Birmingham Feasibility Report: Community Research and Co-Design Partner for the Youth Endowment Fund

Birmingham Feasibility Report: Community Research and Co-Design Partner for the Youth Endowment Fund’s Neighbourhood Fund

August 2021

Birmingham Feasibility Report: Executive Summary Birmingham has been selected as one of five pilot areas for the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) Neighbourhood Fund Programme. The aim of the programme is to understand whether co-designing approaches with local communities to address specific challenges in relation to serious violence can work. The first part of the programme will run until July 2022 and involves: 1) An initial feasibility study 2) Co-designing the action community plan working closely with the selected location This report presents the findings of the feasibility study that, through the analysis of official data and with a focus on local intelligence and insight, highlights that Lozells and the surrounding area has the very highest and most immediate need. The findings of this feasibility study highlight that the programme of work should not be restricted by geographic boundaries, but should be focused on concentrations of violent activity, routes supporting this activity, and also include potential sources of community intervention.

Proposed area of focus for the YEF Neighbourhood Fund programme of work Based on the findings of this feasibility study, the proposed area of focus covers the whole of Lozells and the part of Newtown that borders the south and east of Lozells, from New John Street West north and to the west of New Town Row

The report also contains a number of considerations that are important to feed into the co-design stage of the programme.

Professor Laura Caulfield, Sophie Wilson, Dr Aleksandra Kazlowska, Dr John McDaniel, Alison Thompson, Debbie Kerslake, Clare Harewood, August 2021. With thanks to Angela Huggins, Nikki Penniston, Gail Gibbons and the YEF, all interviewees and data providers.

2

Contents 1.

Introduction and Research Questions ............................................................................................ 4

2.

Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.

Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 7

4.

Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 12

5.

Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 13

3

1. Introduction and Research Questions Birmingham has been selected as one of five pilot areas for the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) Neighbourhood Fund Programme. The aim of the programme is to understand whether co-designing approaches with local communities to address specific challenges in relation to serious violence can work. The YEF want to test whether such approaches are feasible and promising and if they can identify successful components to reduce the number of children and young people becoming involved in violence. This is an exciting opportunity for Birmingham, with the potential to bring in significant investment into one locality, to support the enactment of a locally developed and codesigned action plan.

The Birmingham Community Safety Partnership (BCSP) and the West Midlands Violence Reduction Unit (WMVRU) have been working closely with the YEF throughout the initial stages of the project development and are actively supporting the programme. We (BVSC Research, the University of Wolverhampton, & the University of Birmingham) have been appointed by the YEF as the Community Research and Co-Design Partner for the first part of the programme. We have an established working relationship with the WMVRU who, along with the BCSP, are providing advice and guidance throughout the programme of work.

The first part of the programme will run until July 2022 and involves: 1) An initial feasibility study 2) Co-designing the action community plan working closely with the selected location The feasibility study presented in this report proposes the hyper-local area where the ongoing work will be located. The feasibility study involved analysing data and intelligence gathering and engaging with statutory agencies and other commissioners to ensure that the future activity of the Neighbourhood Fund programme aligns with broader violence reduction strategies.

The feasibility study first involved reviewing existing official data sources to identify three high-need areas within Birmingham. The feasibility study presents a comparison of these three areas, based on local intelligence and insight, and outlines why the proposed area is the preferred location. The methods, findings, and proposals are outlined in this report.

Research questions   

What is the local need in terms of children committing violent crime?

How would work in the proposed locality align with key local violence reduction initiatives and related policy and strategy?

How would work in the proposed locality align with other activity in the area, and how would the Neighbourhood Fund activity add value to what is already being delivered locally

4

2. Methods The feasibility study has been conducted in two consecutive stages: a) Collation and review of existing official data sources, in order to identify the most high-need areas within Birmingham b) Interviews and evidence gathering to elicit local intelligence and insight about the identified high-need areas Official data sources We began our search by accessing and reviewing City and Ward level data sources. Our review quickly identified the detailed overlay of data conducted by the WMVRU as a suitable source to interrogate, without re-accessing the underlying datasets. In a Strategic Needs Assessment, the WMVRU had analysed and cross-tabulated several major datasets, and placed in rank order the top 100 units or neighbourhoods (out of 356 Middle Layer Super Output Areas1 in the West Midlands) on the basis of various risk factors for violence and volume of knife crime for the period January 2018 to November 2020.

