in recent years leading to the Council retendering its contract for leased properties in 2014 and approving a new framework of 17 managing agents to source and manage suitable quality properties which offer value for money.

The procurement of Bed and Breakfast accommodation has also for the first time been through a price reduction exercise, which has helped to significantly reduce the nightly costs of placements.

The borough strives to remain resourceful and is testing the feasibility of establishing a local lettings agency. Based on a similar model to Reside, the Council’s letting arm to working families on affordable rents, the agency would act as part of the preventative strategy by sourcing (and managing) a new tranche of private sector rented properties for rent deposit and homeless prevention, thereby reducing administrative costs for the local authority.

While the cost of temporary accommodation presents one challenge, the provision of new supply is just as formidable. Landlords are increasingly reluctant to lease or renew tenancies to tenants on capped benefits. With rising house prices landlords are looking at either realising their assets or tapping into the burgeoning and attractive professional rental market with higher rental yields. The Council has sought to address the matter by offering competitive incentives to increase supply whilst adhering to the Local Housing Allowance rate to encourage and maintain PRS supply and avoid nightly lets.

3.6.4 Bed and Breakfast Accommodation

The borough has sought to reduce its reliance on B&B and this is encouraged by the legal requirement not to house families in such accommodation for any longer than six weeks and in the case of 16 and 17 year olds never at all.

43 | P a g e

Page 199 Since 2013 the Council has reduced dependency on B&B within borough boundaries but it has become necessary to utilise accommodation in neighbouring boroughs, mainly in Redbridge and Newham. This arrangement is adherent to the IBAA and monitored on a weekly basis.

3.6.5 Sub-Regional Approach to Temporary Accommodation and the IBAA

The London Inter Borough Accommodation Arrangement (IBAA) became operative in April 2014 as a means to govern how all 32 boroughs and the city corporation discharged their homeless duty into TA throughout the capital, outside of their own municipal boundaries.

Information is collected every month from each borough about where placements are made, the number, the type and kind of accommodation procured, all bar placements made by social services.

To mitigate the cost of rising London rents and prevent borough’s outbidding each other for precious accommodation resource, the IBAA protocols agreed by housing directors placed a cap on maximum nightly let rates. In Barking and Dagenham this arrangement also allowed for an increase in PSL properties becoming available for local as opposed to pan-London usage.

With east London having some of the cheapest private rents in London, particularly Barking and Dagenham and Waltham Forest, the sub-region has become a net importer of placements from across the capital.

Since 2013 however there has been a significant decline in placements from west London councils like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea and a surge in temporary accommodation being sought by east sub-regional partners. West London placements have dropped from 51% to 26% while east London has climbed from 49% to 65% - with the largest net contributors being Redbridge, Newham and Waltham Forest. By 92% the majority of the other borough placements into Barking and Dagenham are emergency lets as opposed to a discharge of the homeless duty into settled accommodation.

The table illustrates the annual number of pan-London placements in each sub- regional partner:

44 | P a g e

Page 200 Fig.26: Pan-London placements in east London sub-region 2012/14

2012/13 2013/14 Borough Placements Placements

Redbridge 772 1119 Hackney 620 814 Newham 586 748 Waltham Forest 544 671 Barking and Dagenham 378 510 Havering 113 153 Tower Hamlets 108 146 Source: IBAA reports

45 | P a g e

Page 201 3.7 Housing Supply

3.7.1 Choice Homes and Allocations

Overview

Choice Homes is Barking and Dagenham’s choice-based lettings scheme run by housing advice and open to residents enlisted to the borough’s housing register. Applicants can bid for social, affordable or housing association properties in a borough location of their choice.

The Localism Act 2011 allowed the Council to review and revise its allocations scheme to take into account local considerations of how best it manages a diminishing supply of stock. With new supply being delivered slowly and Right to Buy approvals on the rise, it allowed the borough to amend its allocation scheme to efficiently allocate stock to the highest need households.

Applicants must be over 18 years of age and meet a residency qualification of residing in Barking and Dagenham for at least three years, continue to reside and fall into a reasonable preference category. Exceptions to the qualifying person’s criteria include:

 some victims of domestic violence  accepted referrals under the MAPP and National Witness Mobility Scheme  applicants owed a homeless duty under part 7 and that duty is ongoing  categories of the armed forces and associated family  applicants whose application would attract additional preference

These reforms have substantially reduced access to the housing register cutting eligible numbers from 14,500 in 2014 to 7,000 in 2015. 6,000 applicants with no identified need have been removed and another 1,400 registrants living outside of the borough have been filtered out effectively allowing supply to be targeted at higher categories of local need.

Fig. 27: Lettings by bedroom size by LBBD and registered providers in 2014

LBBD lettings Bedroom size RP lettings (166) Grand total (1,048) (1,063)

1-bed 421 27 448 2-bed 414 50 464 3-bed 218 87 305 4-bed 10 1 11 5-bed 0 1 1 Source: Internal records, Choice Homes team

46 | P a g e

Page 202 Reasonable Preferences

Tailoring together the personal circumstances of the applicant, bedroom size requirements and the level of housing need, the level of priority will be determined. The borough is under a legal duty to give reasonable preference to following households:

 Homeless persons within the meaning of the Housing Act 1996, as amended  Homeless persons owed certain duties by any authority until such time the duty ceases  Persons occupying insanitary, unsatisfactory or overcrowded housing  Persons who need to move on medical or welfare grounds  Persons who need to move to an area to give or receive care where failure to meet that need would cause hardship to themselves or to others

The Localism Act 2011 provides local authorities the flexibility to introduce non- statutory reasonable preferences. To reflect a local priority of this borough and to support central governments agenda on worklessness, the Council have introduced a non-statutory reasonable preference if an applicant and / or partner included on the application is in work.

Right to Move

Local authorities must not disqualify social tenants seeking to transfer from another district where it is satisfied that the tenant needs, rather than wishes, to move for work related reasons.

Discharge into the private rented sector

The Localism Act allows local authorities to bring their main homelessness duty to an end by discharging the duty into the private rented sector. The PRS offer must be an assured shorthold tenancy of a minimum of 12 months. If there is a further incidence of homelessness occurring within two years of accepting the offer, there may be an ongoing duty to provide accommodation.

Reside and Affordable Rent housing options

Recognising the need to create a range of solutions to deliver housing options the Council as a landlord and in partnership with other providers and lenders is delivering affordable rent options at 65%-80% of the rental market value.

Reside, a joint purpose vehicle, was created to recognise the need for the provision of affordable housing of working households. It currently offers 477 dwellings across sites such as the William Street Quarter and Thames View East. Abbey Road Phase 2 is set to join the portfolio with an additional 144 homes. Properties are let, managed and maintained by the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and

47 | P a g e

Page 203 offered on longer term assured shorthold tenancies, subject to satisfactory management of an initial 12 month tenancy.

To be eligible the working applicant must have sufficient households income to afford rental payments. The income threshold will vary across developments around the borough as well as the size of the properties available.

Overcrowding, Under Occupation and the Bungalows Scheme

The need to be more efficient with housing stock led to dedicated efforts to reduce overcrowding and under occupation by the Choice Homes team. This has become even more important with the advent of welfare reform. As part of preventing growing homeless numbers, the Council has identified those likely to be impacted and where possible encouraged downsizing to free up larger homes.

The team facilitated 435 moves between 2010 and 2015, 72 of which were under the Seaside and Country Home scheme for those aged 60 or over, thereby freeing up more than 650 bedrooms. 33 households were directly affected by the reduction in the Spare Room Rate in housing benefit.

An additional 37 households were moved to bungalows designed for pensioners with a second phase of thirty four newly built bungalows due for occupation. Households which gave up the largest properties were prioritised.

Additionally the Council has used its Mutual Exchange service to encourage households to move out of under-occupation. 622 households have utilised the service since 2009/14:

Fig.28: Mutual exchanges in Barking and Dagenham 2009/15

Mutual exchanges 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Total dwellings let through 68 61 107 128 183 75 mutual exchanges

Source: P1E form on homelessness

3.7.2 Private Rented Sector (PRS):

Not unlike the rest of the capital, Barking and Dagenham’s PRS sector has seen a remarkable surge in the last decade, quadrupling from a base of 4,220 in 2003 to 12,000-14,000 dwellings today representing 17% of total housing stock.

Burgeoning growth and evidence of significant levels of sub-standard rental accommodation flowing into the private lets market required the Council to take action. Our Private Sector Stock Condition Survey in 2010 estimated that 41% of PRS tenants were vulnerable households in receipt of benefit; 15% of dwellings were considered to be fuel poor due to poor thermal comfort and 47% of stock was

48 | P a g e

Page 204 deemed to be non-decent with a quarter suffering from disrepair, hazards or inadequate warmth.

The borough values the essential resource PRS properties bring to the local housing market but equally stresses the need for local residents to be assisted in living in safe and well managed homes, especially with substantial numbers being used as emergency and temporary accommodation for homeless households.

To facilitate an improved market in quality accommodation the Council used the Housing Act 2004 to introduce a borough-wide mandatory licensing scheme in September 2014 requiring all landlords operating in the borough to be registered as fit and proper persons eligible to manage stock and letting accommodation which met basic decency. This was paralleled with a growth in landlords registered as accredited to the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme (LLAS), the creation of a proactive Landlords Forum and the conduct of quarterly surveys of letting agents in which to gauge an analysis of trends, prices and problems in the local private rental market.

This corresponds with the Mayor of London’s Housing Covenant for Private Renters in 2012 and the adoption of the Mayor’s London Rental Standard into the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme in 2013.

In terms of homelessness, the strategy and review have already referenced the contraction in supply caused by a decline in landlords interested in supporting temporary accommodation. It will be important in the next five years for the Council to take a lead role in working with private sector landlords to ensure that a balance is met between the demands of a buoyant private sector market and the duty in relation to homelessness.

Recent surveys of the local letting agents suggest that this will become ever more acute even before the second phase of welfare reform has begun to take effect. The September 2015 surveys showed that average median rent for private sector properties was up to £1,231 per month, an 8% rise since the beginning of the year and the highest the borough has recorded since it started the surveys in 2010 with 64% of letting agents expecting rents to rise again over the next quarter. The length of most tenancies has shifted markedly to over three years with 68% of tenants opting for security of their existing accommodation rather than looking for new premises.

Letting agents also reported an entrenched decline in landlords accepting housing benefit claimants explaining that 92% of recent lets were to in-work tenants clearly pitching to the higher rental bracket. The survey continued to illustrate the existing pattern of lack of supply with 50% of landlords having no void properties on their books and the remaining 50% having four or less awaiting repairs for the next occupation. Ninety two per cent recorded acceleration in demand for rental accommodation.

49 | P a g e

Page 205

3.7.3 New Affordable Housing

The borough’s Draft Local Plan estimates that Barking and Dagenham has the capacity to provide 35,000 new homes over the next 15 years and has already been set the target to deliver 1,236 properties a year in the Mayor’s London Plan. 40% are should be affordable splitting in tenure with 60% at market rent level, 24% at social rent and 16% at intermediate.

2011 Housing Needs Survey identified the need for an additional 1,333 new affordable homes every year, particularly around family-sized accommodation. By 2013 the Council committed to projects which over the next four years aim to have delivered 1,636 new affordable homes of mixed tenure ranging from social, intermediate and affordable rents as well as shared ownership dwellings.

Since 2009/10 the borough has produced 1,036 new affordable homes including the following flagship schemes since 2012:

Fig.29: Council new-build affordable homes schemes 2012/15

No. of Scheme Tenure breakdown units

William Street Quarter 201 65%-80% Market Rent

Thames View East 276 50%, 65%-80% market rent

Alex Guy Gardens 26 50% market rent

Luke Alsop Square 12 50% market rent

Abbey Road Phase 1 134 57% and 80% market rent

Goresbrook Village 98 50% market rent

Rainham Road South 29 65% market rent

Barking Riverside has become the Council’s most ambitious growth opportunity delivering one of the UK’s largest housing developments with planning approval for 10,800 new homes. Further estate renewal is expected to widen housing choice across the following schemes by 2016:

50 | P a g e

Page 206 Fig.30: Affordable housing schemes pipeline

No. of Scheme Tenure breakdown units

Leys Estate Phase 1 70 50%-65% market rent

Marks Gate Site 1 56 50% market rent

Marks Gate Sites 2-3 28 65% market rent

Bungalow portfolio 34 50% market rent (assorted sites)

North Street 14 Potential shared ownership

Shared ownership and 50%- Leys Estate Phase 2 69 65% rent

Abbey Road Phase 2 144 To be confirmed

Mixed for sale, shared Gascoigne Phase 1 421 ownership and 50%-80% market rents

Up to 14% of the new homes target has been identified for the Barking Town Centre area. As a result the GLA has designated Barking Town Centre as a Housing Zone and awarded £42.3m of funding to assist this. The Council is committed to deliver 1,000 new homes by 2018 and over 4,000 within a 10 year period from this area.

The Draft Local Plan’s Options and Issues Paper is currently out for public consultation and seeks to address the number of dwellings built and types of affordable housing the borough should produce in the next fifteen years and this will significantly broaden the offer of housing choice for residents.

51 | P a g e

Page 207 5.Homelessness Strategy Objectives 2016/21

The Homeless Review 2015 set out context, identified trends in homelessness and examined the services and interventions employed to prevent homelessness in the first instance and tackle crisis presentations when they occurred.

However planning services for the next five years requires an appreciation of the current and emerging trends:

 Second phase of welfare reform is likely to create greater demand  Loss of private rented sector accommodation is squeezing available supply  Parental ejection from the home is on an upward trajectory  Rough sleeping appears to be on the rise  Lone parent households in priority need have increased dramatically  Demand for supported housing options and services is developing

Tackling these problems has to be balanced against diminishing resources and the cultivation of a different ethos to housing crisis resolution. This has to recognise:

 Local authority resources are likely to be squeezed much further  Prevention initiatives and self-resolution will be critical in managing demand  Housing advice services will have to be creative and integrated  That resources and support has to be targeted at the most acute circumstances  Partnerships with external providers and the voluntary sector needs to become robust  Innovation in housing supply and choice is essential

Despite the financial constraints, the borough aspires to continually improve its housing advice services and ensure that our approach to homelessness is fit-for- purpose and creates a customer journey that provides appropriate housing solutions.

As part of this process, the Council will be seeking Gold Standard accreditation for its services in 2016, of which this homelessness review and the strategic actions below form the strategy going forward.

The borough seeks to entrench initiatives and approaches which work well in reducing, preventing or attending to homelessness while modernising services, approaches and tackling gaps where more can be done to improve outcomes.

52 | P a g e

Page 208 OBJECTIVE ONE: Reducing demand through prevention

Outcomes:

1.1 Homelessness prevented through housing support, advice and initiatives for vulnerable and at risk households

1.2 Encouraging self-resolution of housing crises

1.3 Co-ordinated multiagency interventions to assist households affected by the second phase of welfare reform

1.4 Increased access to employment support for families and young people

1.1 Homelessness prevented through housing support, advice and initiatives for vulnerable and at risk households

 Maintain Rent Deposit/Rent Advance funding for suitable tenants

The Rent Deposit Scheme has assisted 758 households since 2008 and allows Barking and Dagenham to act as an introductory agent with landlords offered up to four weeks rent as a deposit and up to four weeks rent in advance in agreement for a year long tenancy. To encourage landlords, a cash incentive for renewing the tenancy or extending it is offered to keep the household in situ for two years or more. The Council intends to maintain the scheme as an active and proven tool of homelessness prevention but will continue to review the scheme in light of market changes.

 Continue to monitor the court duty representation scheme which assists home owners and tenants at risk of possession

Barking and Dagenham previously funded the role of a court advocacy advisor who attended court to protect vulnerable homeowners subject to possession proceedings, from eviction. This was transferred to Edward Duthie Solicitors in partnership with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and the Council wish to continue its support for the service and the role it plays in the prevention of homelessness.

53 | P a g e

Page 209  Marry up support between the voluntary sector and Private Sector Housing services to deliver swifter remedial action and support against illegal evictions and harassment

The significance of PRS as a housing choice and homeless solution was recognised with the introduction of the Landlords Mandatory Licensing Scheme in 2014. Driving up standards of management and the quality of accommodation is an essential part of ensuring a sustainable supply of private rented accommodation.

However with rising homelessness attributed to the loss of assured shorthold tenancies, the Council’s private sector housing services will have to forge a closer relationship with the voluntary sector organisations which are often the first to be contacted for advice on illegal evictions and harassment. Official Council interventions are small, but many clients, threatened with loss of security of tenure and a risk of homelessness, have presented themselves to the Citizens Advice Bureau and its Community Legal Action Centre.

Referrals pathway needs to be developed between the voluntary sector and the local authority, even if the Council has no statutory role to fulfil. It should be made aware of alleged bad practices and can log and investigate landlords as part of its Licensing regime and potentially enforce an Interim Management Order (IMO) upon the property.

 Agree a RSL eviction protocol setting out how the council and RSLs take every measure to prevent evictions

The Council is seeking to develop a protocol with fellow housing associations setting out the triggers and measures taken in the first instance to prevent eviction following the second phase of welfare reform. As a key element of homeless prevention the protocol will require our partners to evict only in the last resort and only where the tenant refuses to seek support or advice from the Council, the RSL or a relevant voluntary sector pathway. The protocol will allow those requiring assistance on debt, income maximisation, addiction or other suitable housing pathways to maintain at-risk tenancies.

 Develop an innovative Homelessness Prevention Fund

Trusting staff to be innovative and creative in tackling homelessness allows for blue skies thinking and the borough will develop a small homelessness innovation fund to allow front-line staff to prepare business cases for preventative solutions which can be trialled.

54 | P a g e

Page 210

 Increase the ‘Dispelling the Myth’ programme on housing options and lettings

The Housing Options team will roll-out their ‘Reality Check’ programme across secondary schools, Sumerfield House and The Vineries to encourage youngsters to think of wider housing solutions, debunking the myths surrounding pregnancy and access to social housing, issues around parental exclusion and encouraging self-reliance.

 ‘Early Rent Alert’ scheme in partnership with Children’s Services

Working with Landlord Services, the Rent Arrears Eviction Panel seeks to prevent homelessness before a crisis presentation becomes imminent however this tends not be the case with some families who end up in arrears but are owed a duty by Children’s Services. It is proposed that those families are identified early by the Rents team as being at risk of serious arrears and are supported and advised on how to avoid losing their accommodation.

 Development of Homeless Prevention Improvement Plan

To compliment the overarching themes and strategic objectives of the Homelessness Strategy, the Housing Options team will devise an annual Homeless Prevention Improvement Plan to monitor performance and implement innovative ways to tackle the risk of homelessness.

The team is already revising its approach to dealing with tenants who lose their abode due to the service of section 21 notices and parental ejection; working with charitable providers and liaising more strongly with the private rented market in relation to shared accommodation

1.2 Encouraging self-resolution of housing crises

 Delivery of an Enhanced Housing Options tool to allow clients to self- help

Barking and Dagenham is developing an Enhanced Housing Options tool to create a far more effective and efficient customer gateway for households who may be at risk of homelessness, particularly young persons. Clients will be able to find housing options personalised to their own circumstances without having to wait for an appointment or applying to the Choice Homes scheme.

55 | P a g e

Page 211 An online assessment will allow the client to assess the full suite of housing choices available to them including homelessness prevention, affordable housing to buy, private rent, social housing, jobs and training advice and income maximisation support.

Fig.31: Referral routes through the enhanced housing options tool

The tool acts as a first port-of-call which will mitigate against increasing volumes of approaches to John Smith House and makes it clear from the outset that social housing is not the first and only choice

 Continue to promote the BanD Together Routemaster service

The borough will continue to support the BanD Together routemaster of services which allows residents to seek their own education, employment and training solutions through the suite of general and specialist providers such as the Richmond Fellowship for mental health clients, Bridges into Work run by East Thames and the Osborne Partnership for residents with learning disabilities

56 | P a g e

Page 212 1.3 Co-ordinated multiagency interventions to assist households affected by the second phase of welfare reform

 Prepare for universal credit and the second phase of welfare reform and identify those most likely to be impacted

Ensuring housing officers and lettings teams understand the implications of the new system will put them in a stronger position to identify tenants at risk. Under the first phase of welfare reform the Council and its RSL partners identified those most likely to be impacted by welfare reductions and the introduction of Universal Credit. It has already recognised the risk around tenants juggling multiple priorities in their budgets during the impending second phase of welfare reform.

To prevent the risk of homelessness, the Council will continue to prepare staff, landlords and residents for the wider implementation of Universal Credit and further benefit reductions as legislation passes through Parliament.

1.4 Increased access to employment support for families and young people

 Improve information on skills, learning and jobs and help more residents into sustainable employment

Ensuring access into the jobs market and sustaining employment helps residents build their financial resilience, well-being and increases the likelihood of keeping up with rental and mortgage payments. The borough’s Employability Partnership is the forum for joint planning between the Council and educational providers like the Adult College and Barking and Dagenham College and advisors such as Jobcentre Plus to provide training offers and clear pathways to employment and career progression. Tackling youth unemployment, long-term unemployment and enhancing support for claimants of income support or disability benefits are key areas of joint activity.

The borough also intends to maintain a network of employment support and job brokerage based on JobShop actively supporting tenants and residents including those in receipt of Discretionary Housing Payments who continue to assist and develop themselves. The employment and skills team is actively working with a wide range of local and sub-regional partners to secure European Social Fund monies to enhance local support for key priority groups.

