---
title: "Enfield Gangs Action Group"
type: "pdf"
year: "2011"
canonical: "/projects/805"
---
# Addressing Gang Issues
# Table of Contents
- [Addressing Gang Issues](#addressing-gang-issues)
- [Project Name: Gangs Action Group](#project-name-gangs-action-group)
- [Location: London Borough of Enfield, Greater London, United Kingdom](#location-london-borough-of-enfield-greater-london-united-kingdom)
- [Project Contact Person](#project-contact-person)
- [Name:](#name)
- [Key Project Team Members](#key-project-team-members)
- [Summary](#summary)
- [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Response](#response)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [WORD COUNT: 399](#word-count-399)
- [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Response](#response)
- [Understanding the issue](#understanding-the-issue)
- [Profiles \& Information Sharing](#profiles-information-sharing)
- [Meeting](#meeting)
- [Actions plans (victims and offenders)](#actions-plans-victims-and-offenders)
- [Prevention](#prevention)
- [Intervention](#intervention)
- [Suppression / Enforcement](#suppression-enforcement)
- [Locations](#locations)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [Challenges](#challenges)
- [Glossary](#glossary)
- [References](#references)
## Project Name: Gangs Action Group
## Location: London Borough of Enfield, Greater London, United Kingdom
Gangs Action Group 2011
Goldstein Award Entry
# Project Contact Person
## Name:
Position: Community Safety Partnership Analyst
Address: Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield Middlesex EN1 3XA, United Kingdom
City/State: Enfield, Greater London
Phone:
Fax:
Email
## Key Project Team Members
- Safer \& Stronger Communities Board (Local Community Safety Partnership)
- Metropolitan Police (Enfield Borough)
- Youth Offending Service
- London Probation (Enfield)
- Youth Services (Enfield)
- Local Education Authority (Enfield)
- UK Borders Association
- Housing Providers
- Tax and Benefits Office (Social Security)
- Social Care and Children's Services
Cover Image: Gang Association Chart (Enfield Community Safety Unit)
# Summary
## Scanning
- Several youth murders in 2008, three of which were arguably "gang-related"
- Widespread media attention referring to Edmonton as "knife town" highlighting gang problems Several youth gang members injured by gunshot from a Mac-10 submachine gun
- Fear within the local community - 50\% of residents selecting weapon and gang crime as a local priority
- Concern regular gang stabbings could lead to another fatality
- $12 \%$ increase in youth violence
## Analysis
- Early enforcement did not eradicate gangs and instead paved the way for the younger generation
- Difficulty in disaggregating individual offences and those carried out collectively
- Criminality levels varied amongst gang members - not all members commit crime but nonetheless are at equal risk of serious violence
- Two rival gangs were responsible for $72 \%$ of all violent incidents
- Gang members were both victims and offenders
- High-risk locations, gang hangout areas, were the setting for a disproportionate amount of violence
## Response
- Increase understanding of local gangs issues, i.e. rivalries, alliances, gang identifiers; amongst all practitioners locally
- Create detailed intelligence profiles on gang members incorporating information from all partners
- Development of a meeting to monitor all members of the two rival gangs and create an action plan tailored to the needs of the individuals
- Action plans are dependent on individual level of involvement, criminal activity and identified risks. This relied on a mix of prevention (i.e. younger siblings of identified gang members), intervention (towards peripheral and less criminal members) and enforcement (targeted at ringleaders and prolific gang offenders)
- Reduce the risk in gang hangout areas - weapon sweeps, dispersal zones, targeted police patrols, deployable CCTV and place management
# Assessment
- Offences committed by the top 15 (tier one) nominals decreased by $44 \%$ in 2010. Average offending levels reduced from 3 to 1.7 - four of these gang members were not known to have offended at all in 2010
- Within the main gang hotspots GBH offences reduced by $44 \%$, knife crime by $16 \%$; there were increases in drug offences which is to some extent police generated by targeting of gang members
- Challenges included dealing with a high proportion of NFA offences, supporting victims and challenging the "no-snitching" culture
- There is no proven method of eradicating the problem of gangs, however, there is a strong correlation between increasing intelligence and monitoring with declines in serious violence in Enfield
## WORD COUNT: 399
# Scanning
Gangs in Enfield have been present since the late 1990's, originally only within Edmonton. Historically there was one gang periodically replaced through time by its younger generations. Whilst members of this gang had been involved in lower level crime and ASB, they commanded minimal public interest or police attention.
