In meeting their statutory duty, the Harrow council has worked out the draft Serious Violence Strategy report that is before the forthcoming cabinet meeting.
The council will receive £79,000 over three years for discharging the Serious Violence Strategy and delivering the priorities within it, including to reduce Serious Violent Crime with young people below the age of 25 and to tackle Violence against Women and Girls.
In informing the crime and population profiles in Harrow, the report points out that “Serious Violence is not distributed evenly across the population and significant inequalities exist. Certain groups and geographical areas within Harrow are at higher risk of exposure to and involvement in Serious Violence”.
But the portfolio-holder’s forward seems to be less specific about the differential impact of the crime on the groups of people in Harrow: “Violence can impact any resident at any time. We need to act at the earliest stage to prevent acts of serious violence”.
[Preventing crime without addressing the cause and not knowing who, where and why has limitations, and is usually ineffective!]
For example, the report identifies that “The ethnic profile of survivors recorded by the Met Police shows that Harrow’s white population were impacted most by domestic abuse”.
In generating the violence specific data, the report relies on the incidents reported to the authorities while there is national evidence that some crimes like domestic abuse, including to women and girls, and more so in some communities, are under-reported.
Consequently, the report is less specific about encouraging more and better reporting by and provisions for different communities [most of the working partners that the report mentions could be less attractive, for example, to the Asian community (at least 45%) who might need the community rather than conventional approach for preventing and tackling the crime].
The strategy, by a diversity-rich council, needs to identify measures to access the groups of people who are more likely to suffer in silence.
Furthermore, as the success criteria of the strategy is based on monitoring the violence incidents reported to the authorities, the success of the strategy need to include gauging improvement in under-reporting, using the ethnic minority reporting data.
Interesting that the council has a ‘multi-agency’ approach in preventing and tackling serious violence and other crime safety measures through pockets of initiatives with pockets of funding, which requires robust central coordination for the effectiveness.
[The Serious Violence Panel, Safer Harrow etc with several established partnerships that interrelate with the priorities of the Serious Violence Strategy].
Odd that the ‘hate crime’ is not serious enough to be included in the strategy – what an omission!
[Hate crimes in Harrow* March 23 to Jan 24: 427, including racist and religious crime 396, Anti-Semitic 42, Islamophobic 30, homophobic 29]
*here
The council will receive £79,000 over three years for discharging the Serious Violence Strategy and delivering the priorities within it, including to reduce Serious Violent Crime with young people below the age of 25 and to tackle Violence against Women and Girls.
In informing the crime and population profiles in Harrow, the report points out that “Serious Violence is not distributed evenly across the population and significant inequalities exist. Certain groups and geographical areas within Harrow are at higher risk of exposure to and involvement in Serious Violence”.
But the portfolio-holder’s forward seems to be less specific about the differential impact of the crime on the groups of people in Harrow: “Violence can impact any resident at any time. We need to act at the earliest stage to prevent acts of serious violence”.
[Preventing crime without addressing the cause and not knowing who, where and why has limitations, and is usually ineffective!]
For example, the report identifies that “The ethnic profile of survivors recorded by the Met Police shows that Harrow’s white population were impacted most by domestic abuse”.
In generating the violence specific data, the report relies on the incidents reported to the authorities while there is national evidence that some crimes like domestic abuse, including to women and girls, and more so in some communities, are under-reported.
Consequently, the report is less specific about encouraging more and better reporting by and provisions for different communities [most of the working partners that the report mentions could be less attractive, for example, to the Asian community (at least 45%) who might need the community rather than conventional approach for preventing and tackling the crime].
The strategy, by a diversity-rich council, needs to identify measures to access the groups of people who are more likely to suffer in silence.
Furthermore, as the success criteria of the strategy is based on monitoring the violence incidents reported to the authorities, the success of the strategy need to include gauging improvement in under-reporting, using the ethnic minority reporting data.
Interesting that the council has a ‘multi-agency’ approach in preventing and tackling serious violence and other crime safety measures through pockets of initiatives with pockets of funding, which requires robust central coordination for the effectiveness.
[The Serious Violence Panel, Safer Harrow etc with several established partnerships that interrelate with the priorities of the Serious Violence Strategy].
Odd that the ‘hate crime’ is not serious enough to be included in the strategy – what an omission!
[Hate crimes in Harrow* March 23 to Jan 24: 427, including racist and religious crime 396, Anti-Semitic 42, Islamophobic 30, homophobic 29]
*here
Harrow Monitoring Group 
Need to deal with the knife weilders who now dwell in the community & seem to think that it is natural violent & barbaric behaviour which they have brought with them & imported from overseas to threaten residents in the neighbourhoods. Shocking & unacceptable.
LikeLike