57 | P a g e

Page 213 OBJECTIVE TWO: Enabling pathways away from homelessness

Outcomes:

2.1 Re-established Homelessness Forum

2.2 A successful partnership with external providers and the voluntary sector providing financial resilience, mediation and support for those suffering from homelessness

2.3 Greater tenancy sustainment across all tenures

2.4 More effective identification of hidden homelessness, in particular rough sleepers and LGBT persons

2.5 Utilised sub-regional partnerships such as the ELHP to tackle vulnerable single persons homelessness

2.1 Re-established Homelessness Forum

 Re-establish the Homelessness Forum facilitated by the Council but run independently

The Homelessness Forum, comprised of statutory, voluntary and health partners, was previously the essential body which oversaw the implementation of the Homelessness Strategy and explored key areas for work and development. Originally established in 2004, it faltered through lack of resources and no consistent guidance.

The Council will identify key voluntary sector partners who are willing to independently chair the Forum and give it the external scrutiny and the leadership it requires. The Forum will meet in early 2016 and is seen as a key driver for the borough’s commitment to continuous improvement of the homelessness service and in obtaining and retaining its anticipated Gold Standard accreditation.

58 | P a g e

Page 214 2.2 A successful partnership with external providers and the voluntary sector providing financial resilience, mediation and support for those suffering homelessness

 Develop clear voluntary sector referral pathways for vulnerable clients identified as at risk

A key purpose of the Homelessness Forum will be the creation of a much stronger bond between the council’s services and the voluntary sector which often cater for those who are most at risk of homelessness or rough sleeping. Organisations like the Citizens Advice Bureau, the CVS, Hope 4 Barking and Dagenham and Oasis night shelter projects, the Independent Living Agency, the Credit Union and DADB to name but a few provide essential advice and immediate support for vulnerable clients. Running many of the borough’s social support programmes such Warmer Homes Healthy People, the voluntary sector has first contact when dispensing warm packs, income and debt support, private rented tenancy advice and night shelters.

However there is a need for a co-ordinated referral network where third sector partners can reliably forward individuals or households deemed as vulnerable and at risk to the appropriate teams and services available in the Council. There is evidence that in some cases this is beginning to happen but services need to be universally mapped and referral routes need to be developed and agreed to ensure appropriate systems are in place to assist those with complex needs at risk of homelessness.

 Develop RSL partnerships to deliver cost effective supported accommodation

Housing associations remain a key stakeholder in the borough’s strategic delivery of housing including the provision of supported accommodation and associated services. During 2016, adult social care commissioning are to review existing arrangements in the provision of housing support for mental health, extra care, learning disabilities and young people. This review may have clear implications for homeless prevention.

The reviews are to take into consideration the Council’s commitment to enabling social responsibility and independent living. Examining the role of providers, floating support packages and move-on arrangements the Council is looking for cost effective supported accommodation which emphasises the importance of personalisation of budgets where relevant.

59 | P a g e

Page 215 As a result the Council is to:

 Review sheltered accommodation and extra care  Develop a paper of housing options for persons with learning disabilities  Examine floating support provided to younger persons  Investigate innovative housing solutions for mental health clients including modular build and shared accommodation

2.3 Greater tenancy sustainment across all tenures

 Ingrain ‘good tenancy’ practices for social tenants, rent deposit clients and PRS tenants to help clients manage their finances and sustain their tenancies

Understanding a tenancy and how to manage it during times of financial difficulty or personal hardship is often the critical element of sustaining a tenancy and ultimately preventing homelessness. The Council has developed a ‘how to be a good tenant’ mandatory training session for those it offers a rent deposit or rent in advance too. This ensures that a landlord receives tenants who are fully appraised of their rights and responsibilities and are equipped to manage tenancy problems should they ever arise.

The borough will explore the development of a tenant training package, possibly with the voluntary sector to support landlords who house PRS tenants and TA tenants on behalf of the Council for guidance about their responsibilities. If the pilots work, the scheme could be opened up to council and housing association tenants deemed suitable for guidance.

 Draft tenancy guides produced for the private rented sector

Barking and Dagenham is working in partnership with a leading building society to market a new tenants guide specifically to encourage good tenancy sustainment and easy access to advice for those seeking private rented accommodation for the first time. The borough will specifically use this guide to encourage wider housing solutions for those who have traditionally just preferred social housing as the only available option.

60 | P a g e

Page 216 2.4 More effective identification of hidden homelessness, in particular rough sleepers and LGBT persons

 Early identification of the risk to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons at risk of becoming homeless

Growing anecdotal evidence suggests that there is rising homelessness linked to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination. This is particularly pertinent to young people and also in some BME communities. At risk are those where families have rejected or found it hard to come to terms with the gender identification or sexual orientation of the individual.

This is a new area of identification for the Council which will work with the voluntary sector and approach registered providers and appropriate charities to examine how best to identify this vulnerable group in the first instance. This will allow the borough to explore the commissioning implications of providing support which could take the pressure off housing and social services.

 Minimise rough sleeping through partnership interventions to ensure No Second Night Out (NSNO) for single homeless people

In light of the anecdotal evidence of increasing rough sleepers in Barking and Dagenham the borough is to review its approach to tackling the problem and how it interacts with partners delivering refuge and support at the sharp end. Rough sleeper identification is a key issue to be addressed, providing for a robust process of referral where move-on can be encouraged and support for complex needs administered.

The borough will use the new Homelessness Forum to prioritise the ad hoc work of the rough sleepers group and conduct a fresh analysis of rough sleeping in the borough inclusive of the work provided by Thames Reach, No Second Night Out, London Street Rescue, Independent Living Agency, the Salvation Army, Hope 4 Barking and Dagenham night shelters and the dedicated police team. A new street count will be authorised in late 2015 and future work will include specific emphasis upon mental health, LGBT issues and international reconnection. The Council will evaluate the multi-agency outcomes of the Operation Alabama approach used in neighbouring boroughs in partnership with Thames Reach, the police and UK Border to assess what learning Barking and Dagenham can employ.

61 | P a g e

Page 217 2.5 Utilised external partnerships to support vulnerable single persons who are homeless

 Support the East London Housing Partnership bid for single homeless project

Resources for single homelessness across the capital have been diminishing for some time and with growing numbers making approaches to housing advice services, initiatives by partner organisations to provide assistance must be encouraged.

Barking and Dagenham will continue to support East London Housing Partnership bids for external resource and in particular its bid for Big Lottery Funding for a new single homelessness project.

 Debt management and mentoring project for single homeless persons

LESS crisis funding ceased this year but part of the remaining budget has been approved for a pilot debt management and monitoring project run by CAB to help single homeless young persons cope with crisis and create a pathway to independent living throughout 2016.

62 | P a g e

Page 218 OBJECTIVE THREE: Create Integrated Services at First Contact

Outcomes:

3.1 Gold Standard accreditation for Housing Options

3.2 Co-ordinated ‘single pathways’ protocols, procedures and mapping between housing, adult commissioning, children’s services and health services

3.3 Development of one-stop shop approach to housing services such as Housing+ model

3.4 Joint commissioning of services to provide seamless housing options to all clients

3.1 Gold Standard accreditation for housing options services

 Aim for Gold Standard accreditation for housing options services

To achieve the continuous improvement of our housing advice function, we are committed to developing a Gold Standard Housing Options service recognised by the National Practitioner Support Service (NPSS). The borough needs to meet ten local challenge targets which thread multiagency actions to tackle homelessness, support vulnerable households, work with the private sector, engage with the voluntary sector and provide pathways out of homelessness for all client groups affected. The service is seeking to bench- marking its provision using the Gold Standard self-assessment toolkit in January 2016.

 Review housing advice structure and prevention services to improve customer journey and ensure fit for purpose

To ensure that the housing advice service is responsive to the ever changing market, remains fit for purpose and seeks to continually improve the customer journey, the Council is reviewing its current structure through the Housing Transformation Programme with recommendations for reform to be made in early 2016.

63 | P a g e

Page 219  Consider more invest-to-save bids to improve the service

An invest-to-save bid in 2014 allowed for the recruitment of staff to collect rent arrears from residents in temporary accommodation. The adoption of a robust collection procedure through visits and utilising technology to receive payment online and by telephone significantly reduce the 50% arrears rate of those in temporary accommodation. The Council will explore further invest-to-save initiatives to deliver quality services and create savings for the General Fund.

3.2 Co-ordinated ‘single pathways’ protocols, procedures and mapping between housing, adult commissioning, children’s services and health services

 Review all protocols and procedures between NELFT, mental health, adult commissioning, children’s services and housing options to create a seamless integrated process for clients

Across the board of adult and children social care services, protocols were agreed to provide effective referral routes and quotas of social housing for adults, families and young people assessed as priority need or at risk but who could be supported to live independently free of specialised support – including those suffering from chronic mental illness, severe learning disabilities and persons recovering from long-term substance misuse.

Elements of these protocols need to be reviewed and refreshed to reflect their effectiveness in delivering outcomes as part of wider strategy looking at housing-related services for vulnerable and supported households.

 Mandatory attendance at a bi-annual conference between children’s, adults and housing staff to explore processes, cases and legal changes to provide consistent service

The complexity and ever changing nature of social care legislation has occasionally led to a disconnect between commissioning services and housing, with the unintended consequence of leaving vulnerable clients in inappropriate housing situations at great cost to the Council.

There is a service wide agreement that mandatory bi-annual conferences should be held between mental health, adult social care, children’s services and housing staff to prepare, brief and engage frontline workers in policy and

64 | P a g e

Page 220 legislative changes which may impact upon their personal delivery of seamless services to clients.

 Consider appointing a referral officer who understands all of the social services links, assessments and legislation to ensure seamless approach to complex cases

A key disconnect in present service delivery exists between housing and social care services when it comes to who is owed a duty, when, by whom and under which legislation. Housing support is a duty owed under different circumstances by different services under disparate laws ranging from the Housing Act 1996 as amended, the Children’s (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Children’s Act 1989, the Mental Health Act 1983, Care Act 2014 and the National assistance Act 1948.

There is currently not a seamless service between housing and children’s services in particular despite multi-agency engagement through the MAF assessment panels. Greater understanding of the assessment and referral processes between housing and social services would drastically reduce overspend on accommodation budgets used for TA if the approach could be co-ordinated.

The Council will look to resource a link officer versed in the social services links, assessments and legislation to ensure seamless approach to complex cases.

 Reinstate homeless access to primary care health

Until the reorganisation of the primary care model into the Clinical Commissioning Group, the borough had a concordat which provided a referral route for homeless people to appropriate health services and registration with GP surgeries. This arrangement ceased following the reorganisation of primary health care in 2010.

The Council will seek to re-establish this referral pathway with the Clinical Commissioning Group.

 Further client panels mapping and consider the establishment of single assessment/referral panel to deal with high risk, complex needs clients in one meeting

A desk-top mapping exercise has identified nine different operational and client panels where there is likely duplication in assessing the needs of the

65 | P a g e

Page 221 same high-risk clients and offenders in isolation from other sub-groups. The borough will explore whether a comprehensive single assessment panel which considers the full range of issues concerning the individual can be developed, leading to an efficient and seamless service delivery for the client.

3.3 Development of one-stop shop approach to housing services such as the Housing+ model

 Roll-out a pilot of HousingPlus approach to one-stop shop housing support and advice

The potential role of HousingPlus in delivering rudimentary advice and lower level prevention work could be a critical development in tackling the risk of homelessness and sustaining tenancies.

The model is being developed as part of the Housing Transformation Programme to ensure frontline housing staff are in the position to advise on basic employment, public health and life skill issues to encourage residents to resolve problems early and by themselves as opposed to relying on further Council services. Where circumstances are acute HousingPlus officers would be equipped with making appropriate referrals to specialists, local networks and support.

 Utilise the new OnSide Youth Zone and Integrated Youth Services to provide housing options advice

The approval of a £6million state-of-the-art Youth Zone at Parsloes Park will offer more than 20 activities on offer every session for young people aged 8 to 19, or up to 25 for those with a disability. The aim of the Youth Zone is to raise the aspirations, enhance prospects and improve the health and wellbeing for young people in Barking and Dagenham, by providing affordable access to a wide range of programmes, services and activities including sports, arts, music, employability and mentoring. Integrated Youth Services already run a variety of activities through its three youth centres at The Vibe, Gascoigne and Sue Bramley, as well as ‘pop-up’ provision in areas of high need, such as Marks Gate. This creates an opportunity for housing advice and youth services to provide outreach support on parental ejection, rough sleeping and housing options and choice.

66 | P a g e

Page 222

3.4 Joint commissioning of services to provide seamless housing options to all clients

 Joint commissioning strategy for accommodation for people with supported needs

The Council has already identified the need for a more integrated and seamless provision of housing-related support and plans to address the gaps with a set of accommodation reviews around mental health, older persons and learning disabilities in particular. A joint commissioning approach will be unveiled in 2016.

 Create an Older Persons Housing Pathway

The Council is currently experiencing high demand for sheltered housing with over five hundred people on the waiting list, with minimal voids and no hard to let stock. The sheltered schemes and what they offer vary greatly and this needs to be considered in light of the borough’s need to create an effective and reappraised older persons housing pathway.

The Council is to commission some analysis in 2016 on how the older people’s housing pathway currently works, particularly the interface between sheltered housing, extra care housing, residential care and nursing care. This analysis will consider how individuals move between different types of accommodation and whether the current system is achieving the goal of ensuring that older people can live independently and in the community for as long as possible.

 Maximise nomination rights on housing association properties

The Housing Advice team is dependent upon housing associations in alerting them of properties which are due for nomination by the Council, especially when they become vacant for relet. However there is no robust protocol in place or monitoring to ensure this happens effectively.

The Council is to review all previous nomination agreements and schemes to ensure that obligations are being fulfilled and that the Council receives its correct share of properties.

 Lobby for reform of IBAA data collection to obtain data on social care placements and more information on placements in TA

The implementation of the IBAA has allowed Barking and Dagenham to monitor the numbers and levels of placements in the locality by other boroughs however it does not currently indicate the costs that those placements can bring to wider services. For strategic planning purposes it would be useful for the host borough:

67 | P a g e

Page 223 - to know more details about the placements and their needs - the number of social care placements made which are not currently covered by the agreement

Barking and Dagenham will lobby London Councils and sub-regional neighbours in the East London Housing Partnership to make this information an integral part of the quarterly reporting.

 Continue to work with the Landlords & Letting Agents Forum

Continue to develop the trust and co-operation of landlords and letting agents in the borough which has been critical for the Council’s introduction of mandatory licensing and overseeing the implementation of welfare reform and energy efficiency measures in the PRS.

The Council will continue to facilitate the Landlord & Letting Agents Forum as a bilateral platform for consultation and engagement over policy and operational issues. This will be complimented by working with local letting agencies in the production of quarterly surveys which act as a temperature check on rent levels, fees, level of supply and emerging trends in the PRS market.

68 | P a g e

Page 224 OBJECTIVE FOUR: Provide appropriate accommodation options

Outcomes:

4.1 Creation of new affordable housing supply

4.2 Maximised use of own assets for temporary accommodation

4.3 Reconfigured portfolio of hostel accommodation

4.4 Professional private sector housing solutions including the potential for a local lettings agency

4.5 Increased housing choice for supported people

4.6 Reviewed accommodation needs of gypsy and traveller communities

4.1 Creation of new affordable housing supply

 Aim to create 1,236 new homes per year to increase housing supply

With Barking and Dagenham promoted as east London’s growth opportunity, the Council is committed to housing regeneration, estate renewal and new supply to meet the population and housing challenges of the next fifteen years. The Borough has an existing requirement to provide 1,236 new homes under the Mayor’s London Plan but the draft Local Plan for the area discusses the potential to deliver 2,333 and will map out its supply over the next fifteen years through a new Housing Implementation Strategy.

 Develop new affordable housing options on key development sites through the Local Plan

The draft Local Plan examines the challenges in delivering new supply on major sites and questions the viability of providing 40% affordable homes on each as required by the Mayor’s London Plan. As part of the options appraisal the draft Local Plan is consulting on the provision of either 25% or 30% of affordable homes on key sites as better target of delivery than the London Plan offers.

The draft Local Plan targets would provide between 583-700 affordable units a year with 233-280 being shared ownership, sub-market rent or low cost homes for sale and 350-420 delivering social rents.

69 | P a g e

Page 225  Work with Haig Housing on affordable housing options for ex-forces personnel

Barking and Dagenham has pledged to assist the armed forces and their families adapt to a return to normal life following service in the field. The Council signed an Armed Forces Community Covenant in 2012 and prioritised those who had been in service under the new Allocations Policy in 2014.

The Council is now exploring how it can assist the strategic partner of the Help for Heroes campaign, ex-services charity Haig Housing, in delivering new supply of general needs rental accommodation in east London for returning servicemen at risk of homelessness.

4.2 Maximised use of own assets for temporary accommodation

 Centralise accommodation decision-making at one point of control

Services with clients at risk of homelessness have suffered from a significant budget squeeze and in some cases overspends due to the lack of a centrally agreed accommodation procurement strategy which would have allowed the Council as one to identify, procure and provide appropriate housing. To be cost effective, avoid duplication and streamline the provision of temporary housing solutions the Council will explore the set-up of a single point of procurement for all temporary accommodation for housing, children’s services and teams dealing with NRPF clients.

 Maximise use of own assets for alternative temporary accommodation and continue to reduce our reliance on PRS

The borough will continue to audit its property portfolio to utilise suitable buildings for housing and temporary accommodation purposes. This could include turning vacant and redundant commercial and non-domestic assets into dwellings, utilising decommissioned premises or using regeneration schemes as short-life temporary accommodation

 Explore the use of modular build for temporary accommodation

Barking and Dagenham is to explore the feasibility of modular build low-cost temporary social housing, for homeless residents or other residents in urgent need, developed as an alternative to poor quality B&B and hostel accommodation. Modular build can be delivered and assembled at a low cost and much faster than traditional

70 | P a g e

Page 226 new build structures and are designed to be placed on unused council land for upto 10 years.

It could be used to plug the gap between the current housing shortage and other, permanent building schemes which are in the pipeline.

4.3 Reconfigured portfolio of hostel accommodation

 Review the use of hostel facilities to match them to appropriate client- based accommodation with floating hostel support staff

Housing advice services are to review the provision of hostel support following an assessment of vulnerable placements and high risk clients with complex needs to tailor accommodation appropriately to specific cohorts.

The Council is reviewing the opportunity to utilise the smallest hostel site with a view to working in partnership with various agencies to assist those customers with high and complex needs requiring supported interventions.

 Review of Boundary Road hostel

As part of its reconfiguration of hostel services, the borough will test the feasibility of using the Boundary Road hostel for high-risk, complex needs clients.

4.4 Professional private sector housing solutions including the potential for a local lettings agency

 Review Article 4 direction restricting Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)

The borough introduced an Article 4 Direction in 2011 withdrawing permitted development rights to convert family-sized accommodation into Houses in Multiple Occupation. HMOs are only permitted where:

-The number of houses that have been converted to flats or HMOs in any road does not exceed 10% of the total number of houses in the road

- No two adjacent properties apart from dwellings that are separated by a road should be converted.

However with the growth of the PRS sector, the private sector housing team have indentified noticeable levels of HMOs being registered for a license which do not comply with the Article 4 criteria and are potentially prevented from letting. This problem needs to be viewed in the context of fresh demand for HMO and shared facility housing for young persons, care leavers and mental health

71 | P a g e

Page 227 clients to assist in the Council’s duties to provide reasonable move-on accommodation.

With this housing pressure in mind the Council will review the current effectiveness of the Article 4 Direction.

 Use of Interim Management Orders (IMOs) to improve poor quality PRS

As part of the mandatory licensing regime of the private rented sector, the Council will begin to issue Interim Management Orders (IMOs) to take control of the most problematic properties and HMOs and acts as temporary landlord for up to a year. The Council can remedy hazards and defects and implement a management scheme. This returns vacant dwellings back to use either as fresh housing supply or suitable managed lets which could encourage landlords to engage with the Council in future provision.

 Encourage growth of professional private rented accommodation

The Reside model has already used institutional investment to provide social rented stock and already the mandatory licensing regime in Barking and Dagenham is driving up accommodation standards while taking action against disreputable landlords. However there is a threat from landlords who wish to disinvest and it is important that institutional private rented investment (IPRI) is encouraged to add a dependable supply to PRS.

The London Plan suggests that 12% of all stock in Barking and Dagenham should be institutional private rent and the Draft Local Plan looks at developing these targets further

 Develop a local lettings agency to reduce procurement costs of PRS and offer a management and repairs service to encourage landlords to provide suitable private lets

The success of the Reside model in producing affordable accommodation to working families for 80% market rent has prompted the council to test the feasibility of establishing a local lettings agency. The aim is for it to procure PRS properties which could be managed by the Council and used to supply housing for households need or to discharge the homelessness duty.

The lettings market is highly competitive and PRS properties are becoming harder to procure. The Council is keen to explore ways to secure a steady stream of affordable accommodation to support its own housing needs. A feasibility study is to be completed by the end of 2015 evaluating the business case and providing insight into the viability of such a model in the current local market.

72 | P a g e

Page 228

 Utilise GLA Empty Homes funding to bring trickle supply on five year leases

The borough has a commendable record in returning long-term private sector empty properties back into use, reducing the number from 750 in 2010 to 199 in 2015 – the lowest recorded number. The Empty Property Unit has used a mix of advice, incentive, encouragement and enforcement to persuade owners to return their vacant dwellings to occupation instead of being wasted assets causing neighbourhood blight.

One particular strand of the strategy has been to utilise empty homes grant from the Greater London Authority and encourage owners to repair their properties and rent the accommodation on a five year lease to the Council’s temporary accommodation unit. Between 2012 and 2015, 43 dwellings were returned to use in this fashion using £523,000 of grant funding through the Mayor of London’s Affordable Housing Programme. The borough is aiming to make a fresh bid for funding to bring upto ten more units back into use.

4.5 Increased housing choice for supported people

 Develop a KeyRing scheme

The council is exploring the KeyRing living support network model for clients who have learning disabilities. The aim of the model is to create a viable local network allowing persons with learning disabilities who live in close proximity to encourage and support each other and assist in sustaining their tenancies and independent living.

There are more than 100 networks across the UK supporting nearly 1,000 vulnerable adults and it has proven to be resourceful for clients moving onto personal budgets.

 Explore Street Purchasing scheme for supported needs accommodation

Street purchases can be a cost-effective way of obtaining accommodation which can be utilised for general needs or supported housing. The Council is evaluating a proposal to use a portion of the Housing Revenue Account to administer a small purchase programme of cheaper properties which could be utilised for the supported needs of single households or in some instances shared accommodation.

73 | P a g e

Page 229 4.6 Reviewed accommodation needs of gypsy and traveller communities

 Explore potential sites for future traveller pitches

The Local Plan 2010/15 and the Housing Strategy 2012/17 committed the Council to safeguarding the existing Chase gypsy site and for permitting new sites subject to rigorous site-specific planning policy conditions. Need for traveller and gypsy pitches in the borough is exceptionally low and previous studies suggested the long-term need for between 2-9 extra pitches. As part of the Draft Local Plan the Council will monitor need and consider further provision where appropriate sites arise.

74 | P a g e

Page 230 5.Consultation Schedule

To ensure that we have the broadest and widest consultation with service users, the public and external stakeholders the Council is inviting comment and responses to the review and preventative strategy between 16 November and 16 December 2015. The draft homelessness strategy will be accessible on our website at the following address: with a final revised document expected to be approved by the Council’s Cabinet in January 2016.

Draft Schedule of Internal Consultation

Board/Consultation Action Date Draft consultation with Housing Advice 27 October 2015 Housing DMT 06 November 2015 Draft consultation with internal services 09 November-13 November 2015 Draft consultation with Cllr Ashraf 13 November 2015 Public consultation 16 November-16 December 2015 Papers/draft prepared for all boards 27 November 2015 Adult Care Services DMT 03 December 2015 Community Safety Partnership 07 December 2015 Members Policy Forum 07 December 2015 Health & Wellbeing Board 08 December 2015 Children’s Services DMT 10 December 2015 Corporate Strategy Group 17 December 2015 Corporate Performance Group 24 December 2015 Papers prepared for Cabinet 06 January 2016 Cabinet 19 January 2016

Draft Schedule of External Consultation

Board/Consultation Action Date Draft consultation with the public 16 November-16 December 2015  Social media 16 November  E-newsletter 27 November Draft publication to voluntary sector groups 16 November 2015 Draft publication to registered providers 16 November 2015 Draft publication to CCG/NHS groups 16 November 2015 Draft publication to Landlords Forum 01 December 2015

75 | P a g e

Page 231

76 | P a g e

Page 232 6.Homelessness Strategy Action Plan 2016/23

OBJECTIVE 1: Reducing demand through prevention

Outcome 1.1: Homelessness prevented through housing support, advice and initiatives for vulnerable/at risk household

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target (to be completed) (to complete) (to complete) 1 Maintain rent deposit/advance scheme Housing Advice

2 Monitor court representation scheme Housing Advice Page 233 Page 3 Voluntary sector/PSH referral route against Private Sector illegal evictions/harassment Housing 4 Agree RSL eviction protocol Housing Advice

5 Develop an Homeless Prevention Fund Housing Advice

6 Continue ‘dispelling the myth’ programme Housing Advice

7 Early rent alert scheme with children’s services Housing Advice

8 Homeless Prevention Improvement Plan Housing Advice

77 | P a g e

Outcome 1.2: Encouraging self-resolution of housing crises

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Delivery of enhanced housing options tool Housing Advice

2 Continue to promote BanD Together Housing Advice routemaster service

Outcome 1.3: Co-ordinated multiagency interventions to assist households affected by welfare reform

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

Page 234 Page 1 Prepare for universal credit, second phase of Housing welfare reform and identify those impacted Advice/Elevate

Outcome 1.4: Increased access to employment support for families and young people

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Improved information on skills, learning and Employability jobs Partnership

78 | P a g e

OBJECTIVE 2:Enabling pathways away from homelessness

Outcome 2.1: Re-established Homelessness Forum

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Re-established independently run Housing Strategy Homelessness Forum

Outcome 2.2: Successful partnership with voluntary sector and external providers supporting those suffering homelessness

Page 235 Page 1 Develop voluntary sector referral pathways Housing Advice

2 Develop RSL partnerships for cost effective Housing Strategy supported accommodation

Outcome 2.3: Greater tenancy sustainment across all tenures

1 Ingrain good tenancy practices for all tenants Housing Advice

2 Draft tenancy guides for PRS Housing Advice

Outcome 2.4: More effective identification of hidden homelessness, in particular rough sleepers and LGBT persons

1 Early identification of LGBT homelessness risk Housing Advice

79 | P a g e

2 Minimise rough sleeping through partnerships Housing Advice interventions to ensure NSNO

Outcome 2.4: Utilised external partnerships to support vulnerable single persons who are homeless

1 Support ELHP bid for single homelessness Housing project Strategy/ELHP

2 Debt management project for single Adult homelessness Commissioning (AC)

Page 236 Page OBJECTIVE 3:Create integrated services at first contact

Outcome 3.1: Gold Standard accreditation for housing options service

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Aim for Gold Standard accreditation for Housing Advice housing options 2 Review housing advice structure and Housing Advice prevention services to ensure fit for purpose 3 Consider further invest-to-save bids Housing Advice

Outcome 3.2: Co-ordinated ‘single pathways’ protocols, processes and mapping between services

1 Review all processes/protocols between Housing Advice housing, health, adult/children’s services

80 | P a g e

2 Mandatory staff attendance at bi-annual Housing Advice conference on single pathways policy 3 Consider appointment of referral link officer for Housing Advice all complex need cases 4 Reinstate homeless access to primary health Housing Advice care 5 Further client panels mapping and consider a Housing Advice single assessment panel for high risk clients

Outcome 3.3: Development of one-stop shop approach to housing services such as HousingPlus model

1 Roll-out a pilot of HousingPlus approach to Landlord one-stop shop housing support and advice Services Page 237 Page 2 Utilise the Onside Youth Zone and Integrated Integrated Youth Youth Services Services

Outcome 3.4: Joint commissioning of services to provide seamless housing options to all clients

1 Joint commissioning strategy for supported Housing people accommodation options Strategy/AC 2 Create an Older Persons Housing Pathway Housing Strategy/AC 3 Maximise nomination rights on housing Housing Strategy association properties 4 Lobby for reform of IBAA data collection to ELHP obtain data on social care placements 5 Continue to work with the landlords and letting Private Sector agents forum Housing (PSH)

81 | P a g e

OBJECTIVE 4:Provide appropriate accommodation options

Outcome 4.1: Creation of new affordable housing supply

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Aim to create 1,236 new homes per year to Regeneration/Housing increase housing supply Strategy 2 Develop new affordable housing options on Planning key development sites through the Local Policy/Housing Plan Strategy

Page 238 Page 3 Work with Haig Housing on affordable Housing Strategy housing options for ex-forces personnel

Outcome 4.2: Maximised use of own assets for temporary accommodation

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Centralise accommodation decision-making Housing Advice at one point of control 2 Maximise use of own assets for alternative Housing Advice TA and continue to reduce reliance on PRS 3 Explore use of modular build for TA Housing Advice

82 | P a g e

Outcome 4.3: Reconfigured portfolio of hostel accommodation

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Review use of hostel facilities to match them to Housing Advice appropriate client-based accommodation 2 Review of Boundary Road hostel Housing Advice

Outcome 4.4: Professional private sector solutions including a local lettings agency

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target Page 239 Page 1 Review of Article 4 Direction on HMOs Planning Policy/PSH 2 Use of IMOs to improve poor quality PRS PSH

3 Encourage growth of professional PRS Planning Policy

4 Develop a local lettings agency Housing Advice

5 Utilise GLA empty homes funding Housing Strategy

83 | P a g e

Outcome 4.5: Increased housing choice for supported people

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Develop Keyring scheme AC

2 Explore street purchasing scheme for supply of Housing Strategy supported needs accommodation

Outcome 4.6: Reviewed accommodation needs of gypsy and traveller communities

Strategic Action Lead Resource Timescale Target

1 Explore potential sites for future traveller Planning Policy Page 240 Page pitches through the Local Plan

84 | P a g e

AGENDA ITEM 9

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Draft Substance Misuse Strategy 2016-18

Date: 7 Dec 2015

[email protected] Author: Sonia Drozd Contact: 0208 227 5455

Job title: Strategic Manager, Substance Misuse and Domestic Violence Team

Security: Protected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 The current draft of the Substance Misuse Strategy 2016-18 is being circulated to the Community Safety Partnership Board for additional comment.

1.2 It is recommended that the CSP Board:

 comment on the draft of the Substance Misuse Strategy 2016-18.

Page 241 This page is intentionally left blank

Barking and Dagenham

Substance Misuse Strategy

2016 – 2020

Page 243 Page

Contents

SECTION Foreword 1 Introduction 2 Vision 3 Aims 4 Objectives 5 Links to other strategies and plans 6

Page 244 Page Governance 7 National Context 8 Local Context 9 Performance 10 Key Deliverables 11

Foreword 1

In Barking and Dagenham we understand the impact substance misuse has on an individual and the wider community and we are committed to ensuring that this is a priority for us. We have continued to invest in our substance misuse treatments services and have developed strong partnerships to address the wider impact on the community. As a partnership, we understand that having an addiction to a substance, whether it is alcohol, illegal drugs or prescribed medication is not a lifestyle choice and there are many contributing factors.

We are committed to ensuring that individuals who have become addicted, have opportunities to receive the treatment and support they need to enable them to become healthy and reach their full potential in life.

We are also committed to addressing the impact substance misuse has on the wider community through education and enforcement. For example, over the last 2 years we have ensured that all school pupils have been given age appropriate information about drugs and alcohol which dispels myths that may make experimenting with substances, including so called legal highs, attractive. The Council has also introduced and enforced Public Spaces Protection Orders regarding drinking alcohol in public areas and are seeking to do the same for the use of nitrous

Page 245 Page oxide (laughing gas). We want residents and visitors of Barking and Dagenham to feel safe when walking around the borough, and will not tolerate the few individuals who cause anti-social behaviour by using substances in public.

Through partnership working between the Local Authority, Public Health Services, Metropolitan Police, National Probation Service, Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC), Job Centre Plus, Council for Voluntary Services (CVS) and drug and alcohol service providers we are confident we will significantly and positively change the landscape of substance misuse within Barking and Dagenham.

Cllr Maureen Worby, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health

Cllr Laila Butt, Cabinet Member for Crime and Enforcement

Introduction 2 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is located at the heart of the Thames Gateway and has a vibrant community and significant investment opportunities alongside complex challenges. Barking and Dagenham has seen a significant overall population increase of 13.4% to 185,911 (2011 Census), which equated to 22,000 more people living in the borough since 2001. The 2014 mid-year population estimate was 198,294 and is projected to rise to 229,300 in 2022. This is a 20.3% increase and is the second largest in England after Tower Hamlets. As a borough with a growing and diverse community with complex needs at a time of reducing resources, we face challenges in the

Page 246 Page future. However, the borough has developed excellent partnership working arrangements which enable resources to be shared to achieve the best outcomes for our community. The Substance Misuse Strategy sets out our vision for improving the health and wellbeing of residents and reducing the impact of substance misuse on the wider community by 2020. This Strategy identifies a number of objectives which will underpin commissioning plans and other agreements, to work in partnership, in order to make the greatest impact across the health and criminal justice system. It also sets out how we will work together to deliver the agreed objectives over the next 2 years, whilst considering the changing political and financial environment that organisations are working in. The Substance Misuse Strategy is the mechanism by which our Community Safety Partnership and Health and Wellbeing Board will address the identified objectives. The Strategy will be supported by a Delivery Plan which will be reviewed quarterly at the Substance Misuse Strategy Board.

Vision 3 33 To work in partnership to reduce the harm to individuals and the community caused by substance misuse. Aims 4

 Improve public health  Encourage social responsibility to reduce demand on public services Page 247 Page  Enhance community safety

Objectives 5

To achieve this Vision the key objectives of the Barking and Dagenham Substance Misuse Strategy are;  Reduce the harmful impact of substance misuse on the wider community  Ensure everyone can access good quality healthcare when they need it and continue to enable access to effective treatment and promote sustained recovery  Enable social responsibility by supporting residents to take responsibility for themselves, their homes and their community  Protect the most vulnerable, keeping adults and children healthy and safe

Links to other strategies and plans 6

There are a number of national, regional, and local documents that have influenced the development of Barking and Dagenham’s Substance Misuse Strategy. These are identified as follows: National Policy and Regional Policies, Local Policies, Strategies and Strategy Documents Strategies and Plans Practices National Drug Strategy (being developed) Police and Crime Plan 2013-17 Ambition 2020

Community Safety Plan 2014-2017 Outcome Frameworks for NHS, Public Health Public Health England Joint Strategic Needs and Social Care Assessment Community Safety Strategic Assessment

Corporate Delivery Plan 2015-2016 2016-2017

Page 248 Page Domestic Abuse Strategy 2015 Growth Strategy 2013-2023 Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2015-2018 Licensing Policy (LBBD) Housing Strategy 2012-2017 Local Area Plan Local Joint Strategic Needs Assessment London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Education Strategy 2014 to 2017

Governance 7

Barking and Dagenham Community Safety Partnership Health and Wellbeing Board

Page 249 Page Safer and Stronger Communities Substance Misuse Select Committee Strategy Board

Children’s Trust Alcohol Alliance

National Context 8 The Government put together a National Drug Strategy1 in 2010 to treatment to ensure more people are tackling their dependency and tackle the issues of substance misuse across the Country. They recovering fully. Approximately 400,000 benefit claimants (around advise that the most effective strategy is one that will meet local 8% of all working age benefit claimants) in England are dependent need and that services commissioned are in line with best practice on drugs or alcohol and generate benefit expenditure costs of 3 This strategy attempts to tackle local issues in line with the approximately £1.6 billion per year 2. If these individuals are Governments National Drug Strategy, therefore the themes will be supported to recover and contribute to society, the change could be the same: Reduce Demand, Restrict Supply and Building Recovery huge. in Communities. The latest findings from Public Health England indicate that each Reducing Demand – creating an environment where the vast drug user not in treatment costs society £26,074. The findings also majority of people who have never taken drugs continue to resist any show that every £63 invested in drug treatment prevents a crime. pressures to do so, and making it easier for those that do to stop. Every £1 spent on drug treatment saves £3.85 to society. NICE Page 250 Page This is key to reducing the huge societal costs, particularly the lost estimates the costs to society generated by each injecting drug ambition and potential of young drug users. The UK demand for illicit user add up to £480,000 over their lifetime. drugs is contributing directly to bloodshed, corruption and instability in source and transit countries, which we have a shared international Furthermore, Public Health England Alcohol and Drug team (using responsibility to tackle; Home Office data) estimate the borough saves £9,017 per year per person who is engaged in structured treatment. During 2014/15 Restricting Supply – drugs cost the UK £15.42 billion each year. there were 879 individuals engaged in structured drug treatment in We must make the UK an unattractive destination for drug traffickers Barking and Dagenham, therefore the total saving was estimated to by attacking their profits and driving up their risks; be £7,925,943. It is crucial to ensure as many drug users as possible are engaged in treatment for their own benefit and the Building Recovery in Communities - this Government will work benefit of the residents of Barking and Dagenham. with people who want to take the necessary steps to tackle their dependency on drugs and alcohol, and will offer a route out of dependence by putting the goal of recovery at the heart of all that we do. We will build on the huge investment that has been made in

1 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drug-strategy-2010 3 Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (2008) Population estimates of problematic drug users in England 2 Gordon, L., Tinsley, L., Godfrey, C. and Parrott, S. (2006) The economic and social costs who access DWP benefits: a feasibility study. DWP Working Paper No. 46. Department for of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2003/04, In Singleton, N., Murray, R. and Work and Pensions; and Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (forthcoming in 2010) Population estimates Tinsley, L. (eds) ‘Measuring different aspects of problem drug use: methodological of alcohol misusers who access DWP benefits. DWP Working Paper.No. 94. Department for developments.’ Home Office Online Report 16/06 Work and Pensions

Local Context 9

In Barking and Dagenham it is estimated that there are currently over and what we can do in order to prevent the next generation of 1,000 individuals who use opiates and/or cocaine4 and over 7,000 substance abusers. people using cannabis according to the National Crime Survey for A key area of work has been around education, to ensure that England and Wales5 and 2011 census population figures. individuals are informed as much as possible with the known facts about substances so they can make an educated choice. We In addition it is estimated that about one in five of the adult currently provide substance misuse workshops in all secondary population of Barking and Dagenham are hazardous alcohol schools in the borough and have commissioned a provider to work drinkers, with nearly 6,000 of them drinking sufficient amounts to be with PSHE leads to ensure that teachers have the most up to date harmful to their health6. and relevant tools to deal with substance misuse issues.

Work is underway to identify the prevalence of New Psychoactive The Substance Misuse Strategy Board is keen to ensure that

Page 251 Page Substances, also known as legal highs, in Barking and Dagenham. treatment provision recognises that there are many elements to an However, it is known that Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) and Spice individual’s recovery journey. Whilst individuals may receive a variety (synthetic cannabis) are the main substances used by young people of tailored interventions where there is a demonstrable need, this that engage with the young people’s drug project. The decision to should be within a wider context of recovery planning from the illegalise New Psychoactive Substances has not yet been made by outset. Government. The changes in legislation will be reflected in the delivery plan of the strategy. Our local treatment services have also seen an upward trend in the proportion of individuals who have completed treatment successfully The borough has also set up an addiction to medicine treatment over the last three years as a proportion of those in treatment. The pathway to support those individuals who are either prescribed pain number of people who then relapse and return to treatment is killers or purchase them over the counter and have subsequently reducing. become dependent on them. Addictions to substances is also a key contributor to many other It is important to note that not everyone that uses substances, crimes, including domestic abuse which, due to its prevalence, is a whether legal or illicit will use them problematically or abuse them. priority in Barking and Dagenham. The Substance Misuse Strategy However, we need to establish why people use drugs and alcohol Board is keen to ensure that addressing harmful use of substances remains a cross cutting priority on the agenda for the Community 4 Source: Public Health England 2011/12 prevalence estimates for Opiate and Crack users, 2014: Safety Partnership and Health and Wellbeing Board. http://www.nta.nhs.uk/facts-prevalence.aspx 5 http://www.crimesurvey.co.uk/index.html 6 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=5756

Performance 10 Public Health Outcome Framework: Indicator 2.15 - Successful Completion of Drug Treatment % of Service Users successfully completing treatment and not re-presenting for treatment Definition 50 49.4 The number and proportion of clients in treatment in the latest 12 months who successfully completed treatment and who did not then 40 45.6 45.5 re-present to treatment again within six months, reported separately 7 for opiate and non-opiate clients. 30

The graph highlights performance in Barking and Dagenham in the 20 Page 252 Page last three years. There has been an increase of those individuals that 15.4 16.2 used non opiate drugs, with almost half successfully completing treatment and not returning to Substance Misuse services. 10 11.4

Despite the decline in the number of people using opiates that 0 successfully completed and not returned to Substance Misuse 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 services, Barking and Dagenham are still one of the highest performing boroughs compared with boroughs clustered similar to Non-Opiate Users Opiate Users ours.

7 Successful Completions and Re-Presentations: Partnership Report, Guidance Document 2014/15

Key Deliverables 11

Reduce the harmful impact of substance misuse on the wider community  To provide training and support to enforcement services to improve compliance with the Designated Public Place Order, also known as Controlled Drinking Zone and Public Spaces Protection Orders.  Review alcohol licensing enforcement by the Council and Police to ensure all available resources are being used effectively and efficiently.

Ensure everyone can access good quality healthcare when they need it and continue to enable access to effective treatment and promote sustained recovery  To commission drug and alcohol services to support adults and young people to provide education and information and support people with problematic substance use to achieve a better quality of life.

Page 253 Page  Increase the number of OCUs accessing treatment and being discharged from treatment free from drug dependency  Improve treatment coverage of non OCUs, as measured by numbers successfully engaged in treatment and re-presentation rates

Enable social responsibility by supporting residents to take responsibility for themselves, their homes and their community  To work in partnership with retailers and licensees to promote the Drink Aware campaign and reduce opportunities for alcohol misuse.  Using intelligence from sources such as CCTV, Neighbourhood Watch and service users disrupt drug supply routes into the borough through targeted partnership activity.  Provide intensive, bespoke support to Troubled Families, and other families with multiple complex needs to reduce the number of families who have drug and alcohol related issues

Protect the most vulnerable, keeping adults and children healthy and safe  To develop the programme around drug and alcohol education to be available to all schools to enable them to achieve the Healthy Schools Award.  To work in partnership with GP’s to support individuals who are addicted to prescribed medication.  Identify high-risk population and offer them Identification and Brief Advice (IBAs) for alcohol harm reduction.

This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 10

Community Safety Partnership REPORT

Subject: Barking & Dagenham Borough Risk Register

Date: 7 December 2015

[email protected] Author: Tony Cox Contact: 07870 278142

Job title: Senior Civil Protection Officer (Acting Deputy Manager)

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of presenting the report

1.1 This report highlights the requirement to publish a Borough Risk Register (BRR) and its approval by the Borough Resilience Forum (BRF). It is recommended that the Community Safety Partnership:

 accept the BRR as the recognised partnership risk register for Barking and Dagenham.

2. Background

2.1 The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 places a legal duty on Category 1 responders to assess the risk of emergencies locally and to publish the results.

2.2 These regulations also place a responsibility on Category 1 responders to co-operate with each other in the maintenance of a local community risk register.

2.3 Detailed guidance on the risk assessment process that Category 1 responders should follow is documented in the Emergency Preparedness guidance document published by HM Government.

3. Multi-Agency Borough Risk Register

Plan development

3.1 As it is a statutory requirement under the Civil Contingencies Act to have a publicly available borough wide risk register, the BRF Business Plan 2014/15 called for the development of a multi-agency BRR.

3.2 Our risk assessment process followed the Cabinet Office Local Risk Management Guidance (LRMG) and the BRR is consistent with the values found in the London Risk Register (LRR).

Page 255 Unprotected 3.3 The BRR has been created for the BRF with the intention to assist resilience planning for the BRF partners, local business and organisation and the general public.

3.4 The BRR should not replace individual organisational risk registers.

3.5 The members of the BRF reviewed and agree upon the hazards that exist within the Borough of Barking & Dagenham from a range of sources, including:  Hazards defined by the national LRMG.  Historical evidence of hazards that have occurred within the borough.  Recent incidents responded to by any or all members of the BRF  New and potential hazards as they are identified  Incidents that have taken place elsewhere

3.6 Each hazard documented in the BRR has been individually risk assessed to provide a likely scenario or description and a likelihood and impact assessment.

3.7 The BRR development was initially led by David McClory (Head of Civil Protection) and subsequently by Tony Cox, Senior Civil Protection Officer (Acting Deputy Manager) with excellent support from the BRF.

3.8 The BRR was submitted to the BRF for approval in November 2015.

Borough Risk Register Storage

3.9 Once approved by the Community Safety Partnership, the BRR and the individual risk assessments will be uploaded onto the Council shared drive and secure government Resilience Direct website for partners to access through their BRF members. The BRR will be a public document accessible from the Council website.

4. Attachments

4.1 Appendix 1 – Borough Risk Register

Page 256

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

Borough Risk Register

Version 1.0

November 2015

Developed by the Civil Protection Service

on behalf of the

Barking & Dagenham Borough Resilience Forum

Page 257 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

1 AUTHORITY, APPROVAL AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

1.1 Document ownership

 Draft: Civil Protection Service

 Complete: Barking & Dagenham Borough Resilience Service

This plan has been developed by the Civil Protection Service, on behalf of:

 Barking & Dagenham Borough Resilience Forum

1.2 Document Approval

 Stage 1 – Barking & Dagenham Borough Resilience Forum

 Stage 2 – Barking & Dagenham Community Safety Partnership

1.3 Participating Agencies or Services

 London Borough Barking & Dagenham  London Fire Brigade  Metropolitan Police Service  London Ambulance Service  NHS Commissioning Board London  Barts Health NHS Trust  Health Protection England  North East London Foundation Trust  Barking & Dagenham Clinical  Environment Agency Commissioning Group

1.4 Lead assessment officer

Tony Cox, Senior Civil Protection Officer (Acting Deputy Manager)

1.5 Document control

This document is marked RESTRICTED whilst in draft format. The completed document, agreed and signed off by the Chair of the Borough Resilience Forum will be published as a public document.

This is a working document that will experience several changes throughout its development, in line with new national guidance. The document version is recorded on the front cover page and in the header of each page, along with date of issue.

All amendments and versions of this plan will be approved by the Waltham Forest and Barking and Dagenham joint Civil Protection Service.

This document will be re-assessed on an annual basis by the Barking & Dagenham Borough Resilience Forum in order to assess suitability and incorporate any changes as necessary.

Page 258 2 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

Version Date of Amendments Responsible change officer 1.0 November Initial document completed Tony Cox 2015

Page 259 3 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

CONTENTS

1 Authority, Approval and Participating Agencies ...... 2 1.1 Document ownership ...... 2 1.2 Document Approval ...... 2 1.3 Participating Agencies or Services ...... 2 1.4 Lead assessment officer...... 2 1.5 Document control ...... 2 2 Summary ...... 5 2.1 Purpose and overview of the Borough Risk Register ...... 5 2.2 Legislation ...... 5 2.2.3 The Civil Contingencies Act [2004] – The duty to perform risk assessments ...... 5 2.2.4 Definition of an ‘Emergency’ ...... 5 2.2.5 Risk Assessment Regulation ...... 6 3 Overview of the Borough ...... 7 3.1 Background ...... 7 3.2 Population ...... 7 3.1 Economy and Deprivation ...... 7 3.2 Transport Infrastructure ...... 7 3.3 Environmental Infrastructure ...... 7 4 Risk Assessment Process and methodology ...... 8 4.1 Hazard identification and review ...... 8 4.2 Assessing the likelihood of a hazard ...... 8 4.3 Scoring the potential impact of a hazard ...... 9 4.4 Scoring the Risk and the Risk Evaluation Matrix ...... 10 4.5 Risk Evaluation ...... 11 4.6 Risk Treatment ...... 11 4.7 Monitoring and review ...... 11 5 The Risk Register ...... 12 5.1 Industrial accidents and pollution ...... 12 5.2 Transport accidents ...... 17 5.3 Severe Weather ...... 19 5.4 Structural Hazards ...... 21 5.5 Human Health ...... 23 5.6 Animal Health ...... 25 5.7 Industrial action ...... 26 5.8 International Events ...... 28 5.9 Industrial technical failure ...... 29 6 Risk evaluation matrix ...... 31 ANNEX A. Likelihood and Impact scoring scales ...... 32 Likelihood scoring ...... 32 Impact scoring ...... 32

Page 260 4 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

2 SUMMARY

2.1 Purpose and overview of the Borough Risk Register

The Borough Risk Register is a document to support planning and preparation for emergencies within the Borough. It is derived from Local Risk Management Guidance (LRMG) and also the London Risk Register (LRR) to support a nationally and regionally consistent approach to assessing risk.

The Borough Risk Register is created for the Borough Resilience Forum with the intention to assist resilience planning and should not replace organisational risk registers.

2.2 Legislation

2.2.3 The Civil Contingencies Act [2004] – The duty to perform risk assessments The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (‘The Act’) places a legal duty on Category 1 responders to produce a Community Risk Register. Section 2, sub-section 1 of the Act requires Category 1 responders ‘… from time to time assess the risk of an emergency occurring …’ and ‘… from time to time assess the risk of an emergency making it necessary or expedient for the person or body to perform any of its functions’. This should be linked to individual Category 1 responders’ processes of adding to (or modifying) their own individual plans.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning) Regulations 2004 give the legal requirements in relation to risk assessment in Part 3. These regulations place a responsibility on Category 1 responders to co-operate with each other in maintaining a Community Risk Register (CRR). Detailed guidance on the risk assessment process can be found within Chapter 4 (and its annexes) of the Emergency Preparedness guidance document which has been published by HM Government.

This guidance states that the risk assessment process is the first step in the emergency planning process in order to identify the risks applicable to their area and then plan according to the priorities identified. The process is divided into six stages; these are:

2.2.4 Definition of an ‘Emergency’ For the purposes of Part 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c.36), ‘emergency’ is defined by s.1(1) of the Act and means: a) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom; b) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or c) war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.

It must also meet either of the following criteria:  the threat or hazard is of a sufficient scale and nature that it is likely to seriously obstruct a Category 1responder in the performance of its functions; and/or  the threat or hazard requires the Category 1 responder to exercise its functions and undertake a special mobilization. (s.2(2) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004).

Page 261 5 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

2.2.5 Risk Assessment Regulation In the event of an emergency, the Act requires Category 1 responders to activate an emergency plan. Before the activation of such a plan is necessary, two tests should be carried out:

a) where the emergency would be likely to seriously obstruct its ability to perform its functions; and b) where the Category 1 responder considers it necessary or desirable to act to prevent, reduce, control, or mitigate the emergency’s effects, or otherwise take action and would be unable to act without changing the deployment of its resources or acquiring additional resources.

This clearly implies that only serious emergencies need form part of the risk assessment process. The risk assessment process required need not cover large pre-planned events, as a risk assessment should form part of the planning stage.

Page 262 6 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

3 OVERVIEW OF THE BOROUGH

3.1 Background The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham is located in East London, England and forms part of Outer London. It lies around 9 miles (14.4 km) east of Central London. The majority of the borough is built- up residential development with access to open space, parks and playing fields and a small remainder by industrial and commercial land use areas.

The borough borders five other London boroughs: Newham, Redbridge, Havering, and Greenwich and Bexley to the south of the River Thames.

3.2 Population Barking & Dagenham has an approximated population of 191,500 residents. This is expected to rise to 225,600 by 2020. The borough has a 48% population of Black and Minority Ethnic groups. 15% of the borough is of Black African origin. These demonstrate the rich diversity of the borough’s population.

3.1 Economy and Deprivation Barking & Dagenham is one of the most deprived boroughs in England. In terms of the overall measure of multiple deprivation (IMD 2010) Waltham Forest ranks 22nd most deprived among the 326 local authorities in England. This positions the borough in the top 7% most deprived boroughs in England. Out of 33 London boroughs, Barking & Dagenham is the 7th most deprived after Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest.

The deprivation data shows that people in Barking & Dagenham are experiencing income and employment deprivation. 30.2% of children in the borough are considered to live in poverty. 20% of the population receive out of work benefits and 27% are in low paid employment (Those paid under the London Living Wage).

3.2 Transport Infrastructure

 London Underground The District line and Hammersmith & City line of the London Underground serves the borough, with stations at Barking, Becontree, Dagenham Dock, Dagenham East, Dagenham Heathway and Upney.

 Overground/Suburban rail services Barking Station is one of the largest railway stations in East London providing links to Central London, Gospel Oak and Shoeburyness on the London Overground and c2c National Rail.

 Road The borough is served by both the A12 and A13 with the A406 (North Circular) on the borough border. The A13 is the major trunk road which serves the borough.

3.3 Environmental Infrastructure Barking & Dagenham is predominantly a highly urbanised area. The borough is at risk fluvial flooding from the River Thames and River Roding.

There are interspersed industrial sites across the borough and one top tier COMAH site, Solthaven, which is situated on the Thames View area of the borough.

Page 263 7 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

4 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Hazard identification and review

The members of the Borough Resilience Forum (BRF) review and agree upon the hazards that exist within the Borough of Barking & Dagenham from a range of sources, including:  Hazards defined by the national Local Risk Management Guidance (LRMG).  Historical evidence of hazards that have occurred within the borough.  Recent incidents responded to by any or all members of the BRF  New and potential hazards as they are identified  Incidents that have taken place elsewhere

Each hazard is initially assessed to provide a likely scenario or description that may affect the borough that will assist in the likelihood and impact assessment. This initial description may change during the risk assessment process in order to identify a realistic likely event that would cause a major incident or realistic worse-case scenario.

4.2 Assessing the likelihood of a hazard

Likelihood is calculated using a scale of a hazard occurring in a five-year timeframe in the Resilience Forum area. Likelihood assessments for hazards are presented on a 1-5 scale. The generic assessments provided by the LRAG are often used as a benchmark for the assessment process where hazards are identified from this source. The scale is defined by the LRAG guidance as set out below:

Score Descriptor Likelihood over 5 years Likelihood over 5 years

1 Low >0.005% >1 in 20,000 chance 2 Medium-low >0.05% >1 in 2,000 chance 3 Medium >0.5% >1 in 200 chance 4 Medium-high >5% >1 in 20 chance 5 High >50% >1 in 2 chance

Assessing the likelihood can often be a non-consistent process depending on the types of hazard being assessed. Some hazards have a clear likelihood, created by examining historical return rates of similar events of such scales (for example: flooding), as well as taking into account long term variations that may effect that change (for example: climate change).

Other hazards (for example: those associated with rail transportation) may be calculated by assessing the likelihood of an incident occurring over a specific length of track and applying this to the available track in the borough.

Page 264 8 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

4.3 Scoring the potential impact of a hazard

Impact scoring is split into four categories of impact. These are health, social, economic and environment, and aim to build an overall understanding of the impact that a particular hazard may cause. Some hazards may have a range of differing levels of impact on each of the categories.

Categories Explanation Health Encompassing direct health impacts (number of people affected, fatalities, injuries, human illness or injury, health damage) and indirect health impacts that arise because of strain on the health service. Social Encompassing the social consequences of an event, including availabilities of social welfare provision; disruption of facilities for transport; damage to property; disruption of a supply of money, food water, energy or fuel; disruption of an electronic or other system of communications’ homelessness, evacuation and avoidance behaviour; and public disorder due to anger, fear and/or lack of trust in the authorities. Economic Encompassing the net economic cost, including both direct (e.g. loss of goods, buildings, infrastructure) and indirect (e.g. loss of business, increased demand for public services) costs. Environment Encompassing contamination of pollution of land, water of air with harmful biological / chemical. Radioactive matter or oil, flooding, or disruption of destruction of plant of animal life.

The overall impact assessment for a particular hazard is not an average of the score for each category, but determined by an overall assessment of the impact, and comparison to other similar hazards.

The overall impact assessment is then split into 5 descriptors of scale:

Level Descriptor 1 Limited 2 Minor 3 Moderate 4 Significant 5 Catastrophic

For further detail on criteria for impact scoring, please see Annex A – Likelihood and impact scoring scales.

Page 265 9 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

4.4 Scoring the Risk and the Risk Evaluation Matrix

Risks ratings are then calculated for each hazard based on the formula of:

Likelihood rating X Impact rating = Risk Rating

This figure does not necessarily allow the simple comparison of risks.

Risks are then plotted onto a Risk Matrix provided by the Local Risk Assessment Guidance to evaluate the scale of the risk in a comparative manner to inform risk management priorities and activities.

(5) phic Catastro

nt (4) nt Significa

(3)

Modera

IMPACT

(2) Minor

(1) cant

Insignifi Low Medium low Medium Medium low High (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) LIKELIHOOD

Page 266 10 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

4.5 Risk Evaluation

Once the hazard’s impact and likelihoods are agreed by the BRF, their scores are assimilated in the register and a risk rating is allocated based upon the outcome of the Risk Evaluation Matrix. There are four levels of risk rating:

Risk Rating Description Low  These risks are not significant in their impact and may, or may not, be likely to occur.  They should be managed using normal or generic planning arrangements and require minimal monitoring and control unless subsequent risk assessments show a substantial change, prompting a move to another risk category. Medium  These risks should be monitored to ensure that they are being appropriately managed and consideration given to their being managed under generic emergency planning arrangements. High  These risks are classed as significant. They may have a high or low likelihood of occurrence, but their potential consequences are sufficiently serious to warrant appropriate consideration after those risks classed as ‘very high’.  Consideration should be given to the development of strategies to reduce or eliminate the risks, but also that mitigation in the form of at least (multi-agency) generic planning, exercising and training should be put in place and monitored in a regular basis.

Very High  These are classed as primary or critical risks requiring immediate attention.  They may have a high or low likelihood of occurrence, but their potential consequences are such that they must be treated as a high priority. This may mean that strategies should be developed to reduce or eliminate the risk, but also that the mitigation in the form of (multi-agency) planning, exercising and training for these hazards should be put in place and the risk monitored on a regular frequency.  Consideration should be given to planning being specific to the risk rather than generic.

4.6 Risk Treatment

The evaluation of the risk will determine its treatment by the Borough Resilience Forum. If deemed necessary then the BRF will seek to prepare, plan and/or mitigate against a risk. The majority of risks on the risk register cannot be prevented. If deemed unnecessary the risk will be accepted.

The risk Register will assist in informing the Business Plan for the BRF.

4.7 Monitoring and review

The BRR will be reviewed at least annually in its entirety and also as required by change of guidance or legislation.

Page 267 11 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5 THE RISK REGISTER

5.1 Industrial accidents and pollution

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE HL7 Hazards from such sites include fire/explosion and environmental 1.01 Industrial fires and Industrial explosions and 3 2 6 pollution. Fires requiring the evacuation of between 200 and 500m explosions major fires areas, including neighbouring businesses and also some residential (LRR: 2) (LRR: 2) (LRR: 4) properties. Explosions causing damage to surrounding buildings up to (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 2) (LRAG: 4) 500m from the scene for larger industrial sites.

Up to 5 deaths and 50 Injuries caused by concussion, burns, smoke inhalation and shrapnel. Damage to local environments due to toxic chemical release into the air (as smoke), drainage systems and waterways. The area affected by environmental damage may be extended through wind, watercourses and drainage systems. Page 268 Page H1 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) carries a risk of boiling liquid 1.02 Gas/LNG/LPG Fire or explosion at a gas 2 3 6 expanding vapour explosions when exposed to fire for a sufficient canisters (incl. LPG (Liquefied Petroleum duration. Explosion damage up to 200 metres from the scene. Severe (LRR: 1) (LRR: 5) (LRR: 5) garages carrying Gas) or LNG (Liquefied damage to building directly adjacent to the scene. out petrol to LPG Natural Gas) terminal (or (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 6)

conversions) associated onshore Up to 5 deaths and 200 injuries from shrapnel and concussion feedstock pipeline) or injuries. Severe disruption to local infrastructure and public transport. flammable gas storage site

HL28 Worse case Major Incident scenario 1.03 Petrol Stations Localised fire or explosion 1 3 3 Severe damage to buildings up to 200 metres from the site. Up to 25 (Explosion of fuel at a fuel distribution site casualties in the surrounding area most likely from shrapnel and glass (LRR: 2) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 6) tanks) or tank storage of injuries. flammable or toxic liquids. (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 6)

Significant impact at a local level to residents (especially where located in a residential area), infrastructure, services and utilities. N/A Most likely Major Incident scenario Petrol Station (Fuel N/A 2 3 6 May cause problems far from the source of the leak. Vapours leakage) escaping from a petrol source and travelling through drainage systems rise to become trapped in built up areas, including

12 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE residential homes, causing a health and explosion risk. Where left unreported or unnoticed build up of vapours close to sources of ignition can lead to the risk of explosion.

N/A N/A The establishment of a 200m safety cordon will result in the 1.04 Acetylene cylinders 2 3 6 evacuation of between 500 (in the least dense ward) and 1500 (in the involved in fires most dense ward). and explosions An explosion of an acetylene cylinder can cause a fireball of up to 25 metres, considerable damage for an area of up to 100 metres, and shrapnel damage several hundred metres from the scene. Explosion would cause significant burn and shrapnel injuries, including deaths. May also be significant structural damage to adjacent buildings within 25metres, and damaged windows up to 100metres from the scene.

N/A Page 269 Page 1.05 Large Scale toxic N/A In the event that a major incident is declared at this COMAH site, the 2 3 6 chemical release - subsequent implementation of a Hazard zone (HZ) would have a Stolthaven major impact on business continuity for the local community, authorities and businesses due to businesses and homes being evacuated and A13 and surrounding roads closed for long periods of time. The proximity of the Thames and other waterways could be environmentally impacted by run off from the site..

H46 1.06 Biological release Biological substance Depending on the scale of outbreak, infections can occur in many 3 3 9 (Legionnaire’s release during an hundreds of people, causing deaths amongst those especially (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (CRR: 12) disease) unrelated work activity or vulnerable to respiratory diseases/pneumonia. Where isolated industrial process (e.g. buildings are affected, such as schools, hospitals or residential care (LRMG: 5) (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 1) Legionella release due to homes, impact will be severe, causing high casualty rates. These improperly maintained events will likely cause a large number of building users to become ill, building environmental with subsequent deaths, especially amongst the vulnerable. control systems).

13 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE H46 The impact of an outbreak of Butolism in the borough will have 1.07 Biological release Biological substance 2 2 4 varied affect depending on the source of the outbreak. Where the (Botulism) release during an outbreak is local, perhaps from a local supplier or business supplying (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (CRR: 12) unrelated work activity or local people, impact may be severe, causing serious health issues, industrial process (e.g. (LRMG: 5) (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 1) including critical care admissions and fatalities within the local Legionella release due to community. improperly maintained building environmental control systems).

N/A Biological substance In the event of an accidental release of biomaterials from a level 3 1.08 Biological release 1 4 4 release from facility where containment facilities, the release is likely in the first instance to be of bio-hazards used pathogens are handled contained to laboratory workers on site. Containment arrangements in industrial deliberately (e.g. would limit the spread of contamination in most cases. However, processes pathogen release from there remains the potential for infection to spread outside of the containment laboratory) containment facility. Page 270 Page

Risk of death and severe illness to those affected depending on the attack rate, number exposed and incubation times. Consequences of each pathogen will vary. N/A Spills or releasing of small quantities of known or unknown chemicals 1.09 Small scale N/A 2 4 8 that do not require a license for purchase or storage. chemical spill or

release Affects are likely to be contained to a localised area, where individuals may come into direct contact with the chemical involved.

Evacuations of the surrounding area will take place dependent on the level of response deemed appropriate by the emergency services. Where there is a heightened perception of risk from an unknown substance, or a known risk from a known substance, the Fire Brigade will widen the cordon area to safeguard the public. Where chemicals are persistent, or pose an ongoing risk, removal and/or decontamination may be required.

14 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE HL3 An uncontrolled release of toxic materials into the atmosphere 1.10 Chemical release – Localised industrial 3 3 9 affecting people and the environment. Up to 5 fatalities close to the large scale accident involving small source of the release and up to 50 in the wider area. Area likely (LRR: 3) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 9) toxic release (HL3) affected by a chemical spill will be limited to no more than 400 (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 9) metres (depending on the type and prevailing wind if airborne contamination).

Evacuations of between 1,500 people (lowest density ward) and 6,500 (highest density ward) are likely to be required depending on the type and quantity of chemical released.