By 2006/07, groups of youths began to organise and attach themselves to smaller defined "territories" (i.e. housing estates) and following the fashion of London adopted names and colours. Furthermore, music videos to enhance gang reputation were being uploaded onto YouTube, often with lyrics designed to antagonise and scare other nearby gangs, a cause for potential conflict.
By late 2007 there were four named gangs within the Edmonton area that were loosely aligned. In 2008 a spate of several youth murders occurred in the borough, 3 of which were deemed "gang-related". One of those murders was attributed to a personal dispute regarding lyrics in a gang music video. These incidents created a rivalry between groups of youths in Edmonton and later north-east Enfield.
The Edmonton area received widespread media attention following the murders and it was popularly glamourised in the media as "Shanktown" or "knife-town" and also appeared in a BBC documentary called 'Guns and Knives on the Street'1. The publicity created fear amongst residents, parents of young children and teenagers across the borough.
During the annual strategic assessment consultation with the public, they chose weapon and gang crime ( $50 \%$ of respondents) as their greatest fear and overall priority followed by youth crime ( $42 \%$ ).
Following the murders there was an increase in the number of knife-enabled wounding offences involving young people and an incident whereby 5 young people were injured by a Mac-10 submachine gun in a dispute with rivals from neighbouring Haringey. There was real concern that incidents and reprisals such as this could lead to another youth murder if Enfield did not come together and plan a multi-agency coordinated response to an issue previously regarded as a police responsibility.
Incidents of Serious Youth Violence in Enfield increased by 12\% in 2009 and in terms of volume, Enfield had the $5^{\text {th }}$ highest figure of all 32 London Boroughs.
Between $1^{\text {st }}$ April 2009 and the $16^{\text {th }}$ March 2011 there have been 198 gang flagged offences in Enfield. Whilst this is an extremely low proportion of total crime (less than 1\%), the attention and publicity it receives has a severe impact on fear of crime, the reputation of the area and levels of community confidence. As with many urban areas of England, negative and sensationalist media representation of the events perpetuates this issue, spurring the community into challenging the local police and community safety departments as to what is being done?
# Analysis
Before analysing "gang-related" crime we must consider that:
- Crimes that characterise gang culture often go unreported, for example crimes between rival gang members.
- Use of the term gang-related is inconsistent; often we classify an incident as gangrelated simply because the individual involved is a gang member.
- It is almost impossible to separate acts carried out by an individual member from those carried out collectively.
- Authorities often act in a subjective manner when documenting an individual as a gang member. This can result in a number of individuals being unfairly labelled as gang members, sometimes as a consequence of their relationship with other gang members, appearance in gang videos or their style of dress.
For the purpose of the project, we consider all offences committed by known or suspected gang members, either collectively or as individuals, and refer to these as Gang Flagged rather than Gang-Related offences. We consider associates and peripheral members because they are equally at-risk of serious violence whilst being in the presence of gangs. In most cases gang members or associates are both the victims and offenders in these crimes.
In identifying members of gangs a number of measures combined were used including:
- Liaison with gangs worker at Youth Offending Service (YOS)
- Police Intelligence (Criminal Intelligence - CRIMINT, CAD ASB calls, Crime Data)
- Secondary school and college teachers / Safer Schools Officers
- Self-Definition (via open source social networking, i.e. YouTube)
- Younger siblings and relatives of known gang-nominals who may be at-risk
In identifying gangs, factors looked for included groups that had a name, a discernable identity and members with involvement in violent offending. Enfield gangs choose to advertise themselves, their tattoo's, weapons and graffiti on social-networking websites as is common across London.
A combination of the identification methods were used to generate a local picture of gangs in Enfield. All CRIMINT and crime information was collated and mapped (see Figure 1).
Fig. 1 Crimes and intelligence reports on Enfield gangs Jun-2007 to Mar-2011
| Table 1. Intelligence and crime reports by gang | | | | | | | |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Gang | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | Total | First Intel | Types of Offences |
| Young Dem Africans | 0 | 10 | 31 | 41 | 82 | Feb- 09 | Knife \& Gun Enabled Crime, GBH, Robbery, Rape, Drugs, ASB |
| Black Gang / Get Money Gang | 2 | 4 | 26 | 43 | 75 | May- 08 | Knife \& Gun Enabled Crime, GBH, Robbery, Rape, Drugs, ASB |
| Shankstarz | 16 | 16 | 7 | 7 | 46 | Jun- 07 | Murder, Knife \& Gun Enabled Crime, GBH, Robbery, Drugs |
| Dem Africans | 31 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 43 | Jun- 07 | Murder, Knife \& Gun Enabled Crime, GBH, Robbery, Drugs |
| Cowper Mandem | 1 | 21 | 4 | 7 | 33 | May- 08 | ASB, Drugs |
| Grey Gang | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 31 | Jul- 07 | ASB, Drugs, Robbery |
| Red Brick | 4 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 22 | Jun- 07 | ASB, Drugs |
| P-Town | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | Jun- 07 | Drugs |
| Haringey Gangs | 13 | 19 | 16 | 8 | 56 | | |
| Total | 76 | 97 | 102 | 117 | 392 | | |
Over the past four years two gangs accounted for $40 \%$ of combined intelligence reports and crimes (Young Dem Africans - YDA - and Black Gang / Get Money Gang - GMG) - see Table 1. As a borough we thought we had removed the two main gangs from 2007/08 and 2008/09 after two high profile police operations that saw over 20 members of the Shankstarz and Dem Africans imprisoned. This however left a space that was filled by the next generation (YDA and GMG).
YDA/GMG are responsible for a wide variety of offence types including weapon enabled crime, serious violence and rape. During the entire period they were responsible for $72 \%$ of all violent incidents and stabbings. By 2010/11, violent incidents involving these two gangs accounted for $90 \%$ of all gang flagged violence. The bulk of this ( $75 \%$ ) occurred in the main
gang hang-out areas of Edmonton Green and Hertford Road shops. These two gangs are in active conflict with one another.
Despite awareness of this conflict, there is limited intelligence that helps us understand the associations between the individuals involved. There has been evidence to suggest that certain individuals from rival gangs associate together whilst there are also conflicts between individuals attached to the same gang (internal conflicts). Although gangs are often viewed collectively, there are smaller cliques and associations within them. Improving our understanding of these cliques is integral to preventing violence, solving crimes and suppressing activity.
Image 2 - Source: Adapted from Erikka Jones, Comprehensive Gang Models 2005
Approximately 130 individuals were identified as belonging to, or frequently associating with, the two gangs, predominantly aged 13-20.
In Enfield, we did not want to reduce this problem to a "gangs issue". Rather than target "gangs", we chose to look at individuals within these groups and decide on a case by case basis what would be the most suitable response to a particular individual in relation to their level of activity and involvement (particularly as not all "gang members" are criminally
active). This would require a mixture of prevention, intervention and enforcement targeted at gang members and their associates (who were both the victims and offenders).
It is important to target all levels of involvement and age groups - previous responses in other areas, and our own experience with previous gangs, have shown that enforcement alone can result in adverse effects, i.e. create a vacuum to be filled by younger up and coming gang members who may yet to have been identified or considered during periods of enforcement against older members.
A number of locations were identified as suffering from a disproportionate amount of offences; these were housing estates (projects) where members resided and fast-food shops in nearby commercial areas - crime generators. The members spend the majority of their time frequenting these areas therefore rivals know where they can find each other. These locations are consequently high risk areas for gang individuals and violent clashes. Furthermore, intelligence reports revealed that youths were concealing weapons at various points within these locations for use in robberies and violent incidents targeting rivals.
The Gangs Action Group (GAG) was developed as a response to address the potential for serious harm between rival groups of young people involved in gangs. It has been constructed in three phases:
- Understanding the local situation and identifying gang members (analysis)
- Working with partners to create intelligence profiles (information sharing)
- Management and monitoring of nominals and vulnerable locations (working group)
The main aims of the GAG are:
- Increase understanding amongst local practitioners
- Improve and encourage information sharing
- Reduce the incidence of violent exchanges between rival gang members
# Response
## Understanding the issue
This was done using a number of events. Key speakers from a variety of agencies, for example police, YOS, academics and local young people in affected areas were used to relay the reality of the gangs to partners and practitioners. One such event included Professor John Pitts (author of Reluctant Gangsters who has worked on gangs projects in other London areas) as a guest speaker for practitioners.
Four events were held for all agencies and partners who had contact with gang members and associates during the course of their work.
The first event was a cross-borough gangs symposium organised by the Local Safeguarding Children's Board. Here we found out the roles and responsibilities of each agency whilst local youths talked us through the gangs situation and the open source material available online.
The second event was a training seminar for practitioners which educated them on signs of gang membership, the characteristics and nature of local gangs, their relationships with rivals including those located out of borough.
Subsequent events were refresher seminar's for practitioners to keep them informed of the changing patterns, rivalries, alliances and activities of local gangs within the borough. We
also enlisted support from gang researchers Tara Young and Simon Hallsworth (London Metropolitan University, developers of the London Police gangs definition) to carry out an indepth needs assessment regarding young peoples life opportunities in Enfield.
# Profiles \& Information Sharing
Before the working group began, intelligence profiles were created for each person identified as a gang member or associate by an analyst whose role is specifically to support the GAG. An Information Sharing Protocol was devised to incorporate every agency that had contact with identified individuals, which was signed by representatives from both Enfield and neighbouring Haringey.
All available information was placed into a single document, an offender profile, for each individual. This contained a variety of intelligence, including:
- Property tenure, benefits information, cohabitants, rent arrears, council tax details
- Bail conditions, upcoming court appearances, release dates
- Details of ASB complaints on either individual or address
- Department for Working Pensions
- Educational information and school / college teacher reports
- Family Intervention Project details
- Health information, including CAMHS, psychology services, known presentations at A\&E for gang violence injuries
- Immigration status
- Individual and family information, i.e. YOS, social services, youth workers and youth services
- Police PNC, CAD, CRIS and CRIMINT information
- Probation interviews
- Risk management plan details (YOS/YISP)
- YOS asset interview responses, interviews with YOS gangs worker
- Vehicles owned, used
- Gang information - areas known to frequent, nominals associated with or offending with, nominals in conflict with, upcoming events / parties likely to attract or be attended by gang members
The above list is not exhaustive, each piece of information serves as a potential "push or pull" in dealing with individuals.
Image 3: Example of Offender Profile
# Meeting
The GAG meeting is used to monitor each individual. Individuals are tiered according to their most recent criminal or anti-social activity. Tiering includes three risk levels and a shadow list composed of individuals not coming to notice. Each individual is assessed and the most appropriate measure is allocated for that individual.
The GAG meeting takes place once every 5 weeks and is attended by the following agencies:
- Police
- Youth Offending Service
- Youth Support Services
- Youth Clubs
- School Principles (including colleges and pupil referral unit)
- Educational Welfare
- UK Borders Association
- Housing partners
- Probation
- Benefits
- Community representatives
- Community Safety Unit
- Community Safety ASB Team
- Social Care and Children's Services (Family Intervention Programme, Looked After Children etc.)
Any agency can make a referral if they are concerned that an individual may be at risk of being involved in gang offending. For each referral, the gangs analyst collates a profile (incorporating information from all those involved) and presents this to the group. The group then collectively decides if the new referral is suitable to be looked at by the GAG.
Where necessary subsequent multi-agency meetings regarding high risk cases are instigated from the GAG. A lead agency is identified to be accountable for each individual,
for example, if the individuals are on youth referral orders the YOS caseworkers take the lead for their actions; similarly if they are adults then probation or the police will take the lead - the most appropriate agency.
An action plan for each individual is drawn up at the meetings and reviewed monthly. The gang analyst is responsible for all co-ordination of the group and acts as a central point-ofcontact for gang-related intelligence, as well as keeping action plans and offender profiles updated.
# Actions plans (victims and offenders)
Each individual is assigned appropriate prevention, intervention or enforcement depending on their circumstances. These are tailored specifically to each individual and include measures such as intensive police attention, ASBO applications and moving individuals out of the borough. These are visually tracked against their offending in a timeline.
