You are in:

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

Autocrime performance

Report: 10
Date: 10 Jul 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report examines MPS performance in relation to autocrime, considering the number of offences and judicial disposals. It also views operational tactics that have been used to bring about successes alongside considering reasons for poor performance.

A. Recommendations

That the Committee notes the report.

B. Supporting information

Overview of financial year 2002/2003

1. The financial year 2002/2003 saw a total of 242,399 autocrime offences on London’s 32 boroughs (excluding Heathrow Airport), representing a 1% decrease on the previous financial year. This fares well considering the target for this period was to achieve a 0% increase and also whilst the operational focus has been on Operations Safer Streets and Safer Homes.

2. During the last financial year autocrime accounted for 23% of the MPS’ Total Notifiable Offences, making it the single largest contributor to overall crime levels ahead of other thefts and burglary.

3. The autocrime level for May was 202,275, giving a 7.5% year to date reduction. However, the 7% target remains challenging as this equates to current daily rate of 655 offences compared to a target rate of 611 from the remainder of the year. This can be seen in Appendix 1.

4. Over the last year, the six main contributors to the MPS autocrime total were Camden, Ealing, Lambeth, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Each experienced more than 10,000 autocrime offences last year and together accounted for more than a quarter (27%) of the MPS total. This does not represent much of a change on the previous year when all of the above boroughs with the exception of Tower Hamlets also exceeded the 10,000 offences point.

5. Camden and Tower Hamlets also feature prominently when the measure of performance is compared against every 1000 people of the borough’s population. The average number of incidents is 34 autocrime offences per 1000 population. Therefore, examining the data in Appendix 3, it would appear that there is a link to population density and perhaps links to deprivation. A comparison of autocrime rates can be seen in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4.

6. The worst performing boroughs in terms of autocrime levels were Harrow (21% rise), Kingston-upon-Thames, which saw an increase of around 15% and Tower Hamlets and Barnet, which both saw rises of 14%.

7. Tower Hamlets report that some of this increase could be attributable to the primary focus on Operation Safer Streets and then in the latter part of the year on Operation Safer Homes. The troublesome hotspot area around Royal London Hospital has continued to cause problems, especially with the emerging and growing trend of thefts of disabled badges. Also of note, has been an increase in thefts of number plates. This has occurred in the Bethnal Green area of the borough, which is close to the congestion charge boundary. However, previous borough analysis around either of these problems has been problematic as these stolen items cannot be easily identified on the Crime Recording System.

8. 19 boroughs experienced reductions on the previous year, the most notable of which was Bexley with 14%. Also of note were Wandsworth and Lambeth with 14% and 12% respectively. Bexley and Wandsworth were also two of only eight boroughs to experience a JD rate of more than 5%.

9. During the financial year 2002/2003 the MPS as a whole achieved a judicial disposal rate of 4% falling short of the target of 5%.

10. The ‘top five’ performers in terms of judicial disposal rates were Enfield (7%), Lewisham (6%), Haringey (6%), Wandsworth (5%) and Richmond-upon-Thames (5%). Analysis has shown no statistical link between those boroughs showing high judicial disposal rates and those showing crime reductions over 2002/2003.

11. Performance in each of the past five years mirrored each other in terms of peaks and troughs as shown in Appendix 2. Higher levels of autocrime have been consistently experienced in October, January and May. However, these increases occurred on all boroughs, during various months and in various years and consequently no one borough could be said to have caused major variations.

12. This pattern is almost replicated for youth autocrime offences with the main months of note being; October, April and May.

Borough variations

13. After consultation with TPHQ, the reasons for variations in performance are difficult to ascertain. Subsequent consultation with some boroughs showing good reductions revealed the following anecdotal information:

14. Enfield report that any initiatives that they ran were ad-hoc and infrequent and tended to focus on the borough’s main car parks, which were notorious for repeat victimisation.

15. Wandsworth have also not run any specific initiatives. However, one issue that the BIU proposed relates to local council action approximately a year ago. In response to the congestion charge, the council made many areas of Wandsworth borough permit parking. As a result people who used to commute from outside to the city and leave their cars parked in Wandsworth are now unable to do so. This could mean that there are less vulnerable cars to break into. In conjunction with this, there was a campaign to increase areas of double yellow lines and red routes, which would also have had an impact.

16. Haringey had a motor vehicle crime squad for the early part of the year, which may explain why JDs were higher at the start of the year on this borough. However, this was disbanded to form a crime squad.

17. Bexley have reported that they have not run any particular initiatives for a year. They have relied on patrols as a result of the weekly tasking process. Initiatives have focussed primarily on burglary and this could have affected autocrime.