Where the chemicals involved are persistent or where carcinogenic, long-term health and environmental problems may occur. HL4 1.11 Pollution of Major pollution of Pollution incident impacting upon controlled waters, such as chemical 3 3 9

Page 271 Page waterways controlled waters spillage or release of untreated sewage, leading to persistent and/or (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 12) extensive effect on water quality, major damage to aquatic ecosystems, closure of potable abstraction points, major impact on (LRMG: 5) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 15) amenity use, serious impact on human health.

N/A 1.12 Major air quality Major Air Quality Incident Pollution incident (e.g. uncontrolled emission from an industrial 3 3 9 incident facility or uncontrolled release of landfill gas) leading to persistent

and/or extensive effect on air quality, major damage to local ecosystem, major effect on amenity (i.e. tourism) value and serious impact on human health.

HL33 Large and prolonged fires affecting grass, moorland and forest. Such 1.13 Forest and grass Forest or moorland fires 2 2 4 fires can develop rapidly and adversely affect the community in fires which they are located. Affects may include: (LRR: 1) (LRR: 2) (LRR: 2) 1. Death or personal injury through burns, heat stress and heat (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 4) exhaustion, 2. Damage or destruction of property (dwellings, vehicles and other agricultural, commercial or industrial assets), 3. Damage or destruction to habitat/wildlife areas of special scientific interest,

15 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE 4. Disruption to transport systems due to lack of visibility (smoke) or the interruption to traction current to permit safe systems of work 5. Environmental pollution (including smoke polluting the atmosphere) 6. Interruption to electricity supplies through damage to overhead power lines. HL30 Explosion or fire originating at a gas pipeline within the borough. 1.14 Gas mains pipeline Localised explosion at a 1 3 3 Explosion or leak at a natural gas pipeline and subsequent vapour leak/explosion natural gas main clouds could ignite and explode causing death and injury. The (CRR: 1) (CRR: 3) (CRR: 3) destruction is likely to be some distance from supply depending on (LRAG: 1) (LRAG: 3) (LRAG: 3) the pressure supply (high, medium or low) with gas flames or jets reaching up to 100 metre plus for the highest pressure supplies. Effects of thermal radiation will be considerable. The consequences of any major fire or explosion will also include large numbers of Page 272 Page evacuation.

16 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.2 Transport accidents

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

HL9 Aviation Accidents Aircraft movements (take off / landing) at airports and aircraft 2.01 Aviation Accidents 2 3 6 (London City Airport) carry a risk of mechanical failure and human error resulting in an accident occurring. Consequences will range (LRR: 2) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 6) from minor injuries and aircraft damage through to mass fatality (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 4) incidents involving crew, passengers and potentially the local population. This will depend on the number of aircraft involved and the incident circumstances. HL10 Local (transport) The impact of an incident involving multiple vehicles will result in a 2.02 Local (transport) 4 2 8 accident on motorways number of casualties and possibly deaths to those directly involved. accident on and major trunk roads The surrounding area will be affected by any closures to the trunk (LRR: 4) (LRR: 1) (LRR: 4) motorways and road, with additional congestion for the road involved and the major trunk roads (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 4) surrounding area. Page 273 Page Multiple vehicle incident causing up to 10 fatalities and up to 20 casualties (internal injuries, fractures, possible burns); closure of lanes or carriageways causing major disruption and delays. HL11 Railway Accidents and There is a risk of collision at a station and/or lineside location 2.03 Railway accidents 1 4 4 London Underground involving one or more trains that affects the railway infrastructure and the structural integrity of the rolling stock. This will require (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 12) evacuation of large numbers of people from the trains involved or (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 9) impacted by the incident, immediate care, support and where required onward travel to final destination. Hazards from such incidents would include; explosion, crush, impact, environmental pollution. H60 Local accident In an incident there is a possibility that the hazardous chemicals 2.04 Transport of 1 4 4 involving transport of will be released from its containment vessel, it will then be in an Hazardous hazardous chemicals. unstable environment and interact with local mediums. Depending (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 4) Chemicals on the type of chemical or combination of chemicals released, the hazards will vary widely.

17 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

HL4 Local accident In an incident there is a possibility that the hazardous chemicals 2.05 Transport of fuel or 1 3 3 involving transport of will be released from its containment vessel, it will then be in an explosives fuel/explosives unstable environment and interact with local mediums. Depending (LRR: 2) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 6) on the type of chemical or combination of chemicals released, the (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 6) hazards will vary widely. H11 Accidental release of Radioactive material is transported by freight train within the UK. 2.06 Transport of 1 4 4 radioactive material Accidental release may cause: radioactive from incorrectly  Contamination of areas affected and rolling stock. materials via train handled or disposed of  Major transport disruption to rail line affected. sources  Increase in traffic on alternative public transport.  Localised disruption around incident site and access points to rail line.  Disruption to local health services (receiving A&E

Page 274 Page departments). H11 Accidental release of Radioactive material is transported on the road network within the 2.07 Transport of 1 4 4 radioactive material UK, accidental release may cause: radioactive from incorrectly  Decontamination of areas affected. materials via road handled or disposed of  Major transport disruption to roads affected. sources  Increase in traffic on alternative public transport.  Localised disruption around incident site and emergency access points.  Disruption to local health services (receiving A&E departments).

18 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.3 Severe Weather

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

H17 Storms and gales, wide A natural event characterised by high velocity winds possibly 3.01 Storms and gales, 3 3 9 scale, wide area associated with, or followed by, significant rainfall in most regions. large scale Storm winds experiencing mean speeds in excess of 55mph with (LRR: 3) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 9) gusts in excess of 85mph for at least 6 hours, but can last up to 200 (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 12) hours. N/A N/A A violent rotating column of air that reaches to the ground from a 3.02 Tornadoes 2 4 8 storm cloud in the shape of a condensation funnel created and maintained by strong inflowing winds. The spinning winds can attain extremely high speeds which provide great risk to property and life at the ground and in the air. H18 Low temperatures and Low temperatures occur when low pressure or depressions sit 3.03 Low temperatures 4 3 12

Page 275 Page heavy snow above the UK for a number of days or weeks. Low temperatures and heavy snow can also occur when the jet stream is situated directly over the (LRR: 3) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 9) country, allowing cold air to travel further south than normal. (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 12)

H48 Heatwave A period in which the temperature is abnormally high over several 3.04 Heatwave 4 3 12 days leading to serious health impacts. As such, temperatures that trigger a ‘heatwave’ will vary depending on the usual weather of (LRR: 4) (LRR: 2) (LRR: 8) the area, and the normal temperature for the season. A heat wave (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 12) is defined as “a period of more than 5 consecutive days where the daily maximum temperature exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 degrees centigrade or more.” H50 Drought A period of low rainfall creates a shortage of water for people, the 3.05 Drought 2 4 8 environment, agriculture, or industry. Some droughts are short and intense, for example, a hot, dry summer, while others are chronic (LRR: 2) (LRR: 4) (LRR: 8) and take some time to develop. Short-term droughts can also be (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 6) caused when high pressure systems persist over, or close to, the UK for a prolonged period.

19 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

HL19 Local fluvial flooding Hazard occurs when water overtops the riverbank, flooding 3.06 Flooding – fluvial, 4 4 16 adjacent land. Localised flooding of more than 100 and less than local 1,000 properties for 2-7 days. Short term impacts may include up (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 12) to 5 fatalities and 50 casualties. Essential services may be disrupted (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 16) (gas, electricity & telecoms) and water supplies could be contaminated by polluted floodwaters. HL18 Local/Urban Flooding A sustained period of heavy rainfall extending over two weeks, 3.07 Flooding - Surface 4 4 16 (fluvial or surface perhaps combined with snow melt, resulting in steadily rising river Run-off water) levels over a region. Localised flooding of more than 1,000 and less (LRR: 3) (LRR: 4) (LRR: 12) than 10,000 properties. (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 9)

H21 Severe inland flooding Hazard occurs when water overtops the river bank, flooding 3.08 Flooding – Large 3 5 15 affecting more than 2 adjacent land. Major flooding affecting a large area, flooding of up

Page 276 Page scale, wide area, UK regions to 50,000 properties for up to 10 days. Up to 10 fatalities and 500 (LRR: 3) (LRR: 5) (LRR: 15) regional casualties and 20 missing persons. Up to 55,000 people needing (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 9) assistance with evacuation. Up to 6,000 people in need of rescue or assistance in-situ.

20 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.4 Structural Hazards

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

Major Reservoir or Reservoirs and dams impound or hold back water which would 4.01 Reservoir failure 1 5 5 damn failure otherwise not be there. There are two ways in which flooding can occur from a reservoir or dam; overtopping, where the water level exceeds the maximum capacity for the site; breach, where there is a structural failure and water is released. HL21 Land movement Land movement occurs when a slope becomes unstable and the 4.02 Land Movement 1 2 2 (caused by tremors or frictional forces holding the slope together are no longer strong landslides) enough to counter the force of gravity. (LRR: 1) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 3)

(LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3)

HL22 Building collapse and Up to 5 fatalities and 20 casualties could be expected, depending 4.03 Building collapse 2 3 6

Page 277 Page HL22a large building collapse on occupation rates and the circumstances for the collapse. The collapse of larger buildings (high rise block, shopping centre etc.) (LRR (LRR (LRR could cause up to 100 fatalities and 350 casualties. HL22: 5) HL22: 2) HL22: 10) (LRR (LRR (LRR HL22a: 2) HL22a: 3) HL22a: 6) (LRMG (LRMG (LRMG HL22: 2) HL22: 1) HL22: 2)

HL23 Bridge Collapse Total or partial collapse of a bridge (road of rail), resulting in access 4.04 Bridge collapse 1 2 2 routes and transport infrastructure impassable and disrupted for a considerable length of time causing severe congestion over wide (LRR: 1) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 3) geographical area. Potential for deaths and persons to be injured, (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3) trapped or missing.

N/A N/A Risk of fire in tower blocks resulting in large scale evacuation of 4.05 Major fires in 4 3 12 building due to risk from fire, smoke, water, or disruption to tower blocks utilities or building damage.

21 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

N/A N/A Fire in low rise residential accommodation, affecting in excess of 20 4.06 Major residential 4 4 16 residents, requiring evacuation, and likely to involve multiple fires properties. These may be as a result of fires in low-rise blocks of flats, or through fires in Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMOs). In some cases, this is exacerbated by illegal modifications to HMOs resulting in large numbers of people living in overcrowded and dangerous properties.

Page 278 Page

22 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.5 Human Health

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

H23 Influenza type disease Influenza (flu) is an acute viral infection of the respiratory 5.01 Highly infectious 4 4 16 (pandemic) tract(nose, mouth, throat, bronchial tubes and lungs). There are disease – Influenza three types of flu virus: A, B and C, with A and B responsible for (LRR: 4) (LRR: 4) (LRR: 16) type most clinical illness. The genetic make up of the flu virus changes. (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 5) (LRMG: 20) Minor changes occur from season to season. Major changes occur periodically, resulting in the emergence of a new subtype of the virus that can cause widespread epidemics or even pandemic.

Pandemic Influenza occurs when an influenza A virus subtype emerges or re-emerges which is markedly different from recently circulating strains. It is therefore able to spread widely because few, if any, people have natural or acquired immunity to it.

Page 279 Page N/A N/A Norovirus, which is also known as the ‘winter vomiting disease, is 5.02 Highly infectious 5 2 10 the most common cause of infectious gastroenteritis (diarrhea and disease – vomiting) in England and Wales. Outbreaks of norovirus Norovirus type gastroenteritis are common in semi-closed environments such as hospitals, nursing homes and schools.

Norovirus recognized as the leading global cause of viral gastroenteritis and a major contributor to food-borne illness, present a growing challenge in health care and long-term care facilities. N/A N/A Emergency infectious diseases with the potential for rapid spread 5.03 Emerging 1 3 3 from person to person, such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory infectious disease Syndrome). – SARs type

SARS is a severe respiratory disease caused by a corona virus called SARS associated coronavirus (SARS- CoV). It presented as a deadly new infectious disease with the potential for rapid spread from person to person and through international air travel, and was first recognised in Guangdong Province in China in November 2002, and

23 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

spread worldwide.

Because the virus is new, much about its behaviour is poorly understood. Key questions, which are undergoing intense study, include stages in the course of infection when virus shedding may be highest, and the various concentrations of virus in different body fluids. N/A N/A Measles is a serious infectious illness that spread easily when 5.04 Measles Incident 2 2 4 groups of people are gathered together. and outbreak

Depending on the scale of the outbreak, infections can occur in many children in schools and nurseries. The outbreak of measles can pose a major challenge to the local hospital and the

Page 280 Page community. N/A N/A Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious, but preventable, infectious illness. As 5.05 Tuberculosis 3 2 6 TB is closely linked with over-crowding, poverty and other social incident and problems, it can be seen as an indicator of inequality. outbreak

24 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.6 Animal Health

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

H25 Non-zoonotic diseases have the capacity for human-to-human 6.01 Non-zoonotic Non-zoonotic 2 1 2 transmission. The most serious disease in this category is Foot and notifiable animal notifiable animal Mouth Disease (FMD) which drives the risk and outcome (LRR: 3) (LRR: 2) (LRR: 6) disease disease descriptions. (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 6)

H26 The presence of Zoonotic diseases should be taken in to account 6.02 Zoonotic notifiable Zoonotic notifiable 1 2 2 alongside the size and nature of the animal population in the animal disease animal disease country. Zoonotic diseases are transmissible between animals and (LRR: 3) (LRR: 2) (LRR: 6) humans and food products often carry and spread the infection.

Page 281 Page Notifiable zoonoses:  Anthrax  Avian Influenza  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy  Brucellosis  Contagious Epididymitis  Equine Viral Encephalomyelitis  Glanders and Farcy  Rabies  Rift Valley Fever  Tuberculosis

The most significant disease in this category is highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), which drives the risk and outcome descriptions, although all these diseases can result in human death.

25 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.7 Industrial action

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

H30 Emergency fire and rescue cover could be lost because of industrial 7.01 Industrial action Emergency services: 5 3 15 action by Fire Services and its supporting staff. Hazards from such from emergency loss of emergency fire incidents include: (LRR: 5) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 15) services – Fire and rescue cover (i) Reduced or no cover Service because of industrial (LRMG:- 5) (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 5) (ii) Automatic Fire Alarm Activations may not be action. responded to

(iii) No cover from the Army in London (iv) Increased damage, disruption and cost to residents and businesses

Industrial action from the Fire Service can be in the form of regional, local or nation disputes depending on who has been Page 282 Page balloted from the Fire Brigade Union.

Whilst it may be unlikely, industrial action could occur from wildcat strikes at individual fire stations. Industrial action HL42 Loss of cover due to Emergency Ambulance and Health Services provision lost or 7.02 4 3 12 from emergency industrial action by seriously reduced because of industrial action by Ambulance and services – workers providing a Health Services and its supporting staff. (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 12) Ambulance Service service critical to the (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 12) preservation of life (such as emergency service workers). Industrial action HL42 Loss of cover due to Policing cover could be lost because of industrial action by the 7.03 4 3 12 from emergency industrial action by Police, Police Support Staff, Police Community Support Officers services – Police workers providing a (PCSO’s) and the Prison Service. (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 12) Service service critical to the (LRMG: 4) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 12) preservation of life (such as emergency service workers).

26 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

N/A N/A Local Authority Industrial Action lasting a minimum five days by 7.04 Industrial action 3 2 6 one or more trade unions by Local Authority

staff

H35 Industrial action by key Strike action resulting in the total shut down of either the London 7.05 Industrial action 1 2 2 rail or underground Underground or rail network on a national scale for more than 3 by transport staff days (e.g. action by key workers such as signallers). Greater impact (LRR: 1) (LRR: 2) (CRR: 2) operators if action occurs in a co-ordinated manor. (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 6)

H57 Public disorder in a Public disorder manifesting in ways which challenge law enforcers 7.06 Severe Public 2 4 8 single or multiple sites and can include rioting, looting, vandalism, violence and arson. It Disorder often occurs following a trigger event like industrial disputes, (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 3) (LRMG: 9) political dissention, public protest, large-scale community and

Page 283 Page sporting events such as Notting Hill carnival, pop festivals and religious gatherings which causes an eruption of violence.

H33 Unofficial strike action A single unofficial strike by prison officers (at a single prison or 7.07 Industrial Action 3 1 5 by prison officers more widely) lasting 24 hours resulting in a serious shortfall in the by Prison Services number of personnel available to operate and maintain control of (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 2) prisons, leading to prison riots and/or serious disruption to the CJS.

27 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.8 International Events

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

H37 International Incident - International incident resulting in influx of 10,000 British Nationals 8.01 International 2 1 2 Influx of British who are not normally resident in the UK within a 4-6 week period incident resulting Nationals who are not following conventional war, widespread civil unrest, sustained (CRR: 4) (CRR: 2) (CRR: 8) in influx of British normally resident in terrorism campaign, natural disaster or major international health Nationals (LRAG:5) (LRAG: 1) (LRAG: 5) the UK incident. The incoming British Nationals will have no UK base and have no means to provide for themselves and may require medical or other services. N/A International Incident International incident resulting in influx of Non-British Nationals 8.02 International 1 1 1 (Including a major who are not normally resident in the UK within a 4-6 week period security incident health incident and following conventional war, widespread civil unrest or sustained resulting in influx natural disaster) - terrorism campaign. The incoming Non-British Nationals will have of non-British

Page 284 Page Influx of Non-British no UK base and have no means to provide for themselves and may Nationals Nationals. require medical or other services.

28 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

5.9 Industrial technical failure

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

H38 Fuel disruption – Significant or perceived significant constraint on fuel supply 9.01 Fuel disruption – 3 3 9 H31 Petrol/diesel at filling stations e.g. industrial action by tanker drivers, or petrol/diesel effective fuel blockades at key refineries/ terminals by (LRR H38: 2) (LRR H38: 4) (LRR H38: 8) protesters, due to the price of fuel. (LRMG H38: 2) (LRMG H38: 2) (LRMG H38: 2) (LRMG H31: 3) (LRMG H31: 2) (LRMG H31: 6)

H39 Water failure Loss of or non-availability for drinking, of the piped water 9.02 Water failure 2 4 8 accidental failure in supply, for up to 50,000 people, for more than 24 hours and infrastructure or non- up to 3 days affecting the borough. (LRR: 4) (LRR: 3) (LRR: 12) toxic contamination (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 4)

Page 285 Page N/A Water Failure Loss of or non-availability of water for drinking due to 9.03 Drinking water 1 4 4 contamination (deliberate or accidental) of the piped water contamination supply affecting a significant area or number of properties Waltham Forest for more than 24 hours and up to 3 days. This incident may also lead to the consumption of contaminated water by residents, causing severe health issues. H40 No notice loss of Loss of telecommunications for up to 100,000 people 9.04 Loss of tele- 2 4 8 significant telecoms regionally for up to 72 hours communications infrastructure in a (LRR: 5) (LRR: 2) (LRR: 10) (telephone lines, localised incident mobile, internet) (LRMG: 2) (LRMG: 1) (LRMG: 2)

H41 H45 – Regional short A shutdown of electricity supply over a regional area during 9.05 Electricity failure 2 3 6 H45 term electricity failure a working week lasting between 24 hours and 5 days. Possible loss of life support machines, civil unrest, security (LRR H45 : 2) (LRR H45: 4) (LRR H45: 8) H41 – National, alarms, street lighting, gas heating, rail transport, water (LRMG H41: 3) (LMRG H41: 3) (LRMG H41: 9) extended term supplies and mobile (PMT) telecommunications etc. Back-up electricity failure generators available for limited time for individual business (LRMG H45: 3) (LRAG H45: 2) (LRMG H45: 6)

29 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

HAZARD LRMG LRAG SUBCATGORY HAZARD/OUTCOME DESCRIPTION LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK SCORE

and emergency services in some instances.

Page 286 Page

30 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

6 RISK EVALUATION MATRIX

Large scale toxic chemical release

(Coppermills)

(5) Flooding – Large scale, wide area Infectious disease - Pandemic Influenza Reservoir failure

Catastrophic

Aviation accidents Railway accidents Tornadoes Transport of hazardous chemicals Drought Flooding – Surface runoff Transport of radioactive materials via train

(4) Severe Public Disorder Flooding – Fluvial, local Fires in tower blocks Transport of radioactive materials via road Severe water failure Industrial action – Police Service Significant Significant Industrial bio-hazard release Gasometre Telecommunications failure fire/explosion Water contamination

Major air quality incident Petrol station fires/explosions Industrial fires and explosions

Storms and gales, large scale Major residential fires – low rise

Emerging Infectious Disease (SARs) Building Collapse Low temperatures and heavy snow Page 287 Page

(3) Legionnaire’s disease Industrial Action – LFB Gas mains pipeline leak/explosion Petrol station leaks Gas Leaks/explosions Pollution of waterways Industrial Action – LAS Moderate Transport of fuel or explosives Electricity failure

IMPACT Fuel disruption (petrol/diesel)

Botulism outbreak Chemical release, large scale

Forest and grass fires Fire/explosions Gas/LNG/LPG canisters

(2) Bridge Collapse Major road transport accident Fire/explosion Acetylene cylinders Heatwave Infectious disease – Norovirus

Minor Measles outbreak Major road transport accident Tuberculosis outbreak

Zoonotic animal disease

International Incident causing an International incident causing an influx of Chemical release, small scale

(1) influx of British Nationals non-British Nationals Industrial Action – Prison Services

Non-zoonotic animal disease Insignificant

Low Medium Low Medium Medium High High (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

LIKELIHOOD

31 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

ANNEX A. LIKELIHOOD AND IMPACT SCORING SCALES

Likelihood scoring

Score 2011 Descriptor Likelihood over 5 years Likelihood over 5 years

1 Low >0.005% >1 in 20,000 chance 2 Medium-low >0.05% >1 in 2,000 chance 3 Medium >0.5% >1 in 200 chance 4 Medium-high >5% >1 in 20 chance 5 High >50% >1 in 2 chance

Note: Levels 1 and 2 of the impact scale are likely to fall below the threshold for an emergency. Consequently, there may be no statutory requirement to plan for events that score 1 or 2 on the impact scale.