Image 4: Nominal offending timelines
# Prevention
Prevention work is aimed at the wider youth population and is delivered by services and projects already in place. This includes:
- Education in schools delivered by the Youth Engagement Panel regarding the dangers of knife crime, gangs and also training on confronting conflict
- Identify younger siblings/relatives of known gang members for YISP referrals
- Junior citizenship days (Police, CSU, YOS, ASB Team etc)
- Training practitioners
The prevention strands aim to reduce the flow of new gang membership through education of the entire adolescent population at-risk (through schools) and support of individuals at higher risk (siblings and relatives of known gang members). Although it is almost impossible to assess this impact, it is important that we attempt to deglamourise the culture as early as possible to either deter potential future gang membership, or to identify future gang members before they come to notice for criminal activity.
## Intervention
Interventions target peripheral members of the gangs, this includes friends and associates who may become victims because of where they live and who they associate with. Interventions included:
- Detached youth workers
- Joint home visits
- Targeted intervention - i.e. FIP
- YOS orders
- Youth Services
Interventions are aimed at deterring associates and young people living in risk estates from becoming involved with their local gangs. It includes visiting peripheral members and their parents who we suspect of gang involvement or associations who are yet to come to police attention for criminal activity, to warn of the dangers and ensure their parents are aware. Youth clubs and detached youths workers are located in areas of the borough associated with gang activity to promote pro-social endeavours.
# Suppression / Enforcement
Suppression and enforcement is used to deal with the most criminally active gang members.
- ASBOs
- Gang Injunctions
- Sentencing
These tactics rely on the use of available tools and legislation to curb / prevent offending and where necessary convict persistent nominals. Successful suppression indicators include no longer offending, compliance with interventions and orders, improved school / college attendance or access to legitimate employment, or arrest and conviction.
## Locations
The location activities are designed to address the collective behaviour of gangs that cause alarm, harassment and distress to the public and to reduce the risk they pose to themselves. The majority of gang members' time is spent loitering about in groups causing, or being perceived to be causing, anti-social behaviour. Whilst this behaviour is not always criminal it can have severe impact on others fear of crime and a detrimental impact on an area's
reputation. Furthermore, a known presence within these areas amongst rivals has meant they have become the setting for the majority of violent clashes, here we use:
- ASBOs
- Deployable Cameras
- Dispersals
- Intelligence-led targeted police patrols
- Place management
- Weapon Sweeps
These tactics are designed to restrict access and movement by either identified individuals (ASBOs, Injunctions) or groups of people generally (designated dispersals) within risk areas. It also involves managing these spaces by deployable CCTV, targeted patrols during historic peak periods, managing spaces, for example street lighting, removing gang graffiti and sweeping for offensive weapons.
# Assessment
When looking at individuals, success for the GAG can be considered as a reduction in offending and/or engagement in positive activities.
Successful examples include:
Member A was a prominent gang member involved in numerous offences including dog attacks and robberies. Through the GAG, significant intelligence on his activities was collated which enabled an ASBO to be obtained in 2010. Conditions included not to associate with known gang members and not to possess a dog. Since the ASBO, they have only once come to police attention for one offence, they have been engaging positively with
the YOS. By giving him an excuse not to associate with gang members, he has been able to successfully avoid being caught up in gang offending and is now attending college and has a part-time job.
Member B was a particularly violent individual who was well recognised amongst Enfield's youth as a high ranking gang member. An action plan which included intensive police attention being targeted around him was devised by the GAG. This was coupled with home visits to his parents by a dedicated gangs unit which learnt that he wished to attend college. His college application was supported through the GAG agencies, with the provision that offending would lead to permanent exclusion from college. Since joining college, he has not engaged in any further offending and currently has a $99 \%$ attendance rate.
Member C was widely recognised to be a gang leader, having been involved in serious offending since 2003. He was close to two murder victims in 2008 and involved in the sale of firearms in early 2010, an offence which earned a custodial sentence of almost a year. On his release, the GAG collated an intelligence package that demonstrated he was a high risk individual and were able to use this to ban him from entering Enfield. Since being out of the borough, Member C has not come to police notice, despite being closely monitored.