To assess risk factors for violence the WMVRU had used a Risk Factor Index (RFI) that captures three factors considered to have the strongest correlations towards violence. These are: 1) rates of income deprivation affecting children, 2) rates of mental health and 3) pupils not achieving good development in early years. Each factor was attributed an equal weighting. The WMVRU then overlaid the top 100 neighbourhoods on the RFI (risk of violence) with the top 100 neighbourhoods for volume of knife crime (extent of violence).

We conducted a critical review of the WMVRU’s approach and methods, and considered possible alternative ways of analysing the data, and possible alternative data sources/considerations. Our approach was to interrogate the WMVRU’s analysis, noting the limitations of official data sets, but not explicitly judging the quality of the underlying data.

We set out to identify at least three areas, but were open to identifying more potential areas to be explored in the next stage of the feasibility study if led there by the data.

Local intelligence and insight Once the areas with the highest need had been identified through review of the official data sources, we moved on to gathering local intelligence and insight through interviews and evidence gathering.

An initial list of potential key informants was provided by our Single Points of Contact (SPOC) from the BCSP and WMVRU. We supplemented the list to broaden coverage of community organisations and knowledge across all three areas. Interviewees were sent an email invitation by one SPOC. We set out to conduct 15 interviews and achieved this number.

1

https://datadictionary.nhs.uk/nhs_business_definitions/middle_layer_super_output_area.html

5

Organisations represented by the 15 interview participants: Birmingham Youth Service, Birmingham Children’s Trust Empower U, Birmingham Children’s Trust Exploitations and Missing Team, Birmingham Children’s Trust Youth Offending Service, Birmingham Children’s Trust Birmingham Community Safety Partnership Local Delivery Partnership Group Birmingham West Neighbourhood Policing Unit, West Midlands Police Birmingham East Neighbourhood Policing Unit, West Midlands Police Birmingham Partnerships Community Engagement and Crime, West Midlands Police Offices of the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner West Midlands Violence Reduction Unit

We designed a semi-structured interview schedule, which asked about: perspectives on youth violence in the city and localities; strategies and activity to address youth violence; community assets and engagement; advantages and disadvantages of the area of focus; further key contacts and useful sources of intelligence. We were clear that the area of focus did not need to be restricted by geographic boundaries.

Ethics approval was granted by BVSC on 10th June 2021. Interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Interviewees were sent a copy of the information sheet and consent form to read in advance of the interview.

6

3. Key Findings a) Collation and review of existing official data sources, in order to identify the most high-need areas within Birmingham Taking data from the WMVRU Strategic Needs Assessment led us to identify three areas of Birmingham with high levels of need. The top 100 neighbourhoods on the Risk Factor Index (risk of violence) were overlaid with the top 100 neighbourhoods for volume of knife crime (extent of violence). Knife crime, in the dataset, included police recorded offences of homicide, attempted murder, threats to kill, assault with injury, robbery, rape and sexual assault, where a knife was involved (it did not include possession of knife or bladed article offences). Once the two ranking systems were overlaid, 47 neighbourhood matches were made (out of the top 100 neighbourhoods featuring on both).

The algorithm revealed that the highest-ranking neighbourhoods for risk of serious violence and knife crime in the West Midlands are: 1) Castle Vale; 2) Lozells West; 3) Frankley; 4) Sparkbrook North; and 5) Perry Common – College Road (in that order). Each of these neighbourhoods is in Birmingham (one of seven local authority areas in the West Midlands). The data indicates that among the top five neighbourhoods with the highest ranking for risk of youth violence and knife crime, Frankley (in 3rd place) is the area with deepest deprivation, and Lozells West (in 2nd place) suffers the highest rate of knife crime. Castle Vale has such high levels of both that it holds top spot for the entire West Midlands.

An alternative approach we considered was to take a regional view by grouping together the matched 47 neighbourhoods by proximity. This exercise would likely result in regions coming into sharp focus (Northwest – Lozells, Aston, Handsworth, Perry Bar, and East – Nechells, Bordsley Green). We could have selected one region and then identified two or three neighbourhoods within it as our priorities for scoping. Other alternative methods include ranking neighbourhoods using other datasets (such as sexual offences), or by employing a different ranking algorithm or selection criteria. We considered these approaches but a similar algorithm had been used by the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to identify neighbourhoods that have the highest risk profile for serious youth violence and knife crime so there is precedent for the method used by the WMVRU. We were also clear that in the next stage of the feasibility study we would not be rigidly bound to geographic boundaries if local intelligence and insight took us beyond this. Before moving on the next stage of the feasibility study we shared the findings with our SPOCs. The SPOCs fed back that the data appeared to point to future concerns in two of the areas compared to high levels of current need in the third area. The SPOCs provided further data sources for review. These data did not always provide the very detailed local level information required, thus highlighting the importance of the second stage of the feasibility study to gain hyper-local intelligence and insights.

Areas of highest need according to official data We consider it central to the YEF’s mission to focus on the most deprived and violence affected neighbourhoods as a matter of urgency. Based on our review of the official data, we proposed that the Castle Vale, Lozells West, and Frankley areas of Birmingham fit this description and these areas formed the focus of the next stage of the feasibility study.

7

The full report underpinning the first stage of the feasibility study is available on request from Professor Laura Caulfield l.caulfield@wlv.ac.uk

b) Interviews and evidence gathering to elicit local intelligence and insight about the identified high-need areas This section provides a summary of key findings from the 15 interviews. The interviews elicited very rich data. Below we present a summary of overarching information, followed by a section focused on each of the three areas identified in the first stage of the feasibility study.

Decision making criteria/factors/size: Benefits of working in a small, targeted area to better recognise local needs and provide adequate support; to have more visible and measurable impact; to test out approaches and interventions before scaling up, although this might limit the impact.

Possible focus on population size or an area (e.g. a housing estate, street, shopping centre). Not to be fixed on 'boundaries' (e.g. wards) because they are arbitrary, young people (YP) are mobile and youth violence does not happen within boundaries – a possible solution is to look at multiple wards but with targeted pieces of work. Focusing on one ward is not just and is only fixing one side of the issue. Postcodes can be more relevant for YP than wards. If the area has already had resources provided, evaluate rather than only put in more resources. Do not duplicate but use existing assets.

Important to choose an area with positive relations with statutory agencies.

Important needs and challenges: Deprivation and poverty (YP might need to make their income through crime), quality of housing, levels of unemployment, services in the area, the level of resources already invested, type of crime (weapons, gangs, county lines, exploitation, domestic abuse, substance misuse), gang culture, fear, and hopelessness. These issues, including hopelessness, may be felt by entire communities who can feel forgotten or misunderstood. Some lack of trust of statutory providers and concern about previous short-term initiatives.

Important considerations: baseline data needed, understanding of localities; perpetrators and victims might be not be from the area, some issues might happen outside but impact people from a given locality; some types of violence and victims might not be visible and reported for a variety of complex reasons; divisions and complex relationship between race, ethnicity and violence (types of issues, reporting) in terms of problems, impacts, engagement; services for some communities are lacking, statutory processes being responsive not preventative; data on wider criminality- not only violence - should be used (e.g. non-violent criminal activity, unreported crime); areas that have problems now and risk factors for the future (also recent changes due to Covid - personal robbery instead of shop-lifting, rise of domestic abuse and hate crime); ACEs and the vulnerability of YP (as victims or at risk/exposed to violence i.e. county lines, domestic abuse); school data is important (exclusions, children in alternative provision) and other data (e.g. children with parents/relatives in prison), important engagement with communities and co-production.

