Agenda item

The Scrutiny & Overview Committee is provided with a report updating on the key aspects of the Safer Croydon Partnership over the past year for its scrutiny. The Committee is asked to: -

1.               Review and note the information provided in the report,

2.               Consider its conclusions on Croydon Community Safety Partnership Review,

3.               Consider whether there are any recommendations to bring to the attention of the Mayor.

The Committee considered a report set out in pages 19 to 42 of the agenda which provided a summary of the work of the Safer Croydon Partnership over the past year. This report was provided to the Committee as part of its annual review of crime and disorder matters in the borough.

In attendance for this item were the following: -

• Councillor Ola Kolade – Cabinet Member for Community Safety
• Chief Superintendent Andy Brittain - Metropolitan Police
• Superintendent Mitchell Carr – Metropolitan Police
• Selene Grandison – Head of Croydon Probation Delivery Unit
• Kristian Aspinall – Director of Culture & Community Safety
• Ciara Goodwin – Domestic Abuse & Sexual Violence Coordinator
• Alison Kennedy – FJS Operations Manager
• Christopher Rowney – Head of Violence Reduction Network
• Liz Ostrowski - Independent Consultant

During the introduction to the report, the following points were noted: -

• There was a general recognition that the challenges within the borough could not be solved without partnership work.
• Since the Committee had last reviewed community safety matters in September 2022, a Community Safety Partnership Board had been established, which was open to any member of the public to attend, becoming an important mechanism for engagement with the local community.
• The Youth Safety Plan had been developed with youth groups engaged on the content of the strategy. 
• The key areas of focus for the Safer Croydon Partnership remained tackling youth violence, violence against women and girls and improving the use of data and evidence to tackle crime hotspot areas. 

Following the introduction, the Committee proceeded to question the members of the Safer Croydon Partnership on the information provided. The first question noted that the partnership was balancing a number of different boards and strategies, and as such it was questioned how the Partnership remained streamlined and focussed on delivery.  In response, it was highlighted that the work of the Partnership was expansive and different channels were needed to look at different areas, but the Executive Board had oversight over all areas. Furthermore, it was noted that three of the boards were statutory for all Community Safety Partnerships (CSP), with only two additional boards set up. This was a common amount for CSPs, with many often having more.

In follow-up, it was questioned whether there was any scope for streamlining and simplifying the structure of the Partnership. It was advised that there were other options, such as merging the community safety and safeguarding boards, but this tended to be done in low crime areas and it was recommended that these be kept separate for areas such as Croydon. Although the structure may be complex for a member of the public to understand, they would be free to attend meetings of the Community Safety Partnership Board to learn more about the work of the partnership.

It was noted that the report set out a wide range of activities delivered by the Partnership in the past year, but it was questioned how the impact from this activity was measured. It was acknowledged that some outcomes were hard to measure, which was why case studies had been included in the report to demonstrate impact. An example of the impact of the partnership given included work to engage with groups of young people who had previously been congregating in Church Street which had led to dispersal.  It was highlighted that the Town Centre was in the top ten priority wards for the Police, with almost 100 people arrested since the start of the year as a result of increased police activity and the introduction of facial recognition technology. Reassurance was given that the facial recognition technology was independently audited to provide assurance that there was no disparity, around areas such as ethnicity and gender.

It was questioned how the Council’s Housing Service interacted with the partnership and whether there were any challenges in this relationship. The Committee was assured that Housing was included in the partnership as part of the Council and that Housing was present on an operational level for specific cases and issues. Going forward there would be further activity designed to improve these links in the forthcoming Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy.

Further information was requested about how the Partnership was working to deliver the Youth Safety Plan. It was explained that the aim of the Plan was to reduce the number of young people getting injured on streets, reduce the number of young people in the justice system and improve the perception of safety. As part of achieving these aims, it was recognised that it was important to improve the relationship with local schools, this had resulted in the Safer Schools Team having a dedicated officer in most schools in the borough and regular contact with the 5 to 6 schools without an officer. The Police also had a youth engagement team who ran various schemes including a netball scheme for girls.

In response to a question about the number of referrals being made across the partnership, it was explained that there was a new system in place to ensure referrals were made when needed and that the partnership was in a good place regarding referrals.

An update was requested on the current status of the Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB). It was highlighted that the SNB was a public meeting with community involvement that was delivered by the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and was a separate entity from the Safer Croydon Partnership. The Council was working with the Police and the Chair to get it working after a period of inactivity caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The SNB now had new terms of reference and had met in December and again in March in the Town Hall. Going forward the SNB would be meeting on a quarterly basis, with an aim to host meetings at different venues across the borough. Although the Council provided some administrative support for the SNB, this was fully funded by MOPAC.

It was acknowledged that it could be difficult to balance the good work of the partnership against the level of crime evidenced from statistics, but contributing factors were often issues that went beyond the boundaries of the borough and could only be addressed through partnership working across both London and nationally. This could be evidenced through the work of the Violence Reduction Networks, whose Chairs regularly met to share good practice. It was highlighted that events such as protests often had an impact on police resources in the borough, with local officers supporting policing at these events, alongside this there were ongoing recruitment challenges within the Metropolitan Police, which also affected resources.

At this point the Committee concluded its questioning and agreed the following, actions, conclusions and recommendations, before moving onto the next agenda item.

Actions

Following its discussion of the annual report on the work of the Community Safety Partnership, the Committee agreed the following actions to follow-up outside of the meeting: -

1. To circulate the updated terms of reference for the Safer Neighbourhood Board to the committee members.
2. To share the outcomes from the review of anti-social behaviour to the committee members once available.
3. The Committee recognised that the Safer Croydon Partnership had delivered a significant amount of work over 2023/24. It was agreed that future annual reviews should provide more quantitative data on the positive outcomes achieved through the Partnership.

Conclusions

Following its discussion of the annual report on the work of the Community Safety Partnership, the Committee reached the following conclusions: -

1. The Committee recognised the work of the Safer Croydon Partnership which had been delivered a wider range of activity across its priority areas, while operating within limited resources across a challenging and complex borough.
2. The Committee recognised the commitment of the Safer Croydon Partnership to increase the level of community engagement in its work, which could be evidenced through the creation of the Community Safety Engagement Board.
3. Although the Committee recognised the Safer Croydon Partnership had delivered a significant amount of work, it was agreed that when it next looked at community safety, further evidence was needed to demonstrate the tangible outcomes achieved through this work.

Recommendations

Following its discussion of the annual report on the work of the Community Safety Partnership, the Committee agreed to submit the following recommendations for the consideration of the Mayor: -

1. The Scrutiny & Overview Committee recommends that the Council uses its existing networks and resources to raise awareness of the Safer Neighbourhood Board and its meetings.
2. The Scrutiny & Overview Committee recommends that the Council through it role as a statutory partner uses it influence to ensure that the partnership has a clear focus on delivering tangible public outcomes for residents, rather than inputs and processes from officers.