Agenda item

The Committee received an update from Councillors Paul Convery, Executive Member for Community Safety, and Joe Caluori, Executive Member for Children and Families, on the Youth Crime Strategy, agreed by the Executive in July 2015.

A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

·         The Strategy was prepared in the context of increased youth offending in the borough; it was commented that there had been growing concerns about violent offences, snatch thefts and drug-related crime. In particular, the Committee noted the shock and concern of local people at the two murders that occurred in Islington over the summer of 2015.

·         It was explained that there were three strands to the Strategy: enforcement, deterrence, and community response. The Executive was keen to implement the strategy as soon as possible. The Strategy was to be supplemented by an implementation plan, which the Leader was overseeing the preparation of. It was advised that the implementation plan would be circulated to members in due course. 

·         It was too early to say if the Strategy was effective, however following firm police enforcement the number of knife offences in the borough had decreased, from three in July, to none in August and none in September to date. It was commented that this was partially due to prolific offenders being in police custody; however these individuals were expected to be released in the near future. The need to work with young people to reduce offending was emphasised.

·         The Committee was advised of positive work being carried out with St Giles Trust, a charity which worked with ex-offenders and disadvantaged people to break the cycle of offending. 180 young people in the borough had been identified as associated with gang violence, 50 of those had been targeted to work with the charity, and half of those had responded positively.

·         The Executive Members were hopeful that the Council had command of the immediate problem, however advised that further work was needed from the Council, its partners, schools, the Police and the community to significantly reduce levels of youth crime in the borough.

·         It was commented that the generation currently committing youth crime were born between 1996-99, typically did not have a strong family support network, were from families where adults were not working, and grew up at a time when the Council did not prioritise early help initiatives and there was a general reluctance to take children into care. It was commented that this demonstrated the importance of investing in early help services, to intervene early in life to stop problems becoming entrenched.    

·         Councillor Caluori advised of his recent visit to Leeds to learn more about best practice in restorative justice programmes. The importance of listening to young people was emphasised, especially those who had experience of the criminal justice system. It was suggested that the Youth Council could also contribute to this work.

·         It was queried how success against the strategy would be measured. It was advised that key performance indicators had been identified, however many of these were related to process changes, such as further integration with the Police, as opposed to statistical outcomes. There was a target to halve the number of children in Alternative Provision by the end of 2016, and it was hoped that the strategy would lead to a sustained reduction in young people being the victims of violent crime. Reducing youth crime to levels experienced in 2011 before the recent increase in gang violence would be considered a success. It was noted that all performance measures were set out in the strategy implementation plan.

·         A member queried why the number of young people in Alternative Provision entering the youth justice system had decreased while the overall number of youth crimes had increased. It was explained that some young offenders had become more prolific. The Committee also expressed concern with the number of instances where young people had been arrested by the Police but then released with ‘no further action’ for reasons of insufficient evidence or a low possibility of successful prosecution. The Council was working with the Police to ensure that the small number of young people who had been repeatedly arrested and then released with no further action did not necessarily have a ‘clean slate’ and that intelligence on these suspected offenders was not lost.

·         It was advised that although there was no direct link between the two recent murders in the borough, there was a great deal in common between the two incidents, including the age of the offenders and that the offenders were on the periphery of established gangs.

·         The Committee noted the three primary gang rivalries in the borough, which were between gangs operating in the Caledonian area and the Clerkenwell and Bunhill areas; the Mayville Estate and the Essex Road area; and the Elthorne Estate and the Andover Estate. The Council was keen to not label these gangs in terms of estates, as gang members were often from a much wider geographic area and only congregated on these estates. 

·         It was advised that the 180 young people in the borough associated with gang violence were typically aged 14 to 18, from all parts of the borough and of all ethnicities and faiths. The majority had traumatic lives and had been in Alternative Provision. The importance of understanding these children was emphasised.

·         It was advised that a number of young offenders had been witnesses or victims of domestic violence. Some offenders had been groomed to commit crimes by older criminals, including trafficking drugs to rural and coastal areas. Some of the gangs operating in the borough were organised by older established criminals and had an influence beyond the borough.

·         In response to a query about possible ‘quick wins’ to increase prevention; it was advised that the targeted youth service had been working on offending prevention over the summer and it was thought that the work in partnership with the St Giles Trust had led to positive outcomes, although further evaluation of this work was needed.

·         It was queried if the Council was working with local health services to gather intelligence. It was advised that the Council was working with youth workers in local hospitals however could work further with primary care providers.

·         The Committee expressed concern at the proposal for the Metropolitan Police to decommission all PCSOs. The Committee valued neighbourhood policing; it was noted that local officers had knowledge of how Islington gangs operated, and how the structure of these gangs was more fluid than in other areas.

·         It was queried if the youth crime rate would be lower if a strategy was implemented earlier. Although it was not possible to say if particular offences would not have been committed, it was apparent that police resources were stretched and agencies had not prioritised youth crime as high as it should have been.

·         The Police had a good knowledge of older gang members, as these were often members of established crime families and had been imprisoned. Policing of these professional gangs was dealt with at a London-wide level due to its seriousness and intricacies.

·         A member of the public queried linkages between Alternative Provision and youth offending. It was advised that a new team had been established to support children in Alternative Provision. It was queried how many pupils had left Alternative Provision and become NEET; it was advised that this figure would be circulated with the minutes. 

·         A member of the public queried how the Council would ensure that young people did not feel victimised by enhancing the focus on youth crime, especially as ‘stop and search’ exercises only had a 20% success rate. It was commented that stop and search was a legitimate policing tactic when it was intelligence-led and had led to the recovery of drugs and weaponry, although the concerns of its overuse and association to ethnic profiling were recognised. The Executive Members emphasised that the vast majority of young people had no connection to youth crime and that the public should not be worried about groups of young people congregating.

·         The Committee requested a further update on the Youth Crime Strategy in April 2016.

The Committee thanked Councillors Convery and Caluori for their attendance.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee receive a further update on the Youth Crime Strategy in April 2016.