Suggested neighbourhoods/areas: Lozells West - the most highlighted, then Newtown, followed by Handsworth and Aston – they all are close geographically and with long-standing violence issues and similar types of crime, gang affiliations and decades of trauma; incidents in Lozells have an impact on Newtown and Aston and vice-versa; but contextual differences between them. Lozells has had a significant police investment (an ‘impact area’) so significant work already taking place by the police, 8

local authority and partner agencies. Newtown - similar violence issues as Lozells but ‘stark, fearful’, lots of social housing, vacuum of services, less social potential and community cohesion than in Lozells, fewer initiatives/projects in Newtown. Rivalry between wards, e.g. Lozells, bordering Aston, has the Lighthouse Centre but some Handsworth YP do not use it to avoid being targeted (although we note that one interviewee highlighted The Lighthouse Centre as an example of a youth centre that did cross boundaries). Handsworth and Newtown are believed to be able to make sustainable changes because communities want to see the change. When we explored with our interviewees the possibility of selecting Lozells West, Castle Vale and Frankly, our participants overwhelmingly felt that the latter two not seen as highly problematic. As one participant commented: "I would be very surprised if communities in Castle Vale and Frankley experience anywhere near the kind of level of violence that is seen in Lozells".

Lozells West Scale and nature of violence: high levels of crime (daily shootings, knife crime, hotspot area for violence and trauma, particularly those aged 13-16 affected); different type of crime (county lines, firearms, weapon carrying, drugs, robberies, sexual abuse); many 16 and over entrenched in violence – historically two very embedded gangs and now many smaller gangs with more fickle allegiances; important criminal activity “under the radar”; exposure of YP to violence (e.g. domestic violence) and most YP affected by violence rather than involved (more in ‘low level’ violence) and traumatised (e.g. fear of using open spaces, being caught up in incidents, exploited by adults).

Features and challenges: High deprivation and poverty (existing inequalities and hardship now exacerbated by Covid), unemployment, lack of opportunities and role models (particularly positive males); alcohol and substance misuse; the vulnerability of YP to being exposed and involved in criminal activity, targeted by social media and phones, groomed, peer pressure, and lack of support, ethnically diverse area, lack of cohesion (segregated communities, newcomers), but there are strong community and faith organisations, support and resources available to divert YP away from crime; many HMO as a challenge, limited youth services and activities (need for safe places), densely populated area, high-rise flats, ‘looks depressing’; traffic through the area surrounded by other problematic areas; lots of fear and trauma, which impacts behaviour (carrying a knife); high levels of undiagnosed and unsupported learning needs and mental health issues (these issues also mentioned in the context of Handsworth/Newtown); normalised criminal behaviours and hopelessness (e.g. drugs, the community focuses on rubbish on littering not more serious issues), gang culture and drill music as a contributing factor, kudos attached to criminality and prison experience; residents live a hyperlocal life and are unwilling to travel, gang rivalry (some YP will not go to activities in rival postcodes); police work – seen to be responding rather than preventing, low levels of trust in the police or their ability to control the streets, underreporting and desensitisation; different patterns of violence among different groups and levels of reporting (e.g. certain minorities report less sexual offences and domestic abuse, mistrust of black and Asian communities and resistance to engage); local hotspots: shooting and stabbings around Burbury Park (Lozells/Newtown), St George’s Park, Wheeler Street, goading or videos promoting gang activity in small parks, specific off-licenses and bookies, ASBOs being put on Rookery Road.

Mechanisms: work with under 16s less entrenched in crime, ACEs and all issues usually present at very young ages and but not resolved (no support), YP or families not engaging; some solutions are questioned e.g. stop and search (because communities do not want to be harassed but some are 9

desperate for changes and thus respond well to stop and search); organisations come and go so local residents sceptical and disillusioned; local organisations should be involved with more sustainable projects, better communication within the area is needed; crucial to listen to the community and build relationships, a wider partnership approach, important to work with families and parents; a more holistic and comprehensive approach is required (e.g. ‘now everything is very male-focused’), families should be better supported (e.g. one point of contact); children are better kept at school (exclusions make them more vulnerable).