18. Whilst some boroughs felt that OSH or OSS activity had impacted on autocrime, analysis carried out has shown that there are no conclusive links between the running of Operations Safer Streets/Homes and achievements in autocrime reductions.

19. An example of this would be Sutton borough, which has not run any initiatives and has not provided any extra resources or patrols, yet has achieved a reduction of almost 10%.

20. Other reasons for differences between the boroughs could include any of the following:

  • Staffing levels at each individual BOCU
  • Socio-demographic backgrounds
  • Borough area size
  • Car ownership by borough
  • Congestion charge
  • Use of borough for parking at specific times.

21. To date, TPHQ’s performance review procedure has focused on boroughs’ experiencing increases in street crime and burglary, in line with MPS operations. The review process discusses performance in the context of the Policing Model and therefore any action plan agreed would impact on broader aspects of performance.

Operation Safer Vehicles update

22. Operation Safer Vehicles (OSV) is currently being developed for launch in late July/early August 2003. Although, no specific funds have been allocated as yet, extra resources in the form of Territorial Support Group, Metropolitan Special Constabulary and Traffic OCU have been made available. The deployment of these resources, however, will remain a priority to Safer Streets boroughs. Additionally, OSV will have the following features:

  • Deployment of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), is viewed by the MPS as one of the key means of driving down vehicle crime across London. The MPS is part of Project Laser 2, which now sees five dedicated teams working across London being deployed in an intelligence-led capacity. To ensure the best use of the ANPR technology, a business case has been submitted to bring together a small team under the TP Crime Commands to co-ordinate policy development and best practice across the MPS.
  • Maximising forensic opportunities by removing suspect vehicles to car pound sites across London, these being located in Charlton and another yet to be confirmed in the West London area.
  • Intelligence led approach, maximising crime analysis of autocrime locations/hotspots, suspects and victims. This will be directed by TPHQ, who should be establishing a crime focus desk within its intelligence unit. Boroughs will be expected to consider whether a dedicated analytical capability should be devoted to autocrime.
  • Ownership of OSV will remain with BOCUs, who will be encouraged to form dedicated teams in order to deliver reductions in autocrime.
  • Partnership approach led by police but involving local authorities, car park operators and others.

Overview April and May 2003 (FYTD)

23. April and May have seen varied performance. After an initial reduction in April, the number of autocrime offences increased slightly in May, once again replicating the seasonal peak that has been seen in the previous five years. A breakdown of the boroughs’ performance can be seen in Appendix 5.

24. In both April and May, the major contributors to the MPS’ autocrime total were Camden, Islington and Newham. Of these boroughs, Islington is the most prominent - so far this year it has averaged 929 incidents per month compared to an average of 804 for the whole of last year. Additionally, it has become the worst performer in terms of number of crimes per 1000 borough population.

25. Comparing the first two months of the current financial year to the corresponding period last year, the following has been observed:

26. The largest volume increases were at Brent, which had 286 more incidents (+28%) and Sutton with a rise of 222 offences (+37%).

27. Conversely, the biggest volume falls were seen at Tower Hamlets, dropping by 474 incidents and Lambeth with a decrease of 448 offences. On both boroughs this equates to a 22% year-on-year decrease.

28. In terms of JDs, Haringey was the leading performer with a 12% JD rate for the first two months of the year. The nearest any other boroughs come close to this are Bromley with 7% and Westminster with 6%.

29. Islington, again appears in the bottom three for JD performance with a JD rate of under 3%, although this may relate to the recent increased offence levels. Also achieving under 3% were Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The diversity profile of autocrime participants has not been considered in this paper.

D. Financial implications

The initiatives detailed are planned within existing resources with the exception being ANPR, where a small growth bid has been submitted.

F. Contact details

Report author: Vinay Bhardwaj, Corporate Performance Analysis Unit

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: 2002/2003 and FYTD performance comparison