Member D was a young gang member known to be involved in numerous inter-gang conflicts which made him a vulnerable target. He was the victim of a violent robbery by three rival gang members. Through the GAG, two dedicated officers were assigned to support and act as a single point of contact for him. Through building a close relationship with Member D, he was encouraged to follow through with the offence and subsequently attended court several times to provide evidence against his attackers. Such an occurrence is quite rare due to the culture of 'no snitching' adopted by gang members. This resulted in a custodial sentence of almost six months for the perpetrator of the offence.
Member E was an individual known for frequent outbursts of violence and was often used by other gang members for protection. The YOS was designated as the GAG lead for Member E and through intensive support work, it was decided he was a vulnerable individual who was being exploited by other gang members to carry out criminal activities. Utilising systems and partnerships through the GAG, Member E was relocated to supported accommodation in non-gang territory out of Enfield. Since being out of the borough, Member E has been engaging positively and has expressed an interest in returning to education.
Member F was a prominent Enfield gang member who featured at the forefront of numerous gang rap-videos. The content of such videos included references to violent offences, either previously committed or planned as well as boasts of possessing large sums of drugs, money and weapons and other lyrics designed to antagonise rivals. The GAG action plan included joint home visits by the dedicated police gangs unit and the YOS. During visits he and his parents were shown the rap videos which he featured in. Following this, Member F's parents removed him from the country for a number of months to live with relatives in Europe. On his return, he was given tight boundaries and a curfew at home, and received frequent home visits by police. Since then, Member F has only been involved in one known offence, which represents a significant improvement over his previous behaviour.
| Period | Drugs | Poss.Off Weap | Robbery | Wounding | Other | Total | Avg. Per Nominal |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 2009 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 16 | 3 | 45 | 3 |
| 2010 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 25 | 1.7 |
| \% Change | +75.0 | -50.0 | -68.8 | -43.8 | -66.7 | -44.4 | |
Overall offending by tier one nominals reduced by $44.4 \%$ in 2010 - 4 of the 15 were not suspected or convicted for any offences in 2010
75\% of all YDA/GMG crimes and intelligence reports take place within defined areas
To address the collective activity of gang members in the main hotspots (see map above) a number of enforcement measures were used including:
- Domehawk cameras were fitted at the two main chicken shops where gang members from YDA and GMG loitered.
- A dispersal zone was active for 6-months throughout 2010 in both areas to prevent gathering in numbers.
- Weekly weapons sweeps were conducted in and around the hang-out areas jointly by police and estate managers. In Edmonton Green, bushes were trimmed back and flower beds used to conceal knives were removed - knife enabled offending within Edmonton Green declined $35 \%$.
- High-visibility police patrols were coordinated to the hotspots during the peak periods (days / times) of youth crime and ASB calls related to the gangs.
This combination of activities led to some notable decreases in crimes associated with local gangs in Edmonton and the EN3 postal district (see Table 3). Whilst serious crimes of GBH, Knife Crime and Robbery reduced there were increases in drugs offences. In some respects this is due to pro-active police activity targeting gang members and associates.
| Crime Type | 2009 | 2010 | Edmonton Green | EN3 Area |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Drugs | 205 | 254 | $+3 \%$ | $+30 \%$ |
| GBH / Stabbing | 41 | 23 | $-68 \%$ | $-23 \%$ |
| Knife Crime | 139 | 117 | $-35 \%$ | $0 \%$ |
| Robbery | 224 | 187 | $-27 \%$ | $-13 \%$ |
As demonstrated, the number of offences recorded in gang hotspot areas experienced significant reductions between 2009 and 2010. In particular, the most violent offences (GBH and Knife Crime) each experienced reductions of $44 \%$ and $16 \%$ respectively. Within the key gang area of Edmonton Green, these reductions were even greater at $68 \%$ and $35 \%$ respectively.
Comparing intelligence reports and youth knife injuries, the positive effects of the GAG are even more visible. Increasing intelligence reports from across the partners and monitoring of
open source has enabled us to quickly identify growing tensions between individuals from rival gangs. Quick identification can be acted upon appropriately giving more opportunity to prevent a critical incident. As can be seen from Chart 1 (below) increased and frequent intelligence as a result of monitoring correlates strongly with a reduction in knife injuries over the last year.
# Challenges
The current financial climate has lead to additional pressures on services which will impact detrimentally on the GAG. Removal or reduction of services involved in parenting support and social services will limit the support of our clientele, including diversionary activities currently available. More cohesive partnership is crucial to ensure best use of resources going forward.
The high number of offences which receive 'no further action (NFA)' disposals is of particular concern. One individual gang member alone received over twenty NFA's in the last three years, several of which were violent offences. A key way of addressing this would be closer liaison between front-line officers who deal with individuals on a regular basis and the CPS, to ensure that all gang flagged offences are dealt with in the context of gang tensions and the wider borough picture.
Supporting victims and witnesses of gang crime is a key challenge across London. Fear of reprisals and a lack of trust in police has lead to a 'no-snitching' culture. In order to overcome this, close work with victims is necessary to ensure they are supported before, during and after any criminal proceedings. Locally, a Victim Support worker has recently been appointed, who will be tasked through the GAG to support gang victims. This will be important in reducing the number of NFA's.
Whilst there is no single approach evidenced as of yet that can eradicate the problem of gangs (in almost one hundred years of practice) having a dedicated group to monitor the problem in Enfield has demonstrated that it can be controlled and suppressed using a joined up approach to integrated offender management.
Chart 1 - Intelligence Reports \& Youth Stabbings (Rolling 3Months)
WORD COUNT: 4,000
# Glossary
Accident \& Emergency (A\&E) - Department of Hospital
Acceptable Behaviour Contract - (ABC) Voluntary agreement between local authority and perpetrator of anti-social behaviour. Perpetrator commits to cease negative activity. Contract is monitored by local authority for 6-12 months.
Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) - Causing alarm, harassment or distress to residents by being a public nuisance (typical behaviours include loitering in large groups and behaving in a rowdy and inconsiderate way)
Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) - A civil court order lasting minimum of 2 years. Containing prohibitions forcing the holder to refrain from causing harassment alarm and distress to other citizens. Prohibitions are individually drafted to address the perpetrators offending profile. Breaches can lead to up to five years imprisonment.
Anti-Social Behaviour Unit or Team (ASB Unit) - Police and local authority agency set up to reduce anti-social behaviour and support victims.
CAD ASB - Computer Aided Despatch call data for incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour
Child \& Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) - Works with children and young adults identified as having mental health issues
Community Safety Unit (CSU) - Strategic body under The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, obligating local authorities and other agencies to work together with police agencies to address crime and disorder. Having a legal duty to publish a rolling crime reduction plan and to report back on its performance in achieving central government targets.
CRIMINT - Criminal Intelligence database
CRIS - Crime Recording Information System
Dispersal Zone - Designated geographical area whereby police can enforce against lowlevel behaviours such as gathering in groups - individuals can be asked to leave the geographical area (dispersal) if they are causing nuisance or have no reason to be there
Domehawk Camera - Portable CCTV cameras with peripheral vision and 360 degree movement capability
Edmonton - Area of north London within the borough of Enfield
Family Intervention Project (FIP) - Innovative local authority project to support chaotic families at risk of eviction. Families receive intensive practical support from social services and other local authority departments.
Gang Flagged - A crime report which has a code inputted within it to denote activity perpetrated by gang members or violence between gang members
Gang Injunction - An order against an individual aimed at reducing their risk from, or involvement in, serious violent crime
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) - Similar to 'aggravated assault', intent to cause serious injury through violence
Haringey - London borough in north London, neighbouring Enfield
Gangs Action Group
Goldstein Award Entry
2011
Housing Estate - Low cost state provided housing - projects
No Further Action (NFA) - Crime that results in no further action, usually as a result of not having enough evidence to convict an offender of a suspected crime
Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) - Uniformed Civilian Officers with limited enforcement powers .
Police National Computer (PNC) - A criminal record for an individual, referred to as PNC record
Safer Schools Officers - Met Police lead scheme implanting a police officer in participating secondary schools to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. Officers may become involved in discipline, welfare, arrival and dispersal issues.
Secondary School - High School (ages 11-18).
Youth Inclusion Support Panel (YISP) - Intervenes with youths considered to be at high risk of becoming offenders - reduce entry into the criminal justice system at an early age
Youth Offending Service (YOS) - Works with young people aged predominantly 10-17 who have been convicted of an offence
# References
1. Stickler, A. 2008. Guns and knives on the streets. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid 7773000/7773718.stm. Last accessed 26th May 2011.