Performance report: street crime

Report: 09
Date: 11 November 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report has been prepared for the November meeting of the MPA's Planning Performance and Review Committee. The report focuses on street crime performance over the first six months of 2002/03, and compares performance across safer streets, and non safer streets boroughs.

A. Recommendation

Members are asked to note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

MPS performance against street crime targets 2002/03

1. MPS targets for 2002/03 are to prevent any increase in the level of street crime offences compared with 2001/02 and to achieve a judicial disposal (JD) rate of 10%.

Offences

2. Yearly street crime levels are shown in the chart below:

Graph 1: Yearly street crime levels
This graph is available from the MPA.

Yearly street crime levels

3. Following the large increases in street crime over recent years, there has been an 11.2% reduction in street crime offences during 2002/03 (Apr – Sep) compared with the corresponding period in 2001/02. The month-by-month variation in offences is shown in the following chart:

Graph 2: Street crime offences by month
This graph is available from the MPA.

Street crime offences by month

4. Operation Safer Streets was introduced in February 2002. Phase 1 ran between February and March 2002 on nine boroughs. Phase 2, which included an additional six boroughs, was implemented mid-April and will run for a year. A closer look at performance across safer streets and non-safer streets boroughs is at paragraphs 7-10.

Judicial Disposals

5. The JD rate for Apr – Sep 2002 stands at 9.2% against a target of 10%. This is an improvement over the rates during 2000/01 and 2001/02 (8.2% and 8.0% respectively) however not yet up with the target. On a month-by-month basis, the JD rate in 2002/03 has stayed relatively steady, varying between 8.4% (Aug-02) and 10.2% (Jul-02). In 2001/02 the variation in JD rate was much wider, fluctuating between 6.3% and 11.0%. This perhaps indicates a more consistent effort in 2002/03.

6. A breakdown of the JD rate (into charge, caution, and previously recorded cases taken into consideration at court (TIC (PR)) shows that the increase in JD rate has stemmed mainly from an increase in the number of charges (8.3% compared with 7.2% in 2001/02). It is also of note that the use of other types of clear-ups has fallen to 0.6% from 1.2% two years ago (examples of these clear-ups include: where the accused dies before proceedings can be started / completed, or where the guilt of the accused is clear but the victim refuses, or is unable to give evidence). The breakdown of JDs and other clear-ups is shown in the chart below:

Graph 3: Street crime clearups - by type
This graph is available from the MPA.

Safer streets and borough level performance

7. As mentioned previously, phase two of operation Safer Streets commenced mid-April 2002. Phase one had focussed on nine boroughs with the highest rates of offences in the MPS (Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Westminster). Phase two of the operation included six additional boroughs (Croydon, Ealing, Lewisham, Newham, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth). A comparison of performance between Safer Streets and non Safer Streets boroughs shows the following:

8. The table above shows that the largest reductions in street crime relate to the original nine safer streets boroughs. The additional six safer streets boroughs have in fact shown an increase in offences over the six-month comparison period. Comparison over the four months (Jun – Sep) in 2002 and 2001 shows a small (-0.8%) reduction across these six boroughs (MPS -15.4% reduction). This may indicate that safer streets has taken longer to impact on the additional six boroughs, in line with the less resource intensive operation.

9. Whilst the JD rate on the original nine safer streets boroughs is lower than that for non-safer streets boroughs, the rate has shown the greatest improvement on 2001/02 figures (+1.8%). The final row shows a comparison relating to charges –earlier shown to account for the majority of the rise in JDs between the years (paragraph 6) – this again shows that the rise has stemmed from improvements on the safer streets boroughs.

10. A full comparison of borough performance is shown in the Boston Boxes and related tables attached at Appendix 1 and 2.

Reviewing of Safer Streets

11. A report carried out by the Strategic Research Unit at TP "Reviewing of Safer Street in Four Boroughs: A Qualitative Scoping Project" explored local approaches to Operation Safer Streets in order to explain borough performance. The four boroughs included in the review were Brent, Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark. (These boroughs currently show crime reduction of between 2% and 36% over the six-month comparison period.) The report focused on phase one of safer streets, but as phase two was in operation at the time of the research it also took account of phase two activities and included data up to July 2002.

12. The report summarised the following critical success factors in connection with the operation:

• The review suggests that local operations that were managed by a key individual who was aware of the activity and problems on the borough were effective. An integrated, focused approach to Safer Streets was essential.
• It was important for the borough to have a good understanding of the nature of their robbery problems so that the appropriate resources could be matched to tackling crimes.
• The operation was enforcement-led and success relied on the hard work and commitment of local officers. Therefore, local leadership to develop knowledge and maintain enthusiasm was critical to success.

13. MPS Inspectorate are also in the final stages of completing an inspection of good practice around Safer Streets, which will help to inform why this success has occurred. The inspections aims were to examine the impact of the initiative, to highlight what worked well, and to detail any areas of concern.

Impact of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on robbery

14. A six-month calculation of the impact of NCRS using Home Office methodology has estimated the increase in Total Notifiable Offences to be around 13%. Application of a confidence interval (at 95%) to this calculation however indicates that the true value can only be estimated as lying somewhere between 5% and 20%. Since the numbers of robberies are much lower than TNOs, the confidence interval obtained relating to robbery is consequently much wider and it is therefore not possible at this stage to draw any conclusion from the calculation. (The impact on robbery is estimated to be 5% but with a confidence interval of between –51% to + 61%)

The relationship between robbery of personal property, snatch, and pickpocketing

15. The Planning, Performance and Review Committee have previously noted an increase in pickpocketing during the last year. Pickpocketing has risen by 34% over the six months Apr – Sep 2002 compared with the same period in 2001. The rise on safer streets boroughs has been 35% compared with 31% on non safer streets boroughs. The chart below shows levels of pickpocketing since April 1998, and compares this with the two elements of street crime (robbery of personal property and snatch):

Graph 4: Pickpocket offences since Apr 98 - shown against personal robbery and snatch
This graph is available from the MPA.

16. This chart shows that the origin of the recent increase in pickpocketing occurred in December 2001 – before the introduction of safer streets. Similarly it should also be noted that the origin of the increase again occurred before the introduction of NCRS. It is also of note that whilst the biggest reductions in street crime relate to robbery of personal property (an 18% reduction over the comparison period), snatch offences have remained relatively steady and have reduced by a more modest 6%.

17. Concern has been expressed that some street crime offences may be being misclassified as pickpocketing. It would be expected however that this would bring about a larger drop in snatch offences (which are closer in definition to pickpocketing) than in robbery of personal property. A sampling of 50 crime records by Territorial Policing on those boroughs with the highest increases over the period Apr – Jun 2002 did not reveal any evidence of misclassification of records. The variations in pickpocketing levels between boroughs however vary greatly and the MPS will continue to monitor those boroughs with exceptional increases in pickpocketing.

Street crime comparisons relating to the ten street crime forces

18. In March 2002 the Home Secretary announced the Street Crime Initiative, which focuses on the ten police force areas that together accounted for over 80% of robbery offences in 2001/02. The Home Office published results to the end of September on 14th October. The following table shows the variations in robbery (personal property and business property) for the ten forces. (Note that a comparison relating to robbery is shown as street crime data did not exist for other forces prior to commencement of the initiative):

19. The reductions in the MPS have made a major contribution to the achievement of a reduction across the ten street crime initiative forces as a whole. The combined reduction relating to the nine forces excluding the MPS is 2%.

Diversity issues relating to street crime

20. Variations between safer streets and non-safer streets boroughs in relation to suspects / accused of street crime and those stopped and searched have been compared. As reported previously, stop and search activity relating to street crime cannot specifically be identified. (The breakdown of reasons for carrying out stop/searches are: firearms, drugs, offensive weapons, stolen property, going equipped, other). Overall stop/search figures have therefore been compared pre / post Safer Streets, and are shown in the following table:

* most recent months data will be subject to future revision

21. This shows that the main increase in the use of stop and search has occurred on Safer Streets boroughs. Large increases relate to both ethnic minority people and to white people. The MPS as a whole however does show a noticeably greater increase in stop searches relating to ethnic minority people.

22. The table above shows the proportions of ethnic minority and white people stopped and searched (note: this table excludes data where ethnicity is unknown). The proportions have stayed broadly similar, with the proportion of ethnic minority people stop/searched having increased slightly in both safer streets and non safer streets boroughs.

23. The two tables above show the proportion of ethnic minority people and white people who appear as suspects on CRIS, and as accused on CRIS, broken down by safer streets and non safer street boroughs. This shows a slight shift in proportions between Apr - Sep 2002 and 2001, in this case with a slightly greater proportion of white people as both suspects and accused.

24. The Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board will wish to consider the above analysis. Additionally, the need for further work around diversity issues in relation to street crime has been identified by the London Street Crime Management Board and is being taken forward by a multi-agency group.

C. Equalities and diversity implications

There are no equality and diversity implications arising from this report.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

E. Background papers

• Reviewing Safer Street in Four Boroughs: a Qualitative Scoping Project (2002). Strategic Research Unit, Territorial Policing.
• Street Crime Initiative: Figures to the End of September (2002). Home Office Street Crime Action Team.

F. Contact details

Report author: Lesley Nichols, MPS.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback