Proposed venue: First Floor Conference Room, Brixton Police Station

Contact: Henry Langford, Democratic Services Officer, Tel: 0207 926 1065, email:  hlangford@lambeth.gov.uk  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 204 KB

    • View the background to item 1.


    Matters arising:


    • 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 risk’.

    • 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 forward plan.


    The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 03 March 2015 were AGREED as an accurate record of the meeting.



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 (LBL)


    • 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 leadership.
    • 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 oversight.
    • 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 Shield.
    • There needed to be representatives from Lambeth’s Fire Service, Public Health and Adult Social Care on the SLP Executive.


    Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB)


    • 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 partners.


    National Probation Service (NPS)


    • 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 London.
    • 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 Council


    • Conrad Hollingsworth from the Lambeth Voluntary Actions Council advised the group that many voluntary organisations were now struggling and closing down as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.


Performance update pdf icon PDF 120 KB

    Additional documents:


    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 crimes.


    • Lambeth remained a high crime borough.
    • Much positive work had taken place and some crimes, including personal street robbery, had reduced.
    • 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 services.
    • 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 police.
    • 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 Council.


    • 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 consciousness.
    • 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 icon 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 2015.


    • 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 LVAC.
    • The Head of Service report looked at the continuing risks in respect of Asset quality and analysed criminogenic factors contributing to youth reoffending in Lambeth.
    • The Youth Justice Board had proposed in-year cuts to the YJB grant of £75,000.
    • 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 sector.
    • The MPS would continue to target youth reoffending among 18-24 year old.



Child Sexual Exploitation strategy overview (for info)


    Nick Collins (MPS), Chair of the CSE Subgroup, provided a verbal update on the CSE strategy.


    • 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.
    • Lambeth’s principal problem was considered to be peer-on-peer CSE which often took place online. There had also been issues with taxi drivers in recent history.
    • 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 groups.
    • 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 borough.
    • Whilst there was good communication between partnership organisations and panels, more work was needed to understand the nature and scale of CSE in Lambeth.


    • Councillor Meldrum noted that a response was needed on the Children’s Commissioning report.



Shield pdf icon PDF 451 KB


    Charles Griggs (LBL) introduced the report and updated the group on the Shield programme.


    • 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 initiative.
    • 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 violence.
    • 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 was recommended.
    • 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 enforcement.
    • 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 the initiative.
    • A violence reduction network should be developed to address the wider violence agenda in Lambeth.
    • 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 referrals.
    • Shield timescales should have been governed by the community and local stakeholders.
    • 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

    • View the background to item 7.




    • 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 confirmed).
    • 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 members.


    Issues for consideration at future meetings (to be added to the Forward Plan):


    • Domestic homicide reviews
    • Prevent
    • Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements
    • Ongoing servitude trial