Agenda item

Merseyside Violence Reduction Partnership

To consider Report CFO/003/21 of the Chief Fire Officer, concerning an overview of; and update on, the Merseyside Violence Reduction Partnership.

 

A Presentation will be provided in support of this report.

 

Minutes:

Members considered Report CFO/003/21 of the Chief Fire Officers, concerning an overview of and update on, the Merseyside Violence Reduction Partnership (VRP).

 

Members were introduced to Detective Superintendent (DS) Andy Ryan from Merseyside Police, who was in attendance to provide Members with a presentation around the Violence Reduction Partnership.

 

The Merseyside VRP was established in July 2019, with the aim of reducing serious violence via a public health approach and Members were shown a short film, providing an overview of the VRP.

 

Members were advised that the partnership did not want to look at serious violence in isolation, or as being solely an enforcement problem, rather they aimed to look at violence as being a preventable consequence of a range of factors and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE’s).

 

Members were advised that a number of agencies and partners were involved in the core team, which included officers from MFRA. The co-located team included representatives from public health, the fire service, the probation service and youth offending, amongst others.

 

Members were informed that having the fire service involved in the core team, was unique to Merseyside, and something that the partnership was very proud of.

 

The presentation went on to highlight the introduction of a new programme – “Healing Together”, which was a 6 session programme, aimed at young people who have experienced domestic abuse. Members were informed that MFRS were currently leading the way on this initiative; and had been trialling it within Knowsley and St. Helens. They were informed that although the initiative was in its infancy, there were high hopes for the programme, with feedback being excellent; and the VRP were looking forward to seeing the outcome of the evaluation.

 

A question was raised around funding and the break down in terms of agencies, or initiatives.

 

Members were informed that the share of funding the Merseyside VRP received from Government, was £3.37m. They were informed that the PCC, provided funding to the Head of the VRP, to spend on specific interventions, with the Steering Group holding the Head of the VRP to account for expenditure.

 

Members were advised that the Home Office had stipulated that VRU’s must spend at least 25% of their funding on interventions, with the remainder spent on staffing and academic support. It was highlighted to Members that in Merseyside as much as possible was to be spent on interventions, which for this financial year, had been around 70% of the funding. However, Members were advised of the requirement to build on the team, specifically around building on the analytical capability, which had an impact on the interventions budget.

 

Members were advised that no specific amount had been allocated to any work streams or organisations. However, for next year, the VRP were seeking to work more in themes, and so were identifying where the need and demand was greatest within Merseyside.

 

It was highlighted that there was some outstanding work going on across Merseyside but that this could be better coordinated.

 

Members were advised that the independent academic evaluation was a key part of measuring success, with the evaluation of the previous year, proving very insightful. However, it was highlighted that the VRP were more interested in identifying areas of improvement. Therefore, Members were advised that the VRP were encouraging more critical feedback and openness in relation to that evaluation. They were also advised that they are very keen on building in evaluation processes within the team, with the ability to evaluate interventions internally.

 

Another key aspiration for the VRP was to be more engaged with communities, particularly young people,  but this had been difficult during 2020.  Members were informed that the VRP had purchased an online system called “Dialogue”, for engaging with young people through a Q&A function.

 

With regards to success criteria, Members were informed that the Home Office criteria covered three areas which the VRP measured itself against:

-         a reduction on serious violence offences;

-         a reduction in homicide; and

-         a reduction in hospital admissions.

 

Over the last 12 months there had been a reduction in these three areas, but it was  unclear if that was due to the work of the VRP, the excellent work across the partnership, Covid-19, or a combination of factors.

 

Members were assured that there were a number of ways in which the VRP can measure success; and that they will continue to develop that, to ensure that they are held to account and understand what is working and what is not.

 

With regards to the secondment of MFRS staff to the VRP, Members queried whether there were plans for this to be made permanent.

 

Members were advised that the post was fully funded by the Merseyside VRP. They were advised that there have been conversations around whether that post would continue to be a full time post in 2022, or a part-time post, given the aspiration to ensure that as much funding as possible was spent on interventions. However, Members were assured that having the FRS involved in the core team, puts Merseyside VRP ahead of other areas; and ensured that arson was taken seriously.

 

Members commented that they were surprised to see that Merseytravel were not one of the key partners listed.

 

Members were advised that the list shown within the presentation, was of those partners involved in the core team. They were assured that a range of other partners are also involved, including Merseytravel.

 

A further question was raised around whether any funding was being provided to local communities through City Safe.

 

Members were informed that the interventions budget was split between the five Community Safety Partnerships, which each receive a substantial amount to undertake initiatives as required.

 

A question was raised around whether the VRP were involved in any drug prevention work, given the amount of young people getting involved in county lines activities.

 

Members were advised that there was a lot of drug prevention work already being undertaken across the partnership, therefore, whilst the VRP were acutely aware of the impact of drugs and links to violence, they were not directly involved in drug prevention activity. However, they do a lot of work around county lines. Members were advised that the VRP were trying to plug gaps and avoid duplication, and there were some areas, such as drug prevention, which were already well catered for.

 

Resolved that the content of the report and presentation be noted.

Supporting documents: