Proposed venue: First Floor Conference Room, Brixton Police Station
Contact: Henry Langford, Democratic Services Officer, Tel: 0207 926 1065, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Democratic Services Officer
Minutes of Previous Meeting PDF 204 KB
- Page 3, item 4,
bullet point seven - amendment made to state:
‘Every looked after child in the borough aged
10+ had been screened to determine whether they were at
- Councillor Edbrooke
remarked that the Safer Lambeth Partnership (SLP) Executive had a
responsibility to provide strategic leadership over a range of
issues in the borough and should meet more regularly. All partners
were also expected to send representatives to crime and disorder
Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings.
- The SLP Executive
needed to provide strategic oversight of the Prevent programme.
Prevent should be added as a standing agenda item on the SLP
The minutes of the meeting held
on Tuesday 03 March 2015 were AGREED as an accurate record of the
Stock take and update from partners
The Chair, Borough Commander
Richard Wood, welcomed all and invited partners to present an
update on behalf of their organisations.
London Borough of Lambeth
- The Chief Executive
of LBL, Sean Harriss, stated that during his first eight months in
Lambeth there had been strong operational coordination between
partners and that there was now a need for the SLP Executive to
build on this strength by providing clear strategic
- Strategic and
operational control through the SLP Executive was crucial to the
reduction of crime levels and prevention of significant incidents.
The group could add significant value by providing strategic
- Ann Corbett (LBL)
noted that the Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB) had continued to
work positively and agreed that the SLP Executive needed to be a
forum for strategic discussions between partners.
- Sue Foster (LBL)
noted that since the group last convened, good partnership workings
and governance arrangements had been implemented around YOS and
- There needed to be
representatives from Lambeth’s Fire Service, Public Health
and Adult Social Care on the SLP Executive.
Safer Neighbourhood Board
- The Chair of the SNB,
Nick Mason, provided an update for the group and noted that the SNB
dealt with a wide range of issues at its public meetings. Meetings
were held on a monthly basis and forthcoming meetings in December,
January and February would take place in different locations across
the borough. Agendas and minutes would be made available to
National Probation Service
- Adela Kacsprzak (NPS)
explained that the NPS had now split with the London Community
Rehabilitation Company (CRC). The CRC was undergoing a significant
restructure which was yet to be finalised. An update on this would
be provided at a later date.
- The NPS
transformation was significant but there would be no immediate
impact on local service delivery. Together, the NPS and CRCs had
replaced 35 former probation trusts.
- The SLP Executive had
a responsibility for the Multi Agency Public Protection
Arrangements (MAPPA) in the borough. The Annual MAPPA report
provided limited data on a borough by borough basis but would be
circulated to members. MAPPA would be added to the forward plan and
considered at the next meeting.
- Lambeth had the third
highest level of sexual and violent offenders in
- The SLP needed to
engage with strategic leaders of the London CRC.
HM Prison, Brixton
- The Governor of HM
Prison Brixton, Giles Mason, provided an update for the group and
noted that despite the Government’s recent announcement to
phase in the closure of Victorian prisons, Brixton Prison did not
expect to be directly impacted in the short term. Construction of
new prisons was expected to commence from 2017.
- New measures to help
with the detection of legal highs in prisons would come into force
in early 2016. Councillor Edbrooke suggested this issue could be
considered at a future meeting.
Lambeth Voluntary Actions
- Conrad Hollingsworth
from the Lambeth Voluntary Actions Council advised the group that
many voluntary organisations were now struggling and closing down
view the full minutes text for item 2.
Performance update PDF 120 KB
Ann Corbett (LBL) introduced
the report and noted that Lambeth’s Total Notifiable Offences
(at 30th September 2015) had increased by 7% compared
with the same period the previous year. This equated to 1108 more
- Lambeth remained a
high crime borough.
- Much positive work
had taken place and some crimes, including personal street robbery,
- Violence with Injury
(VwI) had increased significantly and Lambeth had the second
highest VwI rate when compared to similar boroughs.
- Gun crime had
increased but gun discharges had reduced.
- The rise in Domestic
Violence was a key concern but the rate of Domestic Violence was in
line with the Most Similar Group (MSG) of boroughs. The Council had
increased funding for women’s refuges and
- Rape and other sexual
offending had increased markedly and this was a key concern for the
MPS Sapphire Unit.
- The youth
re-offending rate remained stubbornly high at 42% despite a
decreased caseload. New targets had been introduced around YOS
young people in Employment, Training and Education. The number of
custodial sentences provided at court had reduced.
- The results of the
Residents’ Survey 2015 had been released in September 2015
and the level of crime was no longer the key issue of concern for
local people. It was now the third most important issue behind
public transport and clean streets. The quality of the public realm
was a growing concern, with dog mess consistently being mentioned
as a problem. It was suggested that the voluntary sector could be
engaged to help confront this area of concern.
- The survey had also
identified a fall in residents’ satisfaction over issues of
community cohesion and neighbourliness. Recent increases in hate
crime could tie into this. The MPS produced a survey every quarter
asking about people’s wellbeing and according to this
research there had been an upturn in community wellbeing over the
last three quarters.
- Charles Griggs (LBL)
gave an update on gang crime in the borough. In 2014 Lambeth had
the highest volume of gun discharges but overall numbers were
decreasing contrary to pan-London trends. Lambeth has also seen a
reduction in knife related injuries involving those under 25 years
old, which was contrary to pan-London trends.
- Since 2012,
gang-flagged offences and gang-flagged violence were both down and
the number of gang members recorded on the Lambeth Gangs Matrix had
reduced significantly. The Lambeth Violence Reduction Unit had
strong analytical capability and worked closely with the
- The Council was
currently working with local community groups and 36 gang members
to help prevent reoffending.
- Talking therapies for
young gang members was being trialled and a number of projects
aimed to get people out of gangs had been considered by the
- Sean Harriss (LBL)
noted that crimes such as Domestic Violence, hate crime and rape
were often underreported in the media. The SLP had a role to play
in bringing such crimes into greater public
- It was also important
to understand whether the crime indicators were symptomatic of
better reporting or ... view
the full minutes text for item 3.
Youth Offending Service update PDF 1 MB
Ann Corbett (LBL) introduced
the report which included the management report of the Head of
Service presented to the YOS Management Board on 05 October
- Lambeth YOS had a
chequered history with some unsatisfactory inspections and there
were continuing risks in respect of staffing and workforce
stability. Despite this, there had been notable improvements
particularly with regard to governance processes.
- It had proved
difficult to attract the right staff to Lambeth YOS and the
recruitment drive material would be circulated to the
- The Head of Service
report looked at the continuing risks in respect of Asset quality
and analysed criminogenic factors contributing to youth reoffending
- The Youth Justice
Board had proposed in-year cuts to the YJB grant of
- The report identified
key issues impacting on reoffending, a key factor being the
neighbourhood someone lived in.
- Conrad Hollingsworth
(LVAC) suggested that more could be done to build networks between
the integrated offender management hub and the voluntary
- The MPS would
continue to target youth reoffending among 18-24 year
Child Sexual Exploitation strategy overview (for info)
Nick Collins (MPS), Chair of
the CSE Subgroup, provided a verbal update on the CSE
- The CSE Subgroup was
part of the CSE Task Board and investigated a range of issues
including FGM, missing people, gangs, radicalisation and bullying.
The CSE Strategy had been presented to the Lambeth Safeguarding
Children’s Board (LSCB) in November 2015.
- There was a CSE work
plan in place but progress had been slow.
principal problem was considered to be peer-on-peer CSE which often
took place online. There had also been issues with taxi drivers in
- The extent and nature
of CSE in the borough was not fully understood and more analysis
was required of existing evidence.
- There were threshold
audits forthcoming for Children in Social Care, La Retraite
Catholic School and the Lambeth Pupil Referral Unit. The aim was to
bring together all evidence of CSE and hold a number of focus
- The MACE panel had
reconvened and would be working to provide more strategic solutions
to CSE than had previously been the case.
- There had been cases
of children being used for drug running in neighbouring boroughs.
Lambeth was looking to produce a snap shot review with the home
office to uncover whether there were any similar problems in the
- Whilst there was good
communication between partnership organisations and panels, more
work was needed to understand the nature and scale of CSE in
- Councillor Meldrum
noted that a response was needed on the Children’s
Shield PDF 451 KB
Charles Griggs (LBL) introduced
the report and updated the group on the Shield
- Shield was the pilot
of the Group Violence Intervention (GVI) model employed to confront
group violence in the borough. Lambeth had volunteered to take part
in the initiative despite already operating a successful version of
the GVI model.
- There had been a
strong community backlash to Shield ever since the launch event
announcement by the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime that
‘collective punishment’ and ‘collective
enforcement’ would be employed as part of the
- The report included
reflections on the first six months of Shield which were intended
to be shared with MOPAC and other boroughs affected by gang
- The multi-agency
governance structures set up under Shield had successfully improved
communication, information sharing and decision making between
partners. They worked on both strategic and operational levels and
had helped to defuse tensions between key stakeholders. The
maintenance of the governance structures introduced under Shield
- Some parts of the
model had been inadequately resourced.
- Police enforcement
had been heavily resourced and well executed. This however may have
contributed to the negative narrative that Shield was solely about
- Lambeth SLP had
informed MOPAC of the need for dedicated in-house community
development worker. MOPAC instead recruited internally and this did
not prove effective.
- Community engagement
should have taken place at least 12 months prior to implementation.
Instead, community engagement was under resourced and local
community activists and pressure groups became actively opposed to
- A violence reduction
network should be developed to address the wider violence agenda in
- The amount, range and
complexity of the young men’s needs were far beyond what had
been expected. Service providers would require the support of the
community and voluntary sectors to effectively manage future
- Shield timescales
should have been governed by the community and local
- The SLP had operated
a successful model for tackling group violence before the
implementation of Shield which had been community led and well
facilitated by service providers. It was now the intention to
return to this model whilst maintaining the positive aspects
adopted under Shield. The Shield Programme Board has been tasked to
develop a delivery model for 2016 onwards and proposals would be
presented to the SLP Executive in due course.
- Conrad Hollingsworth
(LVAC) stated that a central depository was necessary to house
valuable information, experiences and reflections so that partners
could learn from pilots such as Shield in the future.
Any other business
- To hold meetings of
the SLP Executive three times a year. In 2016, the group would
convene in March, July and November (dates to be
- Standing agenda items
to include Prevent (counter terrorism).
- Representatives from
Health, local business, Adult Social Care and the London CRC needed
to attend future meetings.
- LBL officers would
refresh the SLP Executive membership, Constitution, terms of
reference and standing agenda items and return to the next meeting
with proposals. The 2009 SLP Constitution would be circulated to
Issues for consideration at
future meetings (to be added to the Forward Plan):
- Domestic homicide
- Multi Agency Public
- Ongoing servitude