Autocrime performance compared to relevant target

Barchart showing autocrime performance

Appendix 2: Autocrime peaks and troughs over the past five years

Line graph showing autocrime historic trends for the past five financial years

Appendix 3: Autocrime performance by borough - financial year 2002–2003

BOCU name Autocrime offences % of total offences % Change on previous financial year Number of crimes per 1000 of pop JD rate
Barking & Dagenham 4675 1.93% -8.82% 28.52 4.34%
Barnet 7699 3.18% 14.01% 24.48 4.94%
Bexley 5645 2.33% -14.22% 25.86 5.01%
Brent 6618 2.73% -0.42% 25.12 3.63%
Bromley 8246 3.40% -4.36% 27.90 4.15%
Camden 11726 4.84% 2.78% 59.22 3.45%
Croydon 8077 3.33% -4.01% 24.43 4.67%
Ealing 10902 4.50% 6.55% 36.23 3.41%
Enfield 7517 3.10% 2.52% 27.48 6.84%
Greenwich 7444 3.07% 7.43% 34.72 4.12%
Hackney 9636 3.98% -1.61% 47.51 5.33%
Hammersmith & Fulham 7503 3.10% -7.63% 45.41 3.80%
Haringey 8915 3.68% -5.87% 41.18 5.50%
Harrow 4623 1.91% 21.34% 22.35 4.37%
Havering 5905 2.44% -7.37% 26.33 3.83%
Hillingdon 8155 3.36% -1.09% 33.56 3.51%
Hounslow 8025 3.31% 4.48% 37.79 3.64%
Islington 9650 3.98% 3.47% 54.89 3.45%
Kensington & Chelsea 5617 2.32% -1.58% 35.35 3.93%
Kingston upon Thames 2536 1.05% 15.22% 17.22 4.65%
Lambeth 10735 4.43% -12.37% 40.33 3.86%
Lewisham 6569 2.71% -5.64% 26.39 5.75%
Merton 3912 1.61% -3.72% 20.82 3.96%
Newham 11253 4.64% -3.49% 46.14 4.60%
Redbridge 7778 3.21% -9.54% 32.59 3.24%
Richmond upon Thames 4056 1.67% 10.73% 23.54 5.28%
Southwark 10531 4.34% -2.38% 43.01 3.30%
Sutton 3758 1.55% -9.97% 20.90 4.90%
Tower Hamlets 10924 4.51% 14.42% 55.70 3.12%
Waltham Forest 8016 3.31% 12.10% 36.71 3.51%
Wandsworth 7569 3.12% -13.57% 29.07 5.35%
Westminster 8184 3.38% -6.43% 45.14 5.03%

Appendix 4: Boston Box
Autocrime performance and trend comparison FY 2002-2003

Boston Box diagram

Explanation of Boston Box

Key

  1. Above average performance and improving
  2. Above average performance but in decline
  3. Below average performance but improving
  4. Below average performance and in decline

The vertical axis shows performance during the last financial year. Overall MPS performance is used to position the horizontal axis and those boroughs performing better than the MPS average are shown above this line.

The horizontal axis displays the trend and how last year’s performance compares with that of the previous year. Those boroughs whose performance was better than the MPS overall reduction are shown to the right of the line.

Appendix 5: Autocrime performance by borough – April & May 2003 (FYTD)

Borough name Autocrime offences % of total offences % change on previous financial year Number of crimes per 1000 of pop JD rate
Barking & Dagenham 861 2.16% 8.30% 5.25 4.30%
Barnet 1338 3.35% 21.20% 4.25 3.21%
Bexley 1013 2.54% -7.40% 4.64 3.46%
Brent 1310 3.28% 27.93% 4.97 3.51%
Bromley 1386 3.47% -9.71% 4.69 7.14%
Camden 1669 4.18% -14.28% 8.43 3.83%
Croydon 1307 3.27% -4.88% 3.95 4.06%
Ealing 1645 4.12% -13.92% 5.47 2.86%
Enfield 1284 3.22% -11.02% 4.69 4.83%
Greenwich 1402 3.51% 8.51% 6.54 4.28%
Hackney 1454 3.64% -23.03% 7.17 3.58%
Hammersmith & Fulham 1101 2.76% -18.87% 6.66 2.72%
Haringey 1389 3.48% -7.65% 6.42 12.53%
Harrow 731 1.83% -5.19% 3.53 3.15%
Havering 1046 2.62% -4.12% 4.66 3.82%
Hillingdon 1415 3.54% 3.66% 5.82 3.53%
Hounslow 1213 3.04% -15.06% 5.71 3.71%
Islington 1858 4.65% 10.20% 10.57 2.91%
Kensington & Chelsea 864 2.16% -24.61% 5.44 3.47%
Kingston upon Thames 481 1.20% 24.29% 3.27 4.78%
Lambeth 1579 3.95% -22.10% 5.93 4.50%
Lewisham 1227 3.07% 15.32% 4.93 5.54%
Merton 736 1.84% 27.12% 3.92 3.53%
Newham 1855 4.65% -1.80% 7.61 3.72%
Redbridge 1259 3.15% -19.19% 5.28 3.97%
Richmond upon Thames 563 1.41% -32.17% 3.27 4.62%
Southwark 1621 4.06% -12.61% 6.62 3.15%
Sutton 818 2.05% 37.25% 4.55 3.79%
Tower Hamlets 1667 4.17% -22.14% 8.50 4.68%
Waltham Forest 1360 3.41% -6.98% 6.23 3.46%
Wandsworth 1180 2.95% -23.97% 4.53 4.32%
Westminster 1302 3.26% -11.19% 7.18 5.84%

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback