Alison Hernandez (Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner) briefly introduced the agenda item on Community Recovery Activity in Keyham before handing over to Dr Katie McBride (Lecturer in Criminology, University of Plymouth), Professor Zoe James (Professor of Criminology) and Caroline Watson (PhD candidate, University of Plymouth) whogave a presentation on the agenda item and highlighted:

 

a)    They had conducted an independent academic review of the Home Office funded community policing and community safety activity and the Ministry of Justice funded victim support activities in Keyham and the surrounding areas following the critical incident of 12 August 2021;

b)    The evaluation had been funded for 12 months by the Home Office’s Keyahm Community Police Grant via the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, with additional funding from the Devon and Cornwall serious violence prevention partnership for a full-time PhD student to continue research for a further two years beyond the initial 12 months;

c)    The aims of the Safer Keyham, and Keyham Community Policing grants, had been:

                      i.        To restore feelings of safety through a range of initiatives including target hardening, high visibility policing, problem solving approaches, and extensive community engagement;

                     ii.        To mitigate future and existing harm through community policing and safer streets style interventions;

                    iii.        To Advance community action through investment in empowerment and skills-based engagement, enhanced youth provision, and citizen consultations to lead to sustainable citizen led change;

d)    And if the funding from the Ministry of Justice had sought to support victims through additional caseworks from Victim Support, Young Devon and Jeremiah’s Journey, and extra capacity within Victim Support’s 24/7 support helpline;

e)    The aims of the evaluation had been to:

                      i.        Provide an evidence base for responding to a mass shooting from a community policing, community safety, and victim support perspective;

                     ii.        Take a trauma-informed research approach to ensure a robust and rigorous evaluation that will effectively identify local lessons and provide national learning;

                    iii.        Develop an evidence-based ‘menu’ of interventions that could inform future community and victim support responses to critical incidents;

f)     The research questions had been:

                      i.        “Has the neighbourhood policing approach in Keyham, including sustained community engagement and consultation, as a restorative and preventative measure taken following the incident helped to restore community trust and confidence?;

                     ii.        Have the funded community safety interventions (strengthening the local environment, targeted crime prevention, and assisting the community to reclaim community spaces) in Keyham had any statistically significant impact on crime/anti-social behaviour levels and community feelings of safety, resilience, and recovery?;

                    iii.        What impact has Victim Support’s role and services had upon aiding individuals and the community in Keyham to recover from the trauma they have experienced?;

                    iv.        Which approaches or interventions have demonstrated the greatest evidence-based impact to aid the recovery of the community in Keyham and feelings of safety?;

                     v.        Which approaches or interventions (if any) have negatively impacted the recovery of the community in Keyham and feelings of safety?”

g)    The methodology of the report had received ethical approval from the University of Plymouth ethics committee in May 2022 and had included;

                      i.        Secondary data analysis of documents;

                     ii.        Analysis of crime/ASB data relating to Keyham and the surrounding neighbourhoods;

                    iii.        Quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments including  focus groups, a community survey and interviews;

h)    One of the research findings had been around the power of language and the problematic use of the word ‘recovery’ which had been used in the report in the context of the funded activities;

i)     Crime and ASB Data Analysis Findings were that:

                      i.        These neighbourhoods were not high crime neighbourhoods so small changes in numbers could effect apparently sizeable changes in trends;

                     ii.        Crime and ASB in Keyham had generally both fallen in the period since the introduction of the Safer Keyham programme;

                    iii.        Keyham may be considered to have become a safer place when judged by police recorded crime and ASB incidents;

                    iv.        It was reasonable to speculate that introduction of KCPT might have encouraged a higher rate of reporting;

                     v.        Overall recorded crime had not increased which added confidence to the suggestion that Keyham is a safer place;

                    vi.        No evidence of geographical displacement to neighbouring areas, although its possibility could not be entirely discounted;

j)     Community Policing findings had included:

                      i.        59% of people had awareness of a dedicated Keyham Community Policing Team;

                     ii.        79% felt it had been valuable for the area’s recovery;

                    iii.        54% felt there had been a positive impact on the community overall;

                    iv.        45% had had some form of contact with the police in the 12 months following the incident;

                     v.        Perception ratings were higher among respondents who had experienced any kind of contact with the police compared to those who had no contact;

                    vi.        Overall confidence score and scores for police treatment and community connectedness higher in Keyham-specific results compared with wider area results;

                  vii.        Overall confidence score for Keyham-specific results and wider area results did not exceed regional or national scores;

                 viii.        Some interview participants felt that seeing more police in their area over a long period of time might increase fear of crime;

k)    Findings in relation to youth engagement had included:

                      i.        Engagement with young people had been challenging, partly due to timing of critical incident;

                     ii.        News and social media coverage impacted young people and their families had increased anxieties and fears associated with public spaces, including parks;

                    iii.        Groups and activities that pre-dated the incident continued to be places of trust, safety, and support;

                    iv.        Young people highlighted the need for more suitable spaces and activities in the local area;

                     v.        Young people generally unaware of new initiatives and clubs introduced as a result of their contribution to the consultations suggesting a potential gap in terms of how young people were kept informed;

l)     Community engagement findings had included the following:

                      i.        49% of respondents having awareness of the Safer Keyham programme;

                     ii.        46% had awareness of the Plymouth Together website;

                    iii.        Awareness of other activities such as the Plymouth Together Community Hub and Community Voices had been slightly lower;

                    iv.        Safer Keyham programme ensured existing services, partnerships, and networks were embedded into new initiatives;

                     v.        It took account of key facilitators to community engagement which were use of clear goals in design and implementation, investment of time, effort and resources and use of dedicated staff;

                    vi.        Identified existing community spaces, multiple forms of advertisement, and familiar environments to create opportunities for engagement;

m)  Findings relating to public space improvements had included the following:

                      i.        67% noticed consultations and/or improvements to public spaces;

                     ii.        89% felt it was valuable for the area’s recovery;

                    iii.        55% felt it had had a positive impact on the community overall;

                    iv.        Perception ratings of community impact higher among those who had noticed improvements compared with those who had not;

                     v.        Crime prevention through environmental design cannot ameliorate the underlying issues faced by urban communities impacted by austerity nor individual trauma experienced as a consequence of the critical incident;

n)    Feel Safe Scheme and Crime Prevention Outreach findings had included:

                      i.        18% participation in Feel Safe Scheme;

                     ii.        78% had said it was valuable for the area’s recovery;

                    iii.        43% felt it had had a positive impact on the community overall;

                    iv.        Perception ratings of community impact higher among those who had received free of charge offers as part of the scheme compared with those who had not;

                     v.        Feel Safe Scheme demonstrates how interventions put in place in response to the critical incident were also fulfilling previously unmet needs of vulnerable people in the local area;

o)    Community Training Findings had included:

                      i.        2% had attended free community training sessions;

                     ii.        72% felt it had been valuable for the area’s recovery;

                    iii.        33% felt it had had a positive impact on the community overall;

                    iv.        Multiple training sessions being offered in a short space of time had been challenging;

                     v.        Other barriers to engagement had included the impact of COVID-19 on in-person gatherings, as well as possible uncertainty among community members about the purpose of the training sessions;

                    vi.        Ongoing work around embedding TI practices in the community driven by members of the Plymouth Trauma Informed Network, highlighting role that individuals can play in progressing initiatives;

p)    Community Sparks Grants Scheme findings had included:

                      i.        18% had participated in the Community Sparks Grants Scheme;

                     ii.        72% had felt it was valuable for the area’s recovery;

                    iii.        34% felt it had had a positive impact on the community overall;

                    iv.        Interviewees had been generally positive about the impact of the scheme, particularly those who had engaged with it in some way;

                     v.        A small number of interviewees perceived a potential for the participatory voting system to foster competition between projects, which could have had a negative impact on individuals who received fewer votes and thus lose out on funding;

q)    It had not been appropriate to approach individuals who had received support but Victim Support findings had included:

                      i.        6% had used victim support services;

                     ii.        85% felt it was valuable for the area’s recovery;

                    iii.        49% had felt it had a positive impact on the community overall;

                    iv.        Although many acknowledged the deeply tragic nature of the critical incident, they did not feel closely connected to it and did not perceive themselves as ‘victims’ in need of support;

                     v.        There had been extensive engagement work within and beyond Keyham, ensuring VS support offer was available to anyone affected by crime, not limited to those impacted by the critical incident;

                    vi.        Clear intention for support to be available and accessible in the years following the critical incident;

r)    Neighbourhood policing conclusions:

                      i.        Sustained community engagement and consultation through a well-resourced team;

                     ii.        Evidence of public confidence in the KCPT amongst those who had contact with them;

                    iii.        Public confidence scores higher in the Keyham-specific area results, but overall confidence scores for Keyham-specific and wider area results did not exceed regional or national scores;

s)     Victim Support conclusions:

                      i.        VS ensured engagement with communities across wider area;

                     ii.        VS valued though community did not broadly access their services, partly due to not perceiving themselves as legitimate ‘victims’;

                    iii.        Professionals noted importance of VS services in ongoing recovery process;

t)     Conclusions of funded community safety interventions:

                      i.        Crime/ASB levels low prior to the critical incident and have remained low, and there was no evidence of displacement of crime/ASB to bordering neighbourhoods;

                     ii.        Crime rates in the specific Keyham area diminished in the year following the critical incident;

                    iii.        Best practice informed community safety interventions, but it was not possible to distinguish between value placed on interventions due to need resultant from critical incident or pre-existing need;

                    iv.        Majority reported feeling safe in their area. Generally people did not report feeling unsafe as a consequence of the critical incident, although young people did. Community members did not use the language of ‘resilience’ or ‘recovery’;

u)    Conclusions with regards to impact of approaches and interventions were:

                      i.        Impact of most visible interventions viewed most positively: community policing, public space improvements;

                     ii.        Interventions that connected with existing infrastructure were most effective, however, over-reliance can reinforce pre-existing inequalities or gaps in provision, and reliance on volunteers could be burdensome for them and conflicting with organisational needs;

                    iii.        No specific interventions negatively impacted the recovery of the Keyham community and feelings of safety;

v)    The team reported the following as their key learning points:

                      i.        Funding awards should be long term, sustainable, and flexible;

                     ii.        Existing community infrastructures should be utilised and resourced, and over-reliance on volunteers should be acknowledged. Pre-existing need should be taken account of to ameliorate not exacerbate community tensions;

                    iii.        Proactive deployment of a dedicated community policing team provides a coherent distance between initial response and investigation teams and recovery work. Sustained engagement of community police officers in partnership with community organisations contributes to the building of trust and confidence in communities;

                    iv.        Provision of support should take account of needs that arise from associated anniversaries and coronial inquests;

                     v.        A dedicated communications lead should oversee production of publications to negate use of language and terminology that may exacerbate trauma. Hard-copy information should be distributed to residents in addition to social media posts;

                    vi.        Impact of critical incidents on young people should be a prominent focus of the recovery process;

                  vii.        Provision of resources and interventions to specific pre-defined geographical areas risks excluding those impacted from equidistant, adjacent, and other areas. Support offers should extend beyond the immediate area of the critical incident and be made available to professionals and volunteers involved in the recovery process.

During questions it was added:

w)   Existing funding streams had to be identified and applied for, which was the fastest way to get funding to the communities, but the funding was limited and applying for it had been challenging, however knowing the funding had an end date, meant planning had been taken out for the future;

x)    Devonport Police Station would be open by September 2023, meaning Plymouth had three Police inquiry offices;

y)    The project officer for some of the work had been seconded from the OPCC to work alongside partners and had, alongside the Serious Violence Prevention Program Director and representatives from the University of Plymouth, met with the Home Office on 5 July 2023 to share the learnings of the research;

z)    Some of the smallest organisations in the area were the ones to get in touch and who wanted to do something to help and a scheme to help one of the smallest, neighbourhood watch, was funded by the OPCC within 24 hours of the incident;

aa)  Improvements had been observed in Ford and Keyham, where funding had been concentrated, but the same could not be said for North Prospect and Morice Town and the research had shown that the distribution of the funding had been problematic and not supported areas like North Prospect, which overlooked the area where the incident had taken place;

bb) Pre-existing issues within some areas had impacted outcomes, but it was difficult to extrapolate those issues from the issues faced directly in relation to the trauma within he community;

cc)  The Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner had commissioned the University of Plymouth to carry out an additional survey later in 2023 to see how people were still being affected and what their needs might be, but also with the intention of creating a survey that was replicable elsewhere so that if a similar incident took place it could be offered as a resource for assessing community feelings of safety;

dd) Despite additional resource, confidence in the police had not been raised above the regional and national levels, but it had increased;

ee) Local Councillors felt that the need for support to have a broader reach, was critical and this had been noted in the outcomes of the research;

ff)    Victim Support had evidenced good practice as they provided support across the region, recognising that people were passing through, and some people were in the area to work or study for example, who did not reside in the area;

gg)  The necessity for funding to be available with more immediate effect, and in a coherent fashion, was raised with the Home Office;

hh) It was also important to note that the research work could be seen as an industry whilst the community was trying to move on with their daily lives, and this would be looked into through future research;

ii)    The legacy of the incident for young people is yet to be seen and there was already a recognised deficit in support for young people and that there had been a challenge with access points for young people because the incident had occurred during the summer holidays;

jj)    An advantage to having an academic team of criminologists to carry out the research was that they understood how the criminal justice sector functioned, how crime and antisocial behaviour occurred and issues around social inclusion and exclusion;

kk) The research team had been able to look at impact of similar events on community cohesions locally, nationally and internationally;

ll)    A virtuous agreement between victim support and the OPCC meant there would be a long-term relationship and allowed victim support to be responsive across the area of Devon and Cornwall rather than just in a small area;

mm)   A second year of research had not been commissioned yet, and further work could be commissioned to look at crime rates and patterns across the area, especially as it could link with other work the team were doing in partnership with other organisations in other areas of the city;

nn)   Infrastructure improvements for young people had not been part of the scope for funding obtained by the OPCC;

oo)  Neighbourhood policing in Keyham was the gold standard that the force wished they could have in all areas and the Chief Constable was working on plans to invest more in community policing and the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner had discussed levels of neighbourhood policing and the possibility of assessing communities for need to match with neighbourhood policing provision;

pp)   Volunteers very valuable, and their work had been beneficial to the community and to the volunteers who had carried out the work, but in some cases, an overreliance on the work of volunteers could lead to them feeling overburdened, and some roles would be more appropriately carried out by people in paid roles;

qq)   Community policing was only effective when the officers involved were invested in the idea and in some cases officers who are new to the job can be put into roles such as this and it doesn’t create the service that could be, whereas in Keyham, due to the circumstances, more experienced officers were put in place who really saw the value of the service, and this learning was important nationally.

 

The Committee agreed to note the report.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned from 12:50 pm to 1 pm for short break.