Written submission from Councillor Evelyn Akoto on behalf of Southwark Council (SVC0017)

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

  1. There has been increased awareness of the wider issue of knife carrying and child exploitation in regards to violence crime since the Home Affairs Committee report on gangs and youth crime in March 2015.

 

  1. There has also been more of a joined up response to violence crime since March 2015.

 

  1. The Serious Violence recommendations are underpinned by solid analysis and the recognition that a ‘societal’ approach is required.

 

  1. However there needs to be recognition that a long term approach is required and there are not sufficient resources in place to make the Strategy successful.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

  1. Southwark Council is working hard to tackle serious violence in our borough and we welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on this important issue.

 

  1. Southwark is an inner London borough and for the last five years Southwark has had higher than the London average level of serious violence and knife crime. The local authority has taken long taken a pro-active approach to tackling Serious Youth Violence, establishing our multi-agency Southwark Anti-Violence Unit in 2012. We have a range of responses that align welfare and enforcement services to support our most vulnerable communities to positively move their lives forward or to face the repercussions of offending behaviour. 

 

PROGRESS MADE ON COMBATTING SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME

 

  1. Since 2015 there has been an increased awareness of Child Sexual Exploitation (particularly as linked to gangs and county lines), Modern Slavery linked to serious youth violence and County Lines in general. This has been seen through the Ofsted JTAI inspections and the published Pan London problem profile.

 

  1. There has been more of a joined up response from the national government on issues relating to serious violent. This can be seen in the work of the National Crime Agency, the reforming of the National Referral Mechanism for Modern Slavery, and Operation Sceptre now going national.

 

  1. There has also been process on legislation regarding corrosive substances and Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations to take down County Lines.

 

  1. The introduction of 2017 new knife carrying legislation now means that if you are convicted of carrying a knife a second time there is a mandatory prison sentence.  Unfortunately it appears that this has had limited impact on knife carrying numbers in Southwark due to a young person’s fear of violence and their need to protect themselves being greater than the fear of a possible prison sentence.

 

  1. There has been greater recognition of the wider issue of knife carrying and greater understanding that young people are carrying knifes for protection due to fear of violence not with the intent of committing a crime.  This has resulted in a desire to spend more resources on prevention in schools.

 

  1. There has also been recognition by police and partners that we can’t ‘police’ our way out of this issue, that it requires a more holistic and partnered approach (i.e. Public Health model). 

 

  1. In this holistic approach the community has a key role to play in tackling serious violence, in particular knife crime. The community is more actively engaging on the issue; we have had engaging discussions on this in Community Councils, TRA meetings etc.  Community groups have been established in Southwark such as the Knife Crime Action Forum. This has been in conjunction with increased engagement with schools on this issue.

 

SERIOUS VIOLENCE STRATEGY

 

  1. Overall we believe the Serious Violence Strategy is likely to be effective in combatting serious violence. The recommendations are underpinned by solid analysis and the recognition that a ‘societal’ approach is required, as serious violence reduction cannot be achieved through Police ‘enforcement’ only.  A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the Strategy are outlined below:

 

  1. Strengths

 

•         It is positive that the strategy recognises the role of prevention/early intervention in tackling the root causes of violence (identification of risk factors is part of public health approach).  However this recognition must be backed up with the funding to support prevention initiatives.

 

•         In Southwark we are committed to investing in our young people and in our communities over a long period of time so we can truly enable young people to make real and positive choices in their lives.  But after eight years of austerity we, along with other London boroughs, have less resource to invest.  At the same time, national government cuts mean that there are fewer police and less investment in tackling crime.  National government policies have made it harder and harder to support and invest in our young people, with prevention made more difficult by the need to fund crisis services.

 

•         Also there needs to be recognition that a long term approach is required, results of prevention invest won’t be achieved overnight.  For example, the Public Health approach taken to violence in Scotland has been in place 10 years and is only recently seeing long term benefits. 

 

•         This is not solely a police issue and requires a partnership approach with ‘buy in’ from the community.  This multi-layered approach is likely to be more effective in tackling the issue.

 

  1. Weaknesses

 

•         The strategy lacks understanding of communities and fear, in some Southwark localities there are very few prosecutions arising from knife crime incidents which can leads to perpetrators being empowered and for the community to be apprehensive. The strategy offers little insight into this relevant issue.

 

•         The strategy also does not seem to understand the way that social media can seem to normalise undesirable behaviours and how these norms are shared, if not necessarily adhered to, by thousands of viewers in a relatively short time. In this increasingly interconnected world we need to acknowledge this.

 

•         Government needs consider how they can engender positive narratives on social media as there has been limited success in this area from government agencies.  Initiatives such as London Needs You Alive get relatively little traction despite the investment (26,132 views) compared to other grassroots social media downloads such as “How to avoid being shanked by Roadman” which has 1,018,770 views for very little investment.

 

BALANCE BETWEEN PREVENTION AND EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

 

  1. Overall, the new balance between prevention and effective law enforcement described in the Serious Violence Strategy is right. However it will be difficult to achieve this balance in practise when public perception is that we need more police officers instead of more prevention. The reduction in the numbers of officers, including a reduction in community policing is being felt across Southwark and risks leading to a corrosion of the rapport that those in our most vulnerable communities have with the police.  A focus on prevention by its nature means that results won’t be seen overnight.  This need be reflected into funding cycles with more sustainability/longevity incorporated.  Whilst it is good to have innovation, when strands of activity produce evidence of real constant success, they need to be funded in a sustainable way and not subject to the whims of the political cycle (e.g. YLF, Trusted Relationships Fund, City Safe Havens).

 

RESOURCES

 

  1. We are concerned that there are not sufficient resources in place to make the Strategy successful.  As mentioned above adequate long-term resources are needed for the police, local authority, health, education, and the community to create long-term attitudinal change in society. The Early Intervention Youth Foundation Fund which was launched at the end of July is £22 million over 2 years (in reality only 18 months as we are already part way through 2018).  If we are serious about directing resources to cohorts based on risk factors, the type of intervention that that young person and/or family requires needs to be sustained beyond the 2 years mark. This requires longer term funding and planning.

 

  1. Serious violence also particularly affects poorer communities.  The Government’s decision to make the greatest cuts to the poorest communities in London means councils and the voluntary sector cannot take the steps that they once did to tackle social exclusion and combat poverty or tackle serious violence at the root cause.  Southwark council also believes more resources should be diverted towards agencies working across the child/adult barrier of 18 as there is currently too much damaging silo work occurring as statutory agencies cannot work across this barrier.

 

INVOLVEMENT OF DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATIONS

 

  1. The devolved administrations will be essential for delivery of the Serious Violence Strategy on a local level as they are best placed to understand the issues in their area and have the local connections on a community level for successful delivery.  The strategy will also have more success if it empowers the community, giving them responsibility/ownership of the issues and delivery of the solutions. However for issues such as County Lines, this needs to be tackled nationally on a strategic, tactical and operational basis with devolved administrations involved in partnership with national actors.

 

SERIOUS VIOLENCE STRATEGY THEMES

 

TACKLING COUNTY LINES AND MISUSE OF DRUGS

 

  1. Identification of the key issues and more investment in this area is welcomed.  However, at a local level we feel the County Lines business model should be expanded to consider child exploitation locally in a borough or across a city, not just the classic city to county/seaside model. Awareness needs to be raised of children being at risk of exploitation for periods of a few hours as much as longer periods at greater distances e.g. a week where the child leaves the city. Such short episodes require increased vigilance from carers and services to identify when they mean a child is in danger. It is clear that this activity underpins much violence and has a corrosive effect on communities and individuals.

 

EARLY INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION

 

  1. Recognition of the importance of this area is welcomed; it compliments the Public Health approach to violence which has had observable results in Scotland.  Many of these types of initiatives can be delivered by the youth service, which unfortunately at a local level have seen funding cuts due to the national government’s austerity measures.  Reinvestment in this area could provide the framework to deliver more generic support in this area and also be a platform to reach individuals or areas of concern for more focused work.

 

  1. Schools could also be the focus of much early intervention and prevention work but this is complicated by the pressure on curriculum time and the educational mixed economy often being dominated by fairly autonomous Academies. Also whilst many committed providers offer short courses that are well received, for many of them their efficacy is still to evidence.

 

  1. Bespoke prevention offers needs to be available relatively quickly to avoid school exclusions. This area gets relatively little attention in the strategy despite the negative trajectory that exclusion sets many young people on. The recent inclusion of more expectations regarding safeguarding and violence, in regards to OFSTED inspections, is to be welcomed. However more spending more attention and resources on supporting pupils in mainstream schooling would be likely more effective and is central to the Scottish approach. Schools Officers are also a valuable tool but can be variable in their utility, the national government should consider the establishment of best practice, competences and attributes required for such a role.

 

SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS

 

  1. This is one of the key areas to the successful implementation of the strategy.  The relationship between the community and police needs to improve, particularly in London.  There are parts of the local community that will not approach or engage with the Police.  This relationship needs to be re-established and nurtured; tensions have unfortunately been exacerbated by reduced police numbers over the years.  

 

  1. There is relatively little attention in the strategy paid to thinking about how to get pro-social messages and advice out to communities in the information age, as well as how faith and community leaders, parents and young people etc. can be supported, sign-posted and advised online or locally.

 

EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE

 

  1. More attention needs to be paid to the illicit economy in prisons to counter the exploitation and continuation of offences that is too common. PCCs/Safeguarding Boards need the resources to align local delivery with strategic needs, there needs to be a thought through approach with welfare and enforcement responses aligned to maximise efficiency to tackle local issues. For example, decisions should be made locally regarding where resources should be deployed to tackle high risk knife carriers.

 

  1. The development of more Community Weapon Sweeps is positive, although the utility of some initiatives such as surrender bins is unproven and decision on these should be more evidence based. We believe this strategy is missing as a 5th element gang and serious group violence. This should also be separately identified and addressed.

 

 

August 2018