Agenda item

7.1

RESOLVED: On the motion of Councillor Peter Rippon and seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 5.5 be suspended and the termination of the meeting be extended by a period of up to 30 minutes, to 6.00 p.m. maximum.

7.2

The Council received a briefing concerning gun and knife crime in Sheffield from the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, Detective Superintendent Una Jennings (South Yorkshire Police), Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods Services, Janet Sharpe and Director of Children and Families, Carly Speechley.

7.3

The briefing presentation comprised the following areas:

·         Commentary on Police recorded crime trends for violence with injury and without injury, homicide, sexual offences, robbery and possession of weapons offences; and hospital admissions following assault with a sharp object. 

·         An outline of Operation Fortify and the approach to dealing with current and emerging challenges and building resilient communities.

·         Partnership structures and community safety priorities.

·         Support for young people and prevention.

·         Neighbourhoods: challenges, intervention, resilience and dialogue.

7.4

Members of the Council asked questions and made comments and responses were given as summarised below:

Q

How might the various agencies be brought together; how might people working at the ground level in voluntary and community organisations be engaged in the process; and how might we know what success looks like and outcomes?

A

Operation Fortify included Sheffield Futures and voluntary community and faith organisations and whilst this might not be people working on the ground in those organisations, there was a connection through that structure. There was also a neighbourhood community dialogue approach, which would commence in some parts of the city.  It was important not to burden or view certain communities with the impression of criminality. Nevertheless, there were some parts of the city where the roots of problems were more prevalent and it was in those places that the dialogue would begin.

A

It was important to use the police officers that were in place intelligently and there had been investment back into neighbourhood policing and this was the bedrock of a good policing model. It was also critical to moving to a more proactive model with a focus on prevention. It could be argued that the statistics shown in the presentation concerning possession offenses was evidence of  intelligence–led policing and that the right people were being stopped and, in Sheffield, there was a higher chance of someone carrying a knife being caught than in other core cities.

There were a range of outcomes in the strategy documents, both quantitative ones, including reductions in some core types of crime and qualitative outcomes which could be measured and used as relevant performance indicators. The outcomes across different agencies were clear and could be measured. Agencies would be held to account and, if results were not being achieved, they would look at what could be done differently to improve, change, listen and adapt and in response to dialogue with communities and grassroots workers, listen to what would work best and adapt accordingly.

Q

A comment was made concerning the effect of diversionary activities such as those provided by boxing gyms and football on reducing crime in communities and detection of weapons in schools.

A

There were some activities and events which happened quite separately from the Council and other agencies and because of good people, which it was important to see as much of as possible. This approach of solving issues together was effective and it would be problematic to make such activities reliant on the Council, which was partly due to resources or at least the issue of shifting resource from another area of need.   As regards the De Hood boxing gym, the Council would continue to work to find a sustainable location for the future of that organisation.

A

As regards knife arches in schools and such like, whilst nothing could be ruled out it was also important not to put in place effort and measures if the problem was not present and also to be mindful of displacement. The prevention approach led to an objective of having fewer people who believed it was right or necessary to carry a knife.

Q

A comment was made that it would be helpful to understand how the community organisations in the identified areas would be involved and able to contribute. Similarly, the work needed to be tailored to different demographics. A question was asked as to how different groups of young people, including primary and secondary school councils, colleges, technical colleges and universities, might be engaged in the process of prevention and intervention. Reference was also made to the Council’s Apprentice programme and to making opportunities in the business sector for young people.

A

Young people were being involved but this might be further enhanced.

Q

A comment was made that it was better to involve communities which were systematically part of these issues and experienced other problems such as deprivation and lack of resources. Operation Fortify was to be welcomed. There were also significant psychological issues for some young people and particularly for refugees which needed to be recognised along with family mental health and wellbeing.

A

For clarity, it was important not to burden some communities by stigmatising them as somehow being the cause and the root of criminality.

Q

A comment was made that boxing and training played a positive role for young people in some deprived communities and with certain social issues and in reducing gang related and violent crime and helped them to learn and develop skills such as discipline and self-belief. Setting up boxing clubs and community hubs would help young people.

Q

A comment was made that public meetings in some communities might not be the best way of engaging communities, in some parts of the city perhaps due to the fear of possible reprisals. It was also thought to be frightening that sometimes the first response might be physical or verbal violence of some kind.

A question was asked as to whether social landlords in the city had signed up to the programme; in conjunction with operation Fortify, was there to be re-education within the prison system so that a person would not be released and re-offend; and was there a legal equivalent of a kind of social prescribing as there was in the health system?

A

The forthcoming meetings in communities were not planned as big public meetings and consideration would be given to what infrastructure was already in place, such as neighbourhood policing, operational housing and neighbourhood structures, MASTs (Multi-Agency Support Teams), health and voluntary and community services. In this way, connections could be made into what was already in place. The meetings would be to inform how we could better organise and how we work better together; and what were the key things that would make the greatest difference. In that way, it was hoped to obtain local intelligence.

There would also be other drop in sessions and communications in various ways for people to share local issues and things that might work better in a particular community. As neighbourhoods were very different, so solutions may need to vary according to the neighbourhood.

Offender management services were part of the Gold round table grouping. The extent to which offender management services might alter things remained to be seen but the other agencies were quite demanding of them. Social landlords were not structurally engaged with this process but this was an element of work to be done through the Strategic Landlords Forum. In relation to social prescribing, some people were engaged with agencies and there was a referral point out but this was not institutionalised. The challenge was in those cases where people did not present and what could be done in such cases. There was also a point to consider as to whether there could be a system in the city for referring people into activities which might help with self-esteem.

Q

It was commented upon that decisions affecting a young person, such as regards exclusion from school or housing related decisions would affect their circumstances. A question was asked as to whether there was a link between a series of decisions made by the Council and partner agencies and a young person’s particular situation, such as being subject to a custodial sentence.

A

There were contextual factors which affected young people and which might include house moves and living in chaotic circumstances or moving as necessary for survival. It was necessary to consider other contextual factors, including in relation to circumstances such as child protection and school exclusion and to take action to deal with the context whilst recognising that trying to deal with the immediate problem (e.g. exclusion) may cause deeper problems. The Council was challenging schools in respect of high rates of exclusion and related demographics. However, exclusion from school would not necessarily set a young person on a path to criminality. All agencies needed to understand the consequences of what they were doing along with the immediate issue they might be dealing with. Whilst circumstances were often more complex, if services joined up more, it was more likely that issues affecting an individual would be dealt with sooner. 

Q

A comment was made that domestic violence should be addressed as a priority. If domestic violence was common in a young person’s life, it was a problem, including in relation to their potential role models and experiences.

Q

Poor health and poverty were also issues to consider in relation to violent crime, so how might this be linked with the poverty strategy and the strategy in relation to violent crime and how might priorities of organisations result in integrated management of these issues.

A

It was a priority to effectively tackle domestic violence. If we wished to deal with violent crime, the problem of violence against women had to be dealt with first. A child’s early years were most important in terms of the development of cognitive behaviour, empathy and problem solving and this shaped and defined the individual.

The situation at present was fragmented and headteachers had been engaged in order that there was commitment from them to help roll out a prevention programme to all year 7 students. There was support from Sheffield Hallam University to evaluate the prevention programme. The focus was upstream and upon outcomes.

In relation to organisational buy-in to the operation Fortify initiative, a gold, silver, bronze model was being used. ‘Gold’ level included political and executive involvement and it was designed to have a vertical integration through organisations and cross over membership, for example Superintendent Jennings attended the Gold (Strategic level) and Silver meetings in the Operation Fortify structure. Some twenty agencies were involved sitting round the table.

Q

A comment was made that the fragmentation of the school system was problematic and it was good to know that the headteachers were involved in the prevention programme. There was a desire for schools to be put back at the heart of communities. Rates of school exclusion were also too high and work was being done in this regard.

Q

A comment was made that, in certain cases, exclusion of a student might be the only course of action available to a school.

A

If a school exclusion does occur then we have to recognise that services had failed. It was necessary to look upstream and to identify when there were better and more effective choices to be made regarding a child.

7.5

The Council noted the information now reported concerning gun and knife crime and thanked the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, Detective Superintendent Una Jennings (South Yorkshire Police), Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods Services, Janet Sharpe and Director of Children and Families, Carly Speechley for their contributions.