Existing assets and activities: there is real social potential in the community, many organisations and substantial assets to build on; the importance of the WMVRU work and the Community Navigator (CN) (e.g. ACE training, CN is mapping all the services and pulling together different organisations to identify the issues, WMVRU has bolstered the youth service and offer more detached outreach); a large piece of work based in the Lighthouse Centre and a hub in Lozells for the whole city (diversionary activities and awareness trainings e.g. on knife-crime); the police in Lozells have some community engagement in the area (also PCSO schemes in primary schools, pop-up police stations), YOS is mapping what is happening across the city and offering wraparound support; Jonah’s Project – the network of organisations to share knowledge about YP; Empower U bringing together agencies to work around the agenda (including mapping work); informal activities to build relationships and trust (e.g. family fun day); work with parents group, primary schools attend the Lozells Community Forum looking at initiating change, the Oaklands Centre, Young Persons Engagement Officer to make sure that YP are safe on buses; faith based activities (at the Nishkam Centre), Cadet schemes, local activists (e.g. Hector Shakes leading parents movement, Rev. Jesmond Dadu who started a community forum in Handsworth which spread across Aston, Newtown and Lozells) two youth centres in Lozells, some local organisations e.g. Epiphany and Lozells Recreation Group, a gang mentoring organisation Solve, the Gang and Violence Commission has the list of grassroot organisations; three funded projects and two in pipeline for consideration (e.g. a proposal has been submitted to the gang unit by Empower U with a range of partners based on action research, training, support and development of plans to start in Newtown then roll out in other areas.

Advantages/disadvantage of selecting Lozells: the social and organisational potential; resources have been invested as a result of being an impact area – these are assets that might be built on but it would be difficult to measure an impact and other problematic areas do not see the same level of investment, e.g. Newtown or Aston; there is some idea but limited evidence about why previous initiatives have had limited impact; the extremely high levels of need - the area is hugely complex and thus very challenging.

Castle Vale Scale of nature of violence: the level of youth violence is not widely known, CV does not feature as a highly problematic place and not a priority area for the police; associated with issues around neglect, some missing children, inter-generational and domestic abuse, substance abuse, racism, anti-social behaviour (more than violence), sexual exploitation, the problem of knife-carrying; organised crime groups are more familial and YP from some British Asian groups are increasingly more likely to be involved in gangs; some time ago officers seconded into the taskforce team in relation to violence

10

and robberies (to get means for living or for drugs); although some YP involved in gangs but the main issue is anti-social behaviour.

Features and challenges: characterised as a predominantly white working-class area, with an unemployment problem, lots of social housing; quite a good infrastructure but lack of safe spaces; the data could point there because of higher reporting due to people’s attitudes, infrastructure and engagement; CV is quite spread out and sits on key transport routes - tactical for county lines, does not have centres; really close-knit communities, also social cohesion wise “a vacuum-packed society” – people come and stay; a quite challenging area and difficult to interact with for the police; less extreme poverty and deprivation and has had investments and regeneration (e.g. a new school), the housing association has worked to improve the housing stock.

Mechanisms: to create an environment which is safe and nice, uplift the area, the community must be taken on board and activated. One stop shops would be helpful, support of agencies to solve problems, important - different ways of engagement.

Existing assets: a good community feel, some outreach of youth services, quite a good infrastructure with the Pioneer Group, no specific plan or activity in relation to violence reduction, a generic approach including school liaison officers picking up youth violence, recently regenerated diversion activities have stopped because of Covid.

Advantages/disadvantages of selecting Castle Vale: would get buy-in, especially from education settings; currently fewer initiatives than some other areas; not so intense and complex issues as in Lozells – so less challenging to measure impact; not one of the ‘worst’ areas so could be more difficult to get responses from the police and other partners, no dedicated team that could work with the project, quite a big area with no easy to identify focused area, and the intervention should be focused.