This scale recognises that, to demonstrate a thorough analysis, Category 1 responders will wish to include in their risk assessment certain risks with impacts at these levels. Each of these are scored on a ranking of 1-5, (1 being limited impact 5 being catastrophic). An overall average is then taken to inform the risk evaluation process.

Impact scoring

The overall impact assessment for a particular hazard is not an average of the score for each category, but will be determined by an overall assessment of the impact and comparison to other similar hazards.

Level Descriptor Categories Description of impact of impact 1 Limited Health  Limited number of injuries or impact on health Social  Limited number of persons displaced and insignificant personal support required  Limited disruption to community service, including transport services and infrastructure Economic  Limited impact on the local economy Environment  Limited impact on the environment

Page 288 32 Borough Risk Register Version 1.0 November 2015

2 Minor Health  Small number of people affected, no fatalities, and a small number of minor injuries with first aid treatment Social  Minor damage to properties  Minor displacement of a small number of people for <24hours and minor personal support required  Minor localised disruption to community services or infrastructure <24hours Economic  Negligible impact on local economy and costs easily absorbed Environment  Minor impact on environment with no lasting effects

3 Moderate Health  Sufficient number of fatalities with some casualties requiring hospitalisation and medical treatment and activation of MAJAX, the automated intelligent alert notification system, procedures in on or more hospitals Social  Damage that is confined to a specific location, or to a number of locations but requires additional resources  Localised displacement of >100 people for 1-3 days Economic  Limited impact on local economy with some short-term loss of production, with possible clean-up costs Environment  Limited impact on environment with short-term or long-term effects

4 Significant Health  Significant number of people affected with multiple fatalities, multiple serious or extensive injuries, significant hospitalisation and activation of MAJAX procedures across a number of hospitals. Social  Significant damage that requires support for local responders with external resources  100 to 500 people in danger and displaced for longer than 1 week. Local responders required external resources to deliver personal support.  Significant impact on and possible breakdown of some local community services. Economic  Significant impact on local economy with medium to long-term loss of production.  Significant extra clean-up costs. Environment  Significant impact on environment with medium to long-term effects.

5 Catastrophic Health  Very large numbers of people in affected area(s) impacted with significant numbers of fatalities, large number of people requiring hospitalisation with serious injuries with longer-term effects. Social  Extensive damage to properties and built environment in affected area requiring major demolition.  General and widespread displacement of more than 500 people for prolonged duration and extensive personal support required.  Serious damage to infrastructure causing significant disruption to, or loss of, key services for a prolonged period.  Community unable to function without significant support. Economic  Serious impact on local and regional economy with some long-term, potentially permanent, loss of production with some structural change.  Extensive clean-up costs. Environment  Serious long-term impact on environment and/or permanent damage.

Page 289 33 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 11

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Home Office Gangs Local Asssesment Process

Date: 7 December 2015

[email protected] Author: Henry Staples Contact: 0208 227 2596

Interim Service Improvement Officer, Community Safety and Offender Job title: Management

Security: Protected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 This report outlines the current proposal for a Gangs Local Assessment Process to be conducted within the Borough. This assessment will be conducted by the Home Office Ending Gang and Youth Violence Frontline Team in early 2016, and the findings and recommendations from the assessment will be used to inform the Barking and Dagenham Gang Strategy 2016-20.

1.2 It is recommended that the Community Safety Partnership Board:

 approve the proposal for the Home Office Gangs Local Asssessment Process to take place.

2. Local Asssessment Process (LAP)

2.1 The Home Office Ending Gang and Youth Violence (EGYV) Frontline Team have distributed a Local Assessment Process (LAP) toolklit as part of the national strategy to tackle gangs and serious youth violence (see Appendix). The LAP is intended to help local areas identify effective practice, highlight barriers to local understanding and implement an effective response to gang activity.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\8\9\ai00060988\$kb3dsxbl.docx

Page 291 [PROTECTIVE MARKING]

2.2 The LAP seeks to identify what local practitioners know about vulnerability at an operational level, understand how the partner agencies are working together to deliver the area’s gang/group and youth violence priorities and examine what blockages are perceived at a frontline level to effective delivery. It consists of a set of interviews and focus groups with front-line practitioners to gather information and build a qualitative picture of the key issues and drivers around county lines, gangs, youth violence and vulnerability.

2.3 The goals of the LAP are to:

 Enable rapid assessment of issues around gang activity, serious youth violence and victimisation through drawing upon the experiences of practitioners, communities, victims and offenders;  Test the prevalence of issues identified through cross-referencing opinions from interviewees/groups and relevant quantitative data; and  Identify barriers to effectively understanding local priorities (in relation to threat, risk and harm).

2.4 To date, the Home Office have conducted 14 local assessments across the country, including most recently within the borough of Havering. The assessment takes the form of a series of interviews and focus groups conducted by the Home Office EGYV Frontline Team over the course of a single day. The Frontline team are supported by Council staff in conducting the interviews.

Gang Strategy Task and Finish Group

2.5 A Task and Finish Group has been established to deliver the Barking and Dagenham Gang Strategy 2016-20. The Group consists of members from a range of Council departments, external agencies and the voluntary sector. The new Strategy will take a long term view on what is needed to tackle gang related crime within the Borough. At the last meeting of the Task and Finish Group, consideration was given to the LAP and it was agreed that this process could usefully inform the Strategy’s Delivery Plan. Following this, a provisional date for the LAP has now been set for Feburary 9 2016.

2.6 Consideration has also been given to conducting a separate gangs assessment within the Borough’s secondary schools. This would be intended to provide a more full understanding of the gang problem within the Borough, including most crucially how gangs are perceived by young people. In relation to this, the following points were noted at the meeting;  The Year 9-11 age group would be most suitable for an assessment within schools as this is the age group (approx. 14-16) where young people may be more aware of the gang picture, more likely to be affiliated with gangs; as well as more likely to know others who are affiliated.  Any assessment within schools will need to adopt a truthful yet sensitive approach . This may be done by introducing the topic with a discussion around a universal concept such as ‘friendship’, allowing all young people to draw on personal experience. It will also be important to avoid asking questions to individuals directly (e.g. ‘are you a gang member?’) as this will not necessarily garner honest responses.  It was noted that young people may not always have a full understanding of their friend’s involvement in gangs. It may be that some young people present a

2 Page 292 [PROTECTIVE MARKING]

gangs ‘persona’ when in reality they are not involved in gangs in practice, or, inversely, individuals may not reveal their true involvement in gangs to their peers, which may take place in other boroughs.  The use of anonymous data collection tools (e.g. a survey via smart-phone) may also aid with drawing out personal opinions, as young people may feel more willing to divulge in this manner.

3. Appendix

3.1 Home Office, ‘Ending Gang Exploitation and Violence Practitioner Guidance for Local Assessment Process’ Midtown Sample LAP report

3 Page 293 This page is intentionally left blank Ending Gang Exploitation and Violence Practitioner Guidance for Local Assessment Process

Midtown Sample LAP report

Page 295 Official Practitioner Guidance for Local Assessment Process

Background Since the Gang and Youth Violence programme started, a number of challenges have emerged from the peer reviews, and the understanding of the problem of the way in which gangs or groups use violence and exploit vulnerable individuals to commit crime has evolved significantly.

The challenges include:

• The need to understand the relationship between street gangs and local drugs markets • Links between the vulnerable and gangs e.g. care homes, missing young people, schools absence and exclusions • The vulnerabilities experienced by gang-associated women and girls • The exploitation of children by gangs and organised crime groups (sexual exploitation or exploitation in order to commit crimes such as drug dealing) • Gang members and associates moving into other areas, such as shire counties or seaside towns, to commit crime • Links between street gangs and organised crime groups • The use of social media to facilitate violence and intimidation • The links between health, particularly mental health, and gang violence • Youth offending services managing a more violent cohort than previously • The ability to identify both dangerous gang nominals and young people at risk of involvement in gang crime when there is a lack of police intelligence

Often practitioners have many insights into how gangs and groups are operating and exploiting young people and vulnerable adults. This qualitative information, when triangulated across a number of interviews and linked with relevant quantitative data sets can show a richer picture of how gangs and groups work, and help us to tackle them more effectively. It can also help us to identify and protect vulnerable people. This is the local assessment process (LAP).

Purpose The LAP is a one day process for local areas as part of the national strategy to tackle gangs and serious youth violence. It works as a broad-brush set of interviews and focus groups with front-line practitioners to gather information, building a qualitative picture of the key issues and drivers around county lines, gangs, youth violence and vulnerability. It is a rapid evidence assessment process that focuses on violence and vulnerability. It should -

 Enable rapid assessment of issues around gang activity, serious youth violence and victimisation through drawing upon the experiences of practitioners, communities, victims and offenders  Test the prevalence of issues identified through cross-referencing opinions from interviewees/groups and relevant quantitative data  Identify barriers to effectively understanding local priorities (in relation to threat, risk and harm)

It is crucial to understand that this is not a review of any one organisation’s role, but a process that seeks to identify what local practitioners know about vulnerability at an operational level, understand how the partner agencies are working together operationally to deliver the area’s gang/group and youth violence priorities and examine what blockages are perceived at a frontline level to effective delivery.

At the conclusion of the process a short report should be available to the partnership, outlining the key issues, along with recommendations for a way forward. A sample report is at the back of this document.

Method and questions Interviewers conduct interviews/focus groups with a wide range of partners, community groups, victims and offenders. Interview/focus group questions are very ‘open’. Questions based on WHERE, WHEN, HOW, WHY, WHO, WHAT.

Page 296 2 Official

 “What is your understanding of gang or group violence issues in the Borough?”  “What are the drivers/causes of this?”  “What individuals or groups are affected by this?”  “Where could we find evidence to support that view?”  “We have been told that these are the issues in this area. Do you think this is the case?”  “Why do you agree/disagree?”  “What is your evidence for saying that?”  “What do you think would improve the situation?”  “How could the situation be monitored to see if things were improving?”

(These questions should throw up key issues which can then be opened up by further questions using the basic principles above).

If questions about county lines, sexual exploitation etc. are answered by a “no” or a “yes”, this shouldn’t necessarily be accepted at face value but with a follow up question such as “How do you know this to be the case?”

A key outcome of the LAP is to identify information exchange barriers, blockages and opportunities. During the process you should be recording how the information gained via the LAP is communicated and accessed by the wider stakeholder group and any interoperable issues, for example:

 If a section of practitioners are aware of gangs exploiting young people, who have they told, and if not, why not? What are the blockages to information exchange? Mistrust? Lack of understanding of legal gateways?

This will help you improve and sustain understanding of the local picture. You may also wish to explore practitioners understanding of related vulnerability issues and local processes such as counter terrorism and organised crime strategies so you could include the following questions as part of each interview –

 Are you aware of a link between MISPERs / LACs and county lines / gangs? If so, what does this look like?

 How are gangs exploiting vulnerable people in this area? Are you aware of gangs committing sexual abuse?

 Are you aware of a serious and organised crime profile locally and / or the SOC partnership board? If so, have you seen it/ do you sit on it?

 Are you aware of any gang/group links with radicalisation or extremism?

 Do you have a modern slavery liaison officer locally? Are you aware of any vulnerable children or adults being trafficked or indebted to gangs?

 If you knew of a vulnerable person being trafficked or subject to modern slavery, would you know how to report / refer the case?

Potential interviewees Interviewees are drawn from those likely to have a broad knowledge base in relation to matters affecting young people, especially those working with cohorts of young people likely to be exploited or members of gangs, so examples of agencies / potential focus groups to be interviewed would be:

 Police- (DS/PS and below only) - Gangs unit, Neighbourhood Team, Core response, Transport hub teams, YOT, Schools, Missing Persons, Integrated Offender Management, Public Protection  YOT /Children Services – Team members / leaders. (Early intervention, CAHMS and staff managing orders/cases)

Page 297 3 Official

 Third Sector Providers – Agencies providing services in the borough in relation to this agenda inc. early intervention, domestic/sexual abuse, mentoring  MASH – Representation from all agencies involved.  Troubled families staff.  Youth Services (or outsourced provision) – Mixture of front line staff.  Looked after Children – Mixture of staff from care homes.  LA ASB officers and Housing Reps – Inc. LA housing and RSLs  DAAT – Practitioners inc. young person’s substance misuse leads  Young People – inc. those who are at risk, subject to YOT supervision, LAC.

 Key community Contacts – communities most at risk, emerging communities

 Probation Service - Staff managing orders  Schools - Teachers (primary and secondary), school nurse, truancy officer, PRU.  Colleges - Security, student welfare/support staff  Young women – Issues of sexual exploitation.

During the course of the day, emerging themes should be captured through comparison and triangulation of notes kept during discussions, enabling identification of reoccurring issues / themes and some assessment of risk attached to those issues. The attached sample LAP report shows how LAP interviews are summarised for the purpose of the report.

Communication of findings At the conclusion of the process the partnership or area should be provided with a document detailing:

 Background  Method  Those consulted  Issues identified, verified and prioritised after Day 1 (cross-referenced to qualitative and quantitative evidence)  Information barriers  Intelligence picture (this should be obtained or supplied by the local police gang unit or lead)  Quantitative data sets (this should be supplied by local police and partners and may support the views of practitioners and should be seen as complementing the main report)  Summary of findings  Recommended actions

Logistics and practicalities You should have two interviewers for every interview; one to ask questions, the other to take notes. The size of your team will be dependent on the number of interviews carried out concurrently and during the course of the day.

The interview team will need a base room where they can discuss emerging issues, triangulate themes and issues (appendix one has an example of how you can triangulate themes from each interview), close to the main interview rooms.

Page 298 4 Official

Midtown Sample LAP report

1. Background

As part of the Home Office Gang and Youth Violence programme, 33 priority local authority areas were identified and subsequently invited to participate in a programme of peer reviews designed to assist them with ensuring their partnerships had effective structures and responses in place to contribute to the shared aim of ending gang and youth violence. These areas were selected based on identified levels of gang activity and serious youth violence, and a willingness to participate in the programme. This support has since extended to ten additional areas facing emerging challenges, including from gangs coming in to the area from outside. Following each peer review, partners in the local area are provided with the findings, together with recommendations to improve the action they take.

Following the first round of peer reviews, each of the areas has been offered a range of further support to address issues arising from their review. This approach has demonstrated the value of directly engaging frontline practitioners, communities, victims and offenders, and the use of qualitative and quantitative data to share information, identify issues and implement the most effective responses.

Since the Gang and Youth Violence programme started, a number of challenges have emerged from the peer reviews, and the understanding of the problem of the way in which gangs or groups use violence and exploit vulnerable individuals to commit crime has evolved significantly.

The challenges include:

2. Purpose

The purpose of this Local Assessment Process is to help local areas explore these issues in more detail, identify effective practice, highlight barriers to local understanding and implement an effective response.

The Local Assessment Process is intended to:

 Enable rapid assessment of issues around gang activity, serious youth violence and victimisation through drawing upon the experiences of practitioners, communities, victims and offenders

Page 299 5 Official

 Test the prevalence of issues identified through cross-referencing opinions from interviewees/groups and relevant quantitative data  Identify barriers to effectively understanding local priorities (in relation to threat, risk and harm)

Midtown asked the team to focus on determining how or if county lines were present in the borough. Information obtained during the Local Assessment Process is shared with the local Gang and Youth Violence point of contact via the written summary. If a specific risk is identified the Home Office lead will inform the local point of contact to allow for immediate local action.

3. The interviews

3.1 Youth Offending Service (YOS) managers

Both managers interviewed were aware of the involvement of YOS clients in county lines being run out of the borough, although not on a widespread basis. xxxxxx was mentioned as a destination.

They noted that possession with intent to supply (PWITS) numbers seem to have risen over the past few years, but also perceived an increase in children charged with possession, not PWITS (although the child may be carrying large quantities of drugs). This was felt to be sending a signal that you can get away with drug dealing and that police had made a decision not to charge for supplying.

It was thought that children from families with complex needs was also a major issue around gangs in the borough, not just looked after children (LACs), and that a long term approach to engagement with this cohort was required. They noted low numbers of girls as YOS clients – but probably due to them not being charged, rather than not offending.

An increase in violence towards parents from children was mentioned, as well as an increase in younger clients – from 12 years upwards. Mention was made of the XXX gang.

3.2 Troubled Families Managers

Those interviewed reported that they are working closely with xxxxx families who have young people involved with gangs. There are real concerns within the team regarding the influence of young, gang associated boys within the family and the lack of parental control over them. They are dealing with many single parent families where the mother is unable to discipline or control the eldest young man who often exhibits signs of domestic violence and negatively influences younger peers in the family home.

Often parents do not speak English and young boys feel responsible to provide for family and will do this legally or illegally.

They are hearing from xxxxxx women who are experiencing high levels of domestic violence from their sons. They are also highlighted increasing levels of poor mental health being displayed by young men.

"Boys dominate our services, what we are not picking up are the issues around girls"

"We don't get the intelligence that we used to from Police"

Concerns were also stated around the exploitation of young girls - "We see young girls getting into the BMWs with older men and going for drives".

There were also issues regarding the misuse of alcohol - this is prevalent on stairwells and on estates and is not challenged by parents and they have noticed an increase in accident and emergency (A&E) admissions for intoxication.

Page 300 6 Official 3.3 Chair of Multi-Agency Sexual Exploitation Panel

There are a small number of cases connected to county lines. xxxxxx, xxx, xxxxxx were mentioned as locations where a small number of girls were known to have been carrying drugs.

Locally, young vulnerable girls aged 11-17 are well known to agencies either through being looked after, domestic violence or substance misuse. Self harming is a big issue - alcohol, legal highs. Lots of vulnerable girls are known to children and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) but they don’t engage.

Child sexual exploitation (CSE) issues are mainly in the xxxxxxx community. Parties where CSE is alleged to have taken place were mentioned. Some evidence of peer on peer abuse in groups of young people – men in late teens/early 20s on young women and girls. There was awareness of sexual exploitation e.g. “line ups” but no experience of male victims.

3.4 YOS staff focus group

They are aware of county lines to xxxx, and gave an example of a 14 year old who was clearly groomed by others to provide an explanation of his whereabouts and reasons for being in xxxxx.

Gangs/dealers are targeting kids from dysfunctional families, and one example was given of xxxx elders exploiting a xxxx child, who justified their attention by saying that “they look after me”.

They said that children who want to leave these gangs have to find their own replacements - they therefore look for other vulnerable young people, hence the feeling that gangs are targeting dysfunctional families.

Concerns were raised regarding the numbers of out of court disposals and / or triage for YOS clients caught holding a large number of bags of drugs – they are not getting charged.

YOS clients are thought to be targeting girls for sexual exploitation and an example was given of YOS clients who clubbed together to book an expensive room / apartment or hotel. They are under 18 but it is not known how they book the room.

Acts of domestic violence committed against parents by children was also raised as a problem, and it was felt that parents don’t understand and certainly don’t know who to refer to or speak to about these and other concerns.

Mental health was cited as an issue, but with only one CAMHS worker available as a resource for the YOS this was felt to be a problem.

“Young people are obsessed by money – not for stability or living, but for conspicuous consumption - “to be someone” “

3.5 Troubled Families front line workers

This group reinforced concerns expressed in other groups regarding young xxxxx males exhibiting signs of drug and alcohol abuse and this being a stepping stone to gang affiliation. The group told of signs of grooming in schools and estates by older gang members.

Those exiting prison are returning to estates and committing domestic violence within the home towards parent and younger siblings.

Again concerns were mentioned around a perceived increase of cases involving with regard to poor mental health and the inability of parents to deal with this. It was stated that often the only solution for the family is to send young men back to xxxxx only for them to return even more confused two or so years later.

Page 301 7 Official "Parents have little understanding of the criminal justice system and some do not know the difference between a school and a Pupil Referral Unit"

"Effective communication with parents is such a big barrier"

They also have concerns regarding a perceived increase in the number of young people hiring cars from dubious sources which they finance and use to drive around the local area and then post their exploits on YouTube.

Parents do not understand the online world, cannot police it and workers are aware of young girls being manipulated by boys to post pictures on line who are then blackmailed to sleep with other men.

"We have spoken to girls as young as nine who have been chatting with men as old as 40"

"No one has a strategy in place for working with gangs"

3.6 YOS senior case manager

There are substantial numbers of young people who have been known to agencies for a long time. There is also an issue with inter-generational trauma which manifests itself in domestic and sexual violence. It was felt that child protection plans don’t appear to be effective and issues could be hidden as there’s a sense of ‘we’ll deal with it in the community’.

It was noted that some of the girls were looked after children (LAC) but the group acknowledged that there are a number of private care homes across the city that they are unaware of. It was also stated that missing persons (MISPERs) were guarded with information on their return interviews. YOT practitioners also acknowledged that they are not currently asking young men who are YOT clients about their knowledge / use of girls and attitudes towards them.

3.7 VCS Organisation

Aware of county lines and the use of children – xxx and xxxxxxx were mentioned as destinations. Interviewee stated that xxxxxx do not open their doors to troubled children which means they are alienated from sections of the community and develop identity issues.

3.8 Youth Workers

There was a belief amongst the group that young people are exploited by organised crime networks that also use young people to run county lines. They have noticed a huge spike in bicycle and moped theft to fuel the drug trade via acquisitive crime.

"These kids lack positive role models" "Cannabis use has become the norm"

Young people are using social media to post images of violence and conflict; there is no policing of these sites which attract young people and are a means to grooming the most vulnerable.

It was also stated that young people using apartments to hire for parties, as well as boats and it is here that they are groomed.

"We see young girls coming home with expensive gifts"

Page 302 8 Official

3.9 YOT Police Team

A few county arrests thought to be county lines associated (xxxx and xxxxxx) were discovered purely by accident, as other forces had put details on the Police National Computer as juvenile arrests but not informed YOT police in Midtown.

Police are looking for low level outcomes for young people carrying drugs so they are being charged with possession, rather than possession with intent to supply. An example was given of a 15 year old male who had gone missing and was caught with 15 bags of cannabis and 3 bags of white powder and 2 mobile phones.

It was noted that there appeared to be little or no evidence of young girls caught in possession. It was thought that young people take the risk as they know they’ll only be charged with possession (and those supplying the drugs for sale know this too).

The gangs practitioner meeting only looks at the top ten matrix nominals and there is no representation from children’s services or mental health. The officers at the meeting had never heard of the MASE Panel, indicating no link between this and the gangs’ practitioner group (although we had been told that the practitioner group feeds in to the MASE?).

XXX gang mentioned again as cause of concern.

3.10 Pupil Referral Unit

It was felt that a couple of recent issues at the PRU involving the XXX gang may be linked to county lines, and believes that there’s a safeguarding vacuum at the moment around gangs – still perceived as an arrest culture, rather than intervention and support.

Ten members of the XXX gang are currently attending the PRU, aged from 13 years old. This had only just been made clear to the PRU, who were now attending the gang practitioner’s meeting.

XXX have one member with a YOS worker, two have a social worker, so low levels of known intervention according to PRU.

Again, not “young people not getting charged for carrying drugs…” was raised.

3.11 Social workers and care workers

Social workers described cases of young girls in schools who are involved in sexual touching and are being encouraged by older men to befriend other girls in school to take part in additional sexual acts.

3.12 School nurses/Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA)

They confirmed that young people generally hang around identified areas in the town centre (i.e. the youth courts). The school nurses work mainly with girls and have also noticed an increase in the number of girls exhibiting issues of self harm.

The self harm takes various forms, but a common one is an attempt to overdose on paracetamol and alcohol. The reasons for self harming were again varied but included issues with boys, other girls and parenting. Girls at the Pupil Referral Units also exhibited more concentrated forms of this behaviour

"There has been an increase in self-harm and suicide over the past two years"

Concerns were raised by the group around attitudes towards girls and a perception that sexual violence was becoming normative behaviour.

Page 303 9 Official One nurse explained that she had 70 children on her books that were educated at home and not all parents were willing to engage with her despite her having concerns about their welfare. There appears to be a gap or loop hole for parents who educate at home but are complicit in illegal activities which involve their children.

Most of those interviewed felt that engagement with this cohort was difficult and that trust and time is the key. Attendance at drop in sessions with school nurses at local schools varied depending on gender (very low numbers for boys) and how the school promoted the provision.

They also raised concerns around social media and the passing of inappropriate pictures, but had no knowledge or awareness of girls internally plugging drugs or transporting drugs or weapons. They felt girls had a number of overlapping vulnerabilities.

3.13 Housing Manager

Key estate for them is in xxx post code area. Sense that drug dealing is confined to local dealing ‘they don’t like to go out of the border’. No knowledge or awareness of county lines.

Lots of youths hanging around in stairwells of new developments often with much younger children (as young as 10).

4. Information barriers

The LAP team identified some challenges with regards to information sharing:

"The intel flow is decreasing"

"Children's Social Care and Health don't attend meetings"

"Health can be difficult to share with"

Particular difficulties were identified where children were attending schools and medical services in a neighbouring local authority area, adding a cross border dimension and added friction in relation to information sharing.

There are some systems and processes in place but there still appears to be a lack of information sharing between partners. People are not clear what information needs to be shared, with whom and why. The gangs multi-agency panel meeting is very police / community safety driven and therefore appears to focus on a specific geographical area or issue. Teams appeared to be quite siloed and relationships visibly strained, contributing to the lack of joined up working.

“We listed the young people most at risk and we thought that would be the start of a bigger discussion and mapping around them but it wasn’t taken any further, I don’t know why”

“Local police don’t seem to have the information they need on drugs lines etc and what is happening in the city that could impact here in Midtown”

“This (input into GMAP) is extra to my day job you know”

Clear tensions were identified in relation to Children’s Social Care and their contribution towards meetings and information sharing.

There was no defined process to identify and develop community information from voluntary sector or key community stakeholders, leading to a lack of collective and shared understanding of the risks and vulnerabilities inherent in the community. We spoke to a number of VCS groups operating in the area,

Page 304 10 Official primarily working with women and girls but also amongst new communities. These groups were impressive and appeared to have a wealth of knowledge and insights about the area, including a number of concerns about how the neighbourhood was developing and ideas and attitudes of some recently arrived and now living in the area.

5. Intelligence picture

Areas of current significant impact xxxxxx is still the most affected area of xxxxxx where London based gangs impact, although we do get the occasional member who will appear in the smaller towns such as xxxx and xxxxxxx however they do not settle there.

In the last 2 months we have seen a dramatic increase of the amount of London males coming to xxxxx to deal class A drugs of particular note was one 11 year old boy stopped at xxxx train station xx xxxxxxx xx/xx/xxxx from xxxxxx who was in company with a 25 year old male xx xxxxxxx x/xx/xxxx, xxxx had a dealer list, lubricated condoms, phones and over £2000 in cash. Their MO appears to be the same as xxxxx with cuckooing of vulnerable/users premises and travelling mainly via the rail network.

Gangs causing current significant impact xx/xxxx currently active in xxxx at this time, in feud with the X network following xxxxxx , xxx xxxx being stabbed and beaten with a hammer, there was then intel that a local boy would be travelling to London to collect members of the xxxx gang who would be returning to xxxxx with guns in order to seek retribution again the X boys.

X (xxx and xxxxx area’s) currently active in xxx mainly consisting of xxxxxx males, in feud with x/xxxxx network, lots of recent intel suggesting they have been involved in numerous stabbings of members of other networks, they have expressed how they want xxxxx locked down in order to take over the drug market and are not afraid to inflict serious harm on others in order to do this. xxx xxxxx x/xx/xxxx being part of this gang and charged with attempt murder of xxxxxx. xxxxxx are still known to be active in xxxxx at this time xxxx are known to be active in xxxxx at this time. It is believed xxxx xxxx xx/xx/xxxx is part of this gang and intel suggests that they have a hand gun in xxxxx following a number of their runners being robbed xxxxx line is still active in xxxxx, xx xxxxx believed to be in xxxx running the line.

The investigation into the xx xxx SID based network is currently with CPS, there are 13 offenders in relation to a conspiracy offence, the majority from xxx xxxxx area.

There has been a noticeable increase in the number of juveniles being used both locally and from London.

6. Quantative data sets

See attached chart at the back of the report

Page 305 11 Official 7. Summary

7.1 County lines are present with children used to carry drugs – xxxxx, xxx, xxxxx, xxxx, xxxxx and xxxxx mentioned. Not perhaps on the same scale as other areas but seemingly there nonetheless.

7.2 Issues with quantative data – need to look at PWITS and possession – several interviewees talked about kids being charged with possession when they are actually supplying.

7.3 Strong internal drug market where kids are used.

7.4 CSE mentioned by most interviewees but lack of referrals to MASE seems to be an issue.

7.5 Domestic violence against parents by children was raised numerous times, linked with identity and mental health issues.

7.6 Renting of apartments by groups of YOS clients to have drinking/drug parties and girls.

7.7 Girls are exhibiting worrying signs of self harming. This was stated to be rising as a problem across the interviews.

7.8 Girls not being charged for offences (but seemingly offending), so problem is hidden.

7.9 MISPER debriefs do not appear to be gathering the full picture regarding where the child has been, what they’ve been doing etc.

7.10 Little seemed to be known about private care homes and how and where vulnerable children are being placed across the borough.

7.11 There appears to be a lack of (or knowledge/awareness of) a safeguarding strategy regarding issues raised by the practitioners interviewed. Concerns were raised about Children’s Social Care who it was felt do not tend not to see these young people as victims. Youth Services were said to be difficult to engage with, and the XXX gang mentioned as causing concern currently across numerous interviews.

8. Developing practice

[Include any specific examples of good/promising/developing practice where identified].

Page 306 12 Official 9. Recommendations

9.1 Midtown should use the Home Office county lines toolkit to ascertain the extent of the problem. This should include a look at young people arrested outside the borough for PWITS, and also a look at numbers of young people arrested and charged with possession of drugs when they may actually be supplying. The local drug market needs to be better understood; especially the role young people play within it.

9.2 Consideration should be given to developing an intelligence product/profile, with appropriate resources targeted on the basis of the profile. This profile should be based on vulnerability, not in relation to girls/gangs/drugs/safeguarding issues etc seen in isolation. In addition, the violence/safeguarding strategy needs to reflect some of the issues and concerns around vulnerability raised by practitioners.

9.3 Priority should be given to researching the social networks of known vulnerable girls, and their use of social media. This work in other Gang and Youth Violence areas has exposed the links and friendships between groups of vulnerable girls, allowing them to identify a vulnerable cohort of girls linked by circumstances and in some cases male abusers.

9.4 If not already underway, the partnership needs to look at the number of referrals to the MASE and see if this figure should be higher.

9.5 More research should be carried out to explore the use of serviced apartments by young men. This work should also look at how these apartments are monitored and regulated, along with contact with local hotels to educate them around the dangers and responsibilities they have towards young people accessing their rooms.

9.6 The issue of self harming, alcohol and drug abuse amongst young people should be explored in more detail, concentrating on what it means for this particular cohort, and why this is happening.

9.7 Similarly, the borough should investigate if reports of domestic violence against parents perpetrated by young people are increasing or a cause for concern.

9.8 There is clearly a wider societal problem with how some young men view women, and attitudes towards drugs, sexuality and criminal activity. If this is not already under consideration, the borough should think about how it wants to get positive messages about relationships and gender across to young men.

9.9 The issue of self harming should be explored in more detail, concentrating on what it means for this particular cohort, and why this is happening.

9.10 Private care homes across Midtown should be mapped and contact made with the staff on a regular basis by local police teams.

9.11 MISPER debriefs should be carried out wherever possible by groups from the voluntary and community sector, who are far more likely to gain a detailed picture of what the young MISPER has been subject too than a police officer.

9.12 Information sharing with some partners needs to be strengthened and formalised. Midtown may wish to contact the Centre of Excellence for Information Sharing for advice on how this might be achieved - http://informationsharing.org.uk/

9.13 Midtown may wish to consider developing an action plan to take forward the recommendations made in this report.

Page 307 13 Appendix 1 - Summary of interviews

County Holding CSE Domestic / sexual Trafficking Self Harming Social Media MISPERs LACs lines (with Drugs / violence kids) weapons Social workers      VCS     PRU     YOS managers        YOS staff         Housing 

MACE Page 308 Page        YOS staff      vulnerable girls Family      intervention managers Troubled      Families staff Youth workers    

Police team     Official Quantative data requirement for LAP – areas mainly experiencing problems with external gangs and groups

Crime type (per 1000 population) 2013/14 2014/15 iQuanta position if / data source relevant Weapon enabled robbery Possession of offensive weapon Gun Crime Trafficking of Drugs Possession of Drugs Knife crime ANPR hits - known gang nominals (linked to known vehicles) travelling into borough BTP data regarding known nominals travelling into borough Operation Holdcroft data re prevalence of gangs coming into borough (if applicable) Number of arrests / charges for PWITS under 18 year olds from out of borough Number of arrests / charges for PWITS under 18 year olds from the borough Appropriate adult interviews for children from outside the borough Split of MISPERs / Looked after children included as a proportion of above cohorts Number of registered opiate users in borough Number of arrests / charges PWITS for adults from out of the borough Number of arrests / charges PWITS for adults from the borough Number of gang members charged with a Modern Slavery offence – as defined in the Modern Slavery Act Is there a local/regional multi- agency partnership to tackle modern slavery, or a liaison officer? Number of gang members or those working for gangs seen as victims of trafficking and how many of them were then subsequently referred into the National Referral Mechanism by police, LAs and others;

15 Page 309 Quantative data requirementOfficial for LAP – areas mainly experiencing problems with internal gangs and groups

2013/14 2014/15 National average / iQuanta position if Crime type (per 1000 population) relevant / data source Weapon enabled robbery Possession of offensive weapon Gun Crime Trafficking of Drugs Possession of Drugs Knife crime ANPR hits - known gang nominals (linked to known vehicles) travelling out of borough BTP data regarding known nominals travelling out of borough Holdcroft data re prevalence of gangs travelling out of borough PWITS under 18 year olds arrested outside of borough PWITS for adults arrested outside of the borough MISPERs under 18 years of age found outside of borough ANPR hits - known gang nominals (linked to known vehicles) travelling out of borough Number of gang members charged with a MS offence – as defined in the Modern Slavery Act; Number of gang members seen as victims of trafficking and how many of them were then subsequently referred into the National Referral Mechanism by police, LAs and others; Is there a local/regional multi- agency partnership to tackle modern slavery?

16 Page 310 AGENDA ITEM 12

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Health of Young Offenders Update Report

Date: 7 December 2015

Author: Matthew Cole, LBBD Director of Public Health

Contact: [email protected] 020 8227 3657

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 This report is presented to provide an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Health of Young Offenders report which was presented to the 2 March 2015 Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Board. The original report is available on this link. This report provides an update on the progress against the recommendations of this report.

1.2 It is recommended that the Community Safety Partnership Board:

 note the contents of this report; and  confirm that all recommendations have been addressed satisfactorily.

2. Background

2.1 The Health of Young Offenders report was originally requested by the Youth Offending Service Chief Officer Group (YOS COG) and an early version of the report was presented to the 15 December 2014 YOS COG meeting for comments. A final version incorporating these comments was presented to the 10 February 2015 Health and Wellbeing Board (HWBB) and the 2 March 2015 CSP Board.

2.2 This report summarised that:

Young offenders (aged 10 – 18) are a marginalised group often having complex health needs that are greater than those of the non-offending population. It includes young offenders in secure children’s homes, secure training centres, and young offender institutions as well as those being managed by Youth Offending Services. Young offenders present unique challenges in terms of health care provision, particularly in terms of access.

Page 311 Unprotected

Use of secondary health care services is high among this group and use of primary health care services is low.

2.3 This report made a number of recommendations to address the issues it raised, which are set out in section 3 of this report, below, with updates against each of them.

2.4 The actions of the report have been progressed by officers from across the Partnership since the report was published. A Task and Finish Group met on Monday 7 September to confirm that the recommendations had been adopted or confirm when they would be adopted.

3. Recommendations

Recommendation 1, lead: Jackie Hutchinson, LBBD Children’s Services

3.1 Children’s Services to provide a further report on the support needed and available for those that fall in between Troubles Families and the Youth Offending Service.

Update: A further meeting took place in September to discuss this report, and during the discussion it was agreed that young offenders would either meet the criteria for Troubled Families or the Youth Offending Service. It is unclear who this recommendation was aimed an supporting. As a young offender, there is already significant support available, which is enhanced by Troubled Families Phase 2.

Recommendation 2, lead: Sarah D’Souza, CCG

3.2 NHS Barking and Dagenham Clinical Commissioning Group need to have regard for the adequate provision of health services to support Youth Offending Services with a clear set of outcomes and activity expectations across the breadth of the youth justice system.

Update: The service specification contains performance measures as discussed and agreed with the YOS service and NELFT who provide the health input into the service. Reporting against these measures should form part of regular YOS performance report. There have been provider problems in filling one of the health posts as set out below. These will be kept under review to ensure adequate provision. It should be noted that NHSE remain responsible for the health needs of young people in youth offending institutions.

Recommendation 3, lead: Charlie Crawford, LBBD YOS

3.1 All young offenders referred to the YOS by the Police and criminal courts should receive a health check encompassing physical, emotional health and health risk behaviours. A mental health check should be carried out after referral to mental health services, as current CAMHS ethics guidelines do not allow blanket mental health checks. The findings and the agreed health outcomes plan agreed with the client should form part of the overall YOS care and support planning records.

3.2 Update: The ASSET process routinely carried out by YOS practitioners checks for mental health issues, emotional health and health risk behaviours, and if any are apparent, a referral to the YOS CAMHS psychologist is made. All young offenders

Page 312 Unprotected

referred to the YOS CAMHS psychologist currently receive a mental health check, which forms part of the overall YOS care and support planning records.

3.3 Three rounds of recruitment were necessary before a suitable candidate was selected to fill the full-time YOS physical health post, resulting in a delay in this appointment. It is now anticipated that there will be a professional in post by December 2015. Once the YOS physical health practitioner takes up his post, he will provide physical health checks for all young people referred to the YOS. At that point, the two YOS health practitioners (mental health and physical health) will together ensure that the agreed health outcomes plan will form part of the YOS planning records.

Recommendation 4, lead: Charlie Crawford, LBBD YOS

3.4 YOS Health Services need to be commissioned with adequate resource and a clear set of outcomes and activity expectations across the breadth of the youth justice system.

3.5 Update: By the end of December 2015, the YOS will have two full-time health workers addressing physical, emotional and mental health needs of the young people referred to them. These practitioners will then consult with stakeholders, as a priority, in order to draw up, by 31 Jan 2016, a set of desired outcomes and performance indicators to measure engagement and effectiveness, and to include the role of the physical health professional.

Recommendation 5, lead: Sarah D’Souza, CCG

3.6 Significant work is needed to educate the wider health community about the needs of young offenders and develop a clear coherent pathway and transition plans for youth offenders; this work could be led by a GP clinical champion who has a special interest in adolescent medicine and the criminal justice system.

3.7 Update: The CCG has a children’s clinical lead and a mental health clinical lead and they will work with the joint children’s commissioner (due to start end November 2015) and the YOS service to develop an approach to this also taking into account the ongoing work on children’s mental health and wellbeing through the children and young people’s mental health transformation plan. Recommendation 6, lead: Matthew Cole, LBBD

3.8 Workforce development planning and training programmes for both health and social care staff should include explicit education on youth justice for all front line professionals. There should also be specific training additional training support on health risk assessment and understanding of the NHS for YOS professionals.

Recommendation 6, lead: Angie Fuller, LBBD

Workforce development planning and training programmes for both health and social care staff should include explicit education on youth justice for all front line professionals. There should also be specific additional training support on health risk assessment and understanding of the NHS for YOS professionals.

Update: The Youth Offending Service has now introduced bi-weekly good practice events for all practitioners. A specific event focused on health issues for young

Page 313 Unprotected

people within the criminal justice system will be scheduled as part of this ongoing work. Further to this, relevant contacts within adult social care and health services are currently being identified in order to provide education on youth justice.

4. Further Actions

4.1 It was agreed that following the achievement of the above recommendations, no further action would be necessary in relation to the Health of Young Offenders report.

Page 314 Unprotected

Page 315 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 13

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Safer Neighbourhood Board Meeting Update

Date: 7 December 2015

[email protected] Author: Henry Staples Contact: 020 8227 2596

Job title: LBBD Interim Service Improvement Officer, Community Safety

Security: Protected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 The Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB) met on 9 September 2015. The minutes for both parts of the meeting are attached at Appendices 1 and 2 to inform Community Safety Parntership Board members of the issues discussioned at the meeting. The Chair of the SNB, Steve Thompson MBE, will provide a verbal update to the CSP Board meeting to outline discussions held at the SNB and raise any items which may require discussion at the CSP Board.

1.2 The Community Safety Partnership Board is asked to:

 note the minutes of the Safer Neighbourhood Board meeting on 9 September 2015; and  discuss any items from the Safer Neighbourhood Board if required.

2. List of Attachments

2.1 Appendix 1 – Safer Neighbourhood Board Minutes

2.2 Appendix 2 – Open Public Meeting Minutes

Page 317 Page 318 Safer Neighbourhood Board MINUTES

Date: 9. 9. 2015 Time: 17:45 -19:15

Venue: Dagenham and Redbridge FC

Chair: Steve Thompson

Present: Chief Superintendant Deputy Police Borough Sean Wilson Commander CI Martin Kirby Chief Inspector Partnerships Glynis Rogers Divisional Director Commissioning and Partnerships Karen Proudfoot Community Safety & OM Prince Kumar Barking Neighbourhood Dan Neville Whalebone Neighbourhood Rita Giles MBE Dagenham Neighbourhood Louise Choppy Victim Support Val Shaw Neighbourhood Watch Vice Chair Keith Hutton IAG

Apologies: Rita Chadha

Absent: None

Minutes: Anne-Marie Haxell

Page 319 Matters Arising

The outstanding action of contacting the BAD Youth Forum to explore their involvement in the SNB was carried over to the next meeting.

Action: AMH to make contact with BAD

Update on Policing Priorities

The reports from two of the sectors were distributed before the meeting and the Dagenham report was tabled for any questions arising.

Barking - Barking sectors report had been sent before their meeting, which had to be delayed because of the holidays. The report was presented and a discussion took place in regard to the issues of ASB with motorcycles at Choats Road. It was fed back to the meeting the action that has already taken place to try and deal with this issue and advised that they were currently looking at using mobile ANPR during operations which would commence shortly. The use of Section 59 and court action was being investigated.

Dagenham – There was a discussion as to whether Violence with Injury was a priority for residents or the police. RG said that while It was recognised as a policing priority, the Dagenham NPT group had seen that there had been an increase in the number of reports and so therefore set it as a priority.

Village ward had seen a slight increase in burglaries to ground floor properties and reports of robberies. These had been set as priorities and would be monitored carefully and reviewed after the 10 week period.

CI Martin Kirby said that he understood the need to be careful that police priorities didn’t ‘bleed through’ to become resident’s priorities.

A discussion to place in regard to how much of the ASB in Village ward is linked to the memorial site for the motorcyclist who died in a crash. RG said that it is a monthly occurrence that there is damage to the trees, high levels of noise, memorial lanterns being lit, all of these activities are causing distress to residents. The father had requested that a bench be placed on the site as a memorial to his son, however, after discussion with highways it was agreed that this could not go ahead as it would cause a distraction to drivers and a continuation of the ASB that is related to the site. GR said that highways had historically resisted permanent memorials at such sites because of the distraction issue.

ST said that the board had been assured at the last open SNB meeting that the memorial would be taken down within a couple of weeks and yet it was still there. KP said that there hadn’t been an undertaking from the Council to do this. CI Martin Kirby said that he would raise this with Inspector Reeves and feed back to the next meeting.

Page 320 GR suggested that Highways could speak to the family to see if they could agree a yearly memorial event on the site.

Action: MK to speak to Inspector Reeves. Contact to be made with Highways about the possibility of negotiating with the family on a yearly event.

Whalebone

DN Chair representative for Whalebone said that they were still having issues with poor attendance at their meetings. AMH said that there would be representation from Becontree Ward at the next meeting.

The reports were ratified and priorities agreed by the Board. Borough Commanders report

Mr. Wilson reported that the borough continued to be engaged with the four Met wide operations:

Operation Omega - Mopac 7 crimes

Operation Teal – Gangs

Operation Sector – Knife crime

Operation Venice – Mopeds and Motorcycles

Mr. Wilson informed the meeting that their continued to be a reduction in Theft from Motor Vehicles and Burglary. Violence with Injury is a challenge and operations will continue to deal with this. Violence with Injury includes figures for domestic and non domestic. Non domestic reports have increased and have a higher volume of 58%. Mr. Wilson said that not all knife crimes were gang related and it is difficult to establish a pattern of why these may happen. The sanction detection rates are good for Violence with Injury offences because in 40 to 60% of cases the victim knows the perpetrator.

Total Notifiable Offences were up by 5%. This increase is being driven by theft from petrol stations, drug offences and shop lifting. Our sanction detection rates on these crimes are above the Met average of 19.8% at 25.3%.

There has been a 6.3% increase in Robbery. There were 505 last year and 537 this year. 80% of these robberies are committed to take personal property, including jewellery, watches and mobile phones. There have also been some robberies on bookmakers.

Page 321 Burglary is down by 8.9%. 25% of all burglaries recorded are non dwelling burglaries, for example garden sheds. There has been a small rise in Millennium burglaries, where the suspect enters the house in order to steal car key and subsequently the vehicle.

Distraction burglaries have reduced to 41% from 66%. A recent report of someone asking to check if the ‘water was blue’ was highlighted by Mr. Wilson who asked the board to relay this to the elderly and vulnerable in the community.

Mr. Wilson said that there had been good results using forensics in burglaries.

Theft from motor vehicle had seen a significant decrease of 26%. Sanction detection rates are low on this crime are low as it is difficult to secure good forensic evidence. The main drivers for this are Number Plate catalytic convertors and high value tool thefts.

Theft from motor vehicle is being driven by keyless car thefts. Mr. Wilson said that technology developments have seen the opportunity for car thieves to capitalise on the number of key less car entries. Theft of Mopeds has seen an increase. 75% of these are found on the borough.

Theft for the person is in issue mainly in Barking Town Centre. The sanction detection rate of the borough is 5% which is double the Met average.

Criminal damage has seen a 19% increase. 40% of these crimes are in relation to motor vehicle crime and under a third are domestic related.

There has been a rise in sexual offences, but these relate mainly to historical allegations and are welcomed because they demonstrate an increase in confidence in reporting. Rape reports have increased on borough from 130 to 166 in the last year. Of these most are historical and do not relate to stranger rape. A discussion took place that about the definition of historic. LC from Victim Support said that the police have guidelines to identify what can be designated as a historic allegation. ST also asked what had happened to the report that was being written by Children’s Services in regard to historic safeguarding in the light Rotherham. GR said she would check with the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board to get an update. ST said that the Met was undertaking a similar review and that the board had been told they would have sight of this.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to bring figures to the next meeting of how many of these are historic allegations.

Action: GR to get feedback and report at next meeting.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to source findings of Met report and feed back at next meeting.

Reports of ASB had reduced from 7181 for the period June to July 2014 to 5457 in the same period in 2015. The comparative August period shows a slight increase from 476 to 500.

Page 322 The main gains and reductions for August were in the following wards:

Thames increased from 37 to 61

Alibon decreased from 19 to 110

Longbridge increased from 18 to 31

Village decreased from 41 to 37

ST made the point that two identified ASB as a priority and yet this didn’t seem to be warranted by the figures. GR pointed out that it doesn’t matter how much ASB is occurring as one issue in a community can have a detrimental impact on quality of life. It was also pointed out that many complaints are made to the Council not the police and so residents may have knowledge of ASB issues that they bring to the Inspector meetings where the priorities are set.

Dan Neville raised the issue that at Whalebone they are not shown any information on ASB as there isn’t a tile available. Mr. Kirby said that he would raise this with the Inspectors so that this information can be given.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to speak to Inspectors regarding ASB information for NPT meetings.

Mr. Wilson reported that the borough is currently over strength with currently this stands at 4 PCSO’s and 37.5 Officers over strength. GR raised that today in the press it had been reported that the Met were considering an option to reduce PCSO’s by a 1000. Mr. Wilson said that the Met had to find 873 million pound in savings and that this would mean some difficult choices. ST said that there was a need for transparency and openness when reporting on police numbers. Abstractions, numbers of officer acting up and numbers of new inexperienced officers should be clearly set out so that the public can fully understand the impact of these savings. Mr. Wilson replied that he felt the borough was in a healthy position and that this was demonstrated by the positive sanction detection rates in the borough. Mr. Wilson also said that the borough were able to call on extra resources of the Met if required.

DN reported that he had gone on a ride along and felt that the team were really stretched dealing 16 to 17 calls.

KP gave information to the meeting in regard to the Police UK website. This gives both Ward data and crime data and you can also see what stage the investigation is at. The website address is:

Mr. Wilson informed the meeting that teams will getting tablets so that reports can be written up immediately.

Satisfaction rates are good with the borough sitting at 7th in the Met.

Page 323 There are currently 18 live complaints under investigation. Eight of these relate to one complainant and include a complaint about Tazer use.

Mr. Wilson reported that the supervision of stop and searches was down. He assured the meeting that this would be addressed and he will bring improved figures to the next meeting. Drug searches were down in line with the recommendations by the Met. A discussion took place in regard to section 60. ST said that the use of this power was now almost non existent, he asked for reassurance that it is still being considered as an option where applicable. Mr. Wilson replied that the threshold for Section 60 approval had changed and that it now required Commander authority. Mr. Wilson assured ST and the meeting that officers were requesting section 60’s when they felt it was an appropriate action

Mr. Kirby said that there was a need demonstrated by the increase in Violence with injury offences, to increase the number of stop and searches being undertaken. Mr Kirby said that there was an increasing perception among young people that it was easier to carry weapons because they risk of a search was lower.

ST informed the meeting that as chair of the Stop and Search group, he could report that they were comfortable with the way stop and search is utilised in the borough, but did have some concerns in relation to supervision.

Keith Hutton Chair of the IAG said that he had recently attended the Trident IAG and that there was a general consensus that the pendulum had swung the other way and that criminals were feeling empowered to carry weapons.

Mr. Wilson informed the meeting that there had been 11 ICV visits and they had found the custody suites to be well maintained and that the lay visitors were satisfied with the facility and treatment of detainees.

Strategic Assessment Workshop

KP provided feedback on the recent Strategic Assessment Workshop which had been funded with the SNB engagement funding. She explained that it had been very well attended with approximately 50 people. The people attending were mixture of local community representatives including LGBT, CVS, Citizens Advice Bureau and professionals including the BTP and Network Rail. The audience were asked to consider the MOPAC crimes through a series of activities with the intention of identifying which should be a priority for the Community Safety Partnership. KP that among the initial concerns were VWI from a victims perspective rather than the community. Hate crime was raised by a number of organisations and it was clear that more work needed to done among some communities to increase reporting of Hate crime. Hate crime had increased but this was seen as a positive because it showed that work that was ongoing to increase reporting and improve confidence was proving to be successful. Non violent crime such as criminal damage was not seen as a priority, it was recognised that this type of crime is inconvenient.

Page 324 Street scene issues were of concern and reports that it contributed to the ‘Broken Window’ syndrome were taken on board.

KP explained that there will be more stages of consultation to the Strategic Assessment and there needed to be more horizon scanning of the points raised at the workshop. Update Reports from Sub-groups IAG

The IAG report was circulated before the meeting. KH provided an update as an addition to the report. KH said that the first meeting of the Safety Child Reference Group had been held and that he would bring updates from this group as it progressed. KH informed the meeting that the MPS hoped to establish a TASER monitoring group. Keith said he attends the Trident IAG and that there only eight boroughs active in this group.

The IAG had visited the Barking Mosque recently and there were plans to attend again in the future.

KH informed the meeting that he had a meeting with the Borough Commander in regard to Appropriate Adults on the 22 September. He was unable to give any more information as he didn’t know what the context of the meeting was. KP asked that as she was responsible for the YOS who also used Appropriate Adults could she be invited to the meeting. KH agreed that he would email the Borough Commander to ask him.

Action: KH to request KP’s attendance at the appropriate adults meeting. Neighbourhood Watch

VS said that she had been asked by DW who was away to raise two issues. The first was a report that when a resident had rang 101 to complain about cold calling zone being broken by cold callers, the operator didn’t know what a cold calling zone was. DW wanted to know if this could this be raised with someone at the call centre.

DW had been told that she would be given the phone numbers of the Inspectors. Thiis was clarified at the meeting that Mr. Taylor had said he would look into it and get back to her.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to check the status of the request for Inspectors phone numbers to be circulated. Victim Support

Page 325 Louise Choppy said that this was her first meeting of the SNB and a report would be prepared for the next meeting. She said that victim support had just undergone a restructure and that they no longer have a witness service. Presentation on the WeStandTogether project

NA gave a presentation on the project. He informed the group that the purpose of the project was to increase community cohesion and to engineer out prejudice. Mr. Chisty was keen to see this link into the Prevent Agenda. He informed the group that he is currently going out and speaking to key stakeholders. There will be a series of events to support the project. It was suggested that Nick Archer make contact with the community cohesion steering group led by Rita Chaddha.. Other suggestions for contacts were the CVS Band together project and the BAD youth Forum.

GR requested that this be brought to CSP under any other business.

Action: AMH to pass contact details to NA

Action: CI Martin Kirby to inform Mr. Taylor that the project should be raised under any other business at the next CSP meeting.

Meeting ends

Date of next meeting:

Page 326 Safer Neighbourhood Board MINUTES

Date: 9. 9. 2015 Time: 17:45 -19:15

Venue: Dagenham and Redbridge FC

Chair: Steve Thompson

Apologies: Rita Chadha

Absent: None

Minutes: Anne-Marie Haxell

Page 327 Matters Arising

The outstanding action of contacting the BAD Youth Forum to explore their involvement in the SNB was carried over to the next meeting.

Action: AMH to make contact with BAD

Update on Policing Priorities

The reports from two of the sectors were distributed before the meeting and the Dagenham report was tabled for any questions arising.

CI Martin Kirby said that he understood the need to be careful that police priorities didn’t ‘bleed through’ to become resident’s priorities.

Page 328 GR suggested that Highways could speak to the family to see if they could agree a yearly memorial event on the site.

Action: MK to speak to Inspector Reeves. Contact to be made with Highways about the possibility of negotiating with the family on a yearly event.

Whalebone

The reports were ratified and priorities agreed by the Board. Borough Commanders report

Mr. Wilson reported that the borough continued to be engaged with the four Met wide operations:

Operation Omega - Mopac 7 crimes

Operation Teal – Gangs

Operation Sector – Knife crime

Operation Venice – Mopeds and Motorcycles

Page 329 Burglary is down by 8.9%. 25% of all burglaries recorded are non dwelling burglaries, for example garden sheds. There has been a small rise in Millennium burglaries, where the suspect enters the house in order to steal car key and subsequently the vehicle.

Mr. Wilson said that there had been good results using forensics in burglaries.

Theft for the person is in issue mainly in Barking Town Centre. The sanction detection rate of the borough is 5% which is double the Met average.

Criminal damage has seen a 19% increase. 40% of these crimes are in relation to motor vehicle crime and under a third are domestic related.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to bring figures to the next meeting of how many of these are historic allegations.

Action: GR to get feedback and report at next meeting.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to source findings of Met report and feed back at next meeting.

Reports of ASB had reduced from 7181 for the period June to July 2014 to 5457 in the same period in 2015. The comparative August period shows a slight increase from 476 to 500.

Page 330 The main gains and reductions for August were in the following wards:

Thames increased from 37 to 61

Alibon decreased from 19 to 110

Longbridge increased from 18 to 31

Village decreased from 41 to 37

Action: CI Martin Kirby to speak to Inspectors regarding ASB information for NPT meetings.

DN reported that he had gone on a ride along and felt that the team were really stretched dealing 16 to 17 calls.

KP gave information to the meeting in regard to the Police UK website. This gives both Ward data and crime data and you can also see what stage the investigation is at. The website address is:

Mr. Wilson informed the meeting that teams will getting tablets so that reports can be written up immediately.

Satisfaction rates are good with the borough sitting at 7th in the Met.

Page 331 There are currently 18 live complaints under investigation. Eight of these relate to one complainant and include a complaint about Tazer use.

Strategic Assessment Workshop

Page 332 Street scene issues were of concern and reports that it contributed to the ‘Broken Window’ syndrome were taken on board.

The IAG had visited the Barking Mosque recently and there were plans to attend again in the future.

Action: KH to request KP’s attendance at the appropriate adults meeting. Neighbourhood Watch

DW had been told that she would be given the phone numbers of the Inspectors. Thiis was clarified at the meeting that Mr. Taylor had said he would look into it and get back to her.

Action: CI Martin Kirby to check the status of the request for Inspectors phone numbers to be circulated. Victim Support

Page 333 Louise Choppy said that this was her first meeting of the SNB and a report would be prepared for the next meeting. She said that victim support had just undergone a restructure and that they no longer have a witness service. Presentation on the WeStandTogether project

GR requested that this be brought to CSP under any other business.

Action: AMH to pass contact details to NA

Action: CI Martin Kirby to inform Mr. Taylor that the project should be raised under any other business at the next CSP meeting.

Meeting ends

Date of next meeting:

Page 334 AGENDA ITEM 14

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Performance Callover Minutes

Date: 7 December 2015

[email protected] Author: Dan James Contact: 020 8227 5040

Job title: LBBD Research and Analysis Officer

Security: Unprotected

1. Purpose of Presenting the Report and Decisions Required

1.1 This item presents the papers for the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Callover on 16 November 2015 and outlines the discussion held at the meeting for the CSP Board to note.

1.2 It is recommended that the CSP Board:

 note the discussions of the Callover meeting; and  agree how to procede with future Callover meetings.

2. Community Safety Partnership Callover

2.1 It was noted that this meeting was well attended with a good number of department representatives.

Violence With Injury 2.2 Violence with Injury (VWI) was discussed. It was noted that 40% of Violence with Injury offences are related to domestic violence, and that a relatively low proportion of incidents are ‘solved’. It was further noted that these incidents may be linked to footballing events.

ACTION: Investigate the potential link to football events as part of VWI problem profile, with assistance from the Police (Dan James).

2.3 It was noted that there are changes to the way VWI is recorded and now includes slight bruising to the skin, whereas this would not have been reported as VWI in the past.

Page 335 Unprotected ACTION: Collect further information in relation to changes to how VWI is recorded, as part of problem profile (Dan James).

2.4 It was noted that a cross reference of offenders who are known to other services would be useful in order to develop a clearer understanding of VWI. It was noted that this cross referencing would include:

 Social care;  Housing; and  CAMHS.

2.5 It was further noted that there was a lack of focus on casaulity, particularly relating to drugs and alcohol. It was noted that drugs and alcohol casuality linkages would need to be investigated futher. Alongside this, it was noted that more information regarding the numbers of offenders/victims who are ‘repeat’ would also be useful in developing a more concrete understanding of VWI.

ACTION: Collect CSP partnership data to cross reference perpetrators of VWI to discover whether they are know to other services, with a particular focus on causality. (Dan James).

Additional Areas of Poor Performance

2.6 It was noted that fire arson incidents are currently rising, with a total of 194 for the financial year 2014/15, to 201 incidents in the rolling 12 month period to October 2015. It was agreed to delve further into this issue in order to prevent future increase.

2.7 It was further noted that incidents of serious youth violence (SYV) incidents are an area of recent concern. Tthe latest data at September 2015 shows a 45% increase in SYV offences as compared with the same period last year. This is compared to an average rise of 17% across London. It was agreed that more work needs to be done in order to develop a clearer understanding of these offences - and their victims - in order that partnership resources can be targeted more effectively.

ACTION: Liase with Stephen Norman to obtain more detail around issues in relation to arson. (Stephen Norman/ Dan James).

ACTION: Investigate further the nature of serious youth violence offences (Dan James).

3. Any other business

3.1 Rita Chadha raised concerns that the CSP needs to improve its engagement with the voluntary sector, and that more clear direction is needed on the cohesion work strand, including where this sits within the CSP. It was noted that this appears to be a coporate issue and perhaps needs to sit corporately if not within the CSP.

ACTION: Give consideration to the way in which the voluntary sector is engaged within, in the context of the CSP (Sultan Taylor/ Senior Leadership Team).

Page 336 Welcome to the Community Safety Partnership Board (CSP) Chair’s Report AGENDA ITEM Chair’s 15 In this Chair’s Report, I welcome new CSP Board members and discuss funding to work with people affected by crime. Board members are welcome to talk about any of these updates at the meeting. Best wishes, Sultan Taylor, Chair of the LBBD CSP Board

Performance The great work being done across the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) continues to reduce crime in the Borough. For the MOPAC 7 priority crimes the Borough has seen a 23% reduction on the 2011/12 baseline year, placing us 8th out of the 32 London boroughs in terms of performance for these crimes. We continue to see reductions in

issues which have been major problems in the past, such as anti-social behaviour, theft

from a motor vehicle and residential burglary. Although we are aware that the rate of Report domestic violence offences being reported in the Borough is high, a rise in reports may also show that victims feel more able to report.

New CSP Members I would like to welcome Douglas Charlton as Assistant Chief Officer, Community Rehabilitation Company to the CSP Board. Following a change to the CRC Operating Model, Douglas is one of a number of Heads of Stakeholder and Partnerships with pan- London strategic partnership responsibility for Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and will be engaging with key strategic partnerships. He is taking over from Lucy Satchell-Day who is moving onto her role as Head of the Women's Cohort. I would like

to take this opportunity to give my thanks to Lucy who has made a valuable contribution December to the CSP over the years and I would like to wish her every success in her new role.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Mariam Thomas-Jaji to the role of Interim Support Officer within the Community Safety and Offender Management Team. Mariam is stepping in for Will Donovan, who has joined the Barking and Dagenham 7 Delivery Unit to help deliver the Council’s Ambition 2020. On behalf of all members, I would like to give my warm thanks to Will, who effectively co-ordinated the CSP Board meeting for nearly two years.

New Legislation

The Home Office have recently published guidance in relation to mandatory reporting of 2015 female genital mutilation. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is illegal in England and Wales under FGM Act 2003. Section 5B now introduces a mandatory reporting duty which requires regulated health and social care professionals and teachers in England and Wales to report ‘known’ cases of FGM in under 18s which they identify in the course of their professional work to the police. The duty applies from 31 October 2015 onwards.

The government’s Counter Extremism Strategy was formally launched on 19 October 2015. A key theme of the strategy’s assessment of the extremism threat is how non- violent extremism undermines ‘British values’ which “is used to radicalise vulnerable people” and “causes harm to our society in general”. The Strategy is likely to influence on the work of the local Prevent strategy as well as wider local authority business. MOPAC Victims Funding The Borough has successfully bid for £45,000 from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to work with people affected by domestic violence. This funding will be used to scope and deliver innovative work employing restorative justice principles which will aim to improve satisfaction and resilience, in order to prevent repeat victimisation. A number of bids to deliver this project were received and the organisation Catalyst in Communities have now been awarded the contract, and will begin work on the pilot project soon. I look forward to receiving further updates on the project. Page 337 Page 338 Community Safety Partnership Board Forward Plan of Reports Mariam Thomas-Jaji, LBBD Interim Support Officer [email protected]; 020 8227 2856

1 March 2016 Page 339 Page Discussion Quarterly Hotspot: Integrated Victim For Discussion Sultan Taylor Management Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Strategy For Approval Jen Sarsby Business Prevent Duty For Approval Karen Standing Item Proudfoot Performance Callover For Decision Dan James Standing item Safer Neighbourhood Board Update For Information Steve Standing item Thompson Prosecute updates: Female Genital For Monitoring Glynis Rogers Standing Item Mutilation and Child Sexual Exploitation AGENDA ITEM 16 1 June 2016 Discussion Quarterly Hotspot: To Be Confirmed For Discussion TBC Business Prevent Duty For Approval Karen Standing Item Proudfoot Performance Callover For Decision Dan James Standing item Safer Neighbourhood Board Update For Information Steve Standing item Thompson Community Trigger For Information Katherine Annual Update Gilcreest Prosecute updates: Female Genital For Monitoring Glynis Rogers Standing Item Mutilation and Child Sexual Exploitation Page 340 Page AGENDA ITEM 17 By virtue of paragraph(s) 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 341 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 343 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 18 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1, 2, 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 353 This page is intentionally left blank