Frankley Scale and nature of violence: felt to experience rather low level criminality and anti-social behaviour (street littering, neighbourhood disputes), domestic abuse and substance abuse, some gang related concern and the potential for it – needs ore around preventive work and emerging risk factors, knife issues and problems in parks, robberies and burglaries. Youth violence was more visible five years ago, exploitation is more in the periphery.

Features and challenges: a white working-class, deprived area, poverty - similar to CV; high levels of exclusions from school, in the case of some YP lack of parental and family support; disproportionality in stop and search figures among black and mixed-race boys.

Existing assets: a sense that the community is working together, e.g. they have started community meetings, WhatsApp groups. The WMVRU initiatives around the Three Estates near Frankley, in 2017 big investment to address gang violence across the south of the city.

Advantages/disadvantages of selecting Frankley: the community would feel safer, reduction in criminal damage, there is very little on offer in the area so the fund will probably make a significant difference and it would be easier to monitor and evaluate than in an impact area.

11

4. Recommendations Based on official data and local intelligence and insight it is clear that Lozells West and the surrounding area has the very highest and immediate need. The findings of this feasibility study highlight that the programme of work should not be restricted by geographic boundaries, but should be focused on concentrations of violent activity, routes and places supporting this activity, and also including potential sources of community intervention. The map below shows the proposed area of focus, but with some blurring of boundaries to acknowledge that a level of flexibility will be needed.

Proposed area of focus for the YEF Neighbourhood Fund programme of work Based on the findings of this feasibility study, the proposed area of focus covers the whole of Lozells and the part of Newtown that borders the south and east of Lozells, from New John Street West north and to the west of New Town Row

It is important to highlight that the WMVRU will be conducting focused work in Castle Vale and Frankley to ensure that robust violence prevention continues in those localities through their existing delivery team.

12

5. Considerations This section presents some key considerations raised during the interviews. It is important that this information – which, as the interviews were so rich in detail, often went beyond the scope of this feasibility study – is acknowledged and built upon.   









There was considerable support from interviewees for the community led approach being taken through this Neighbourhood Fund programme Based on experience, concerns were highlighted about any perception of people ‘parachuting in’ and not making sustainable changes We would have liked more representation from the voluntary and community sector in this feasibility study and engagement with these groups should be a key activity for the codesign stage Interviewees discussed a number of key community groups and organisations and useful contacts. During the Discovery and Co-Design phases we should review this list and contact these individuals as appropriate Another bid is currently being considered by the Gangs, Violence and Serious Organised Crime Operations Group, led by the Exploitations and Missing Team at the EmpowerU Hub of the Birmingham Children’s Trust. While this work is focussed across the whole of the North West Central area, it does potentially encompass our proposed location. It will be important for us to work closely with the team at the EmpowerU Hub The local Youth Service are also recipients of a YEF Grant to deliver a Peer Researcher programme across the city. We are in contact with the lead for this work, and should give consideration as to how recruited Peer Researchers could also be utilised in the Discovery Phase of our work, alongside our Community Researchers and our Youth Engagement Strategy The interviews identified that the Discovery and Co-Design phases should: o Note the potential of taking a life course approach, from nursery to parenthood o Acknowledge the significant impact of poverty and deprivation on families and communities o Recognise the grief, fear, and trauma apparent within families and communities as a result of youth violence o Include families and young people not directly involved with violence o Consider the local environment as a potential lever (e.g. parks for communities not crime) o Harness existing family/community led groups and initiatives o Work to break down siloed working between organisations in the area of focus o Accept the complexity and challenge of the programme of work o Foreground factors likely to generate co-design buy in through the Community Navigator role: Detailed knowledge and understanding of the community (legitimacy, relatability, connection); the qualities of the person in the role (trust & relationship builder; knowledgeable and understanding; compassionate; consensus builder)

13