January 2005 borough performance

Report: 5
Date: 17 March 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report follows the same format as the previous Borough Performance report, which was submitted to Planning, Performance and Review Committee (PPRC) in November 2004. It provides an overview of key volume crime indicators in each borough for the financial year to date i.e. April 2004 to January 2005 compared with April 2003 to January 2004.

A. Recommendations

That the report be noted.

B. Supporting information

Total Notifiable Offences (TNOs) (Appendix 1)

1. With ten months of the financial year completed, TNOs for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) as a whole stand at 864k - a 2.3% decrease on last year, equating to over 20,000 fewer offences.

2. Some boroughs are showing particularly large reductions in total notifiable offences, Newham has seen the number fall by 10.2%, and Camden by 9.8%. In all, 23 boroughs are showing reductions in overall crime in comparison to the same time last year.

3. While this leaves nine boroughs showing increases in TNOs, all but one show an increase of less than 10%. Lewisham is the exception: the number of offences there has grown by 13.9%.

4. In Lewisham borough, all of the major crime types (robbery, burglary and motor vehicle crime) are showing reductions, evidence that it is other types of crime that have contributed detrimentally to borough performance. In particular, violent crime has risen in Lewisham by 15%, which is the most likely cause for the overall increase in crime on the borough.

Robbery (Appendix 2)

5. Robbery offences are down 4.8% across the MPS as a whole over the financial year to date. The target set by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) was a robbery reduction of 11%. It is looking unlikely that this will be achieved, despite there being over 1,600 fewer robbery offences in the year to date. On the fifteen Operation Safer Streets boroughs, performance is better; a 7.8% reduction in robbery offences so far this year.

6. The best three performing boroughs are Haringey, Merton and Hackney, which are showing robbery reductions in excess of 22%. For Haringey in particular, as a high volume borough, this is an excellent performance: almost 600 fewer offences in this borough alone.

7. In contrast, Richmond (113 additional offences), Harrow (144 additional offences) and Hammersmith and Fulham (244 additional offences) performed most poorly this year. However, Richmond and Harrow are low volume boroughs and therefore more sensitive to changes in the number of offences yielding large percentage swings. In Hammersmith and Fulham, analysis suggests that a shift in the drug market towards West London may be a prime contributor in the rise in robbery offences. Indeed, the five boroughs (including Richmond and Harrow) with the largest increases in robbery are in West London. In December, Hammersmith and Fulham reorganised to be in a position to better address the increase in robbery, and subsequently there was a reduction in January; preliminary reports suggest this will continue in February.

8. Twenty boroughs in all are showing increases, or reductions smaller than the target. It is this general trend, rather than a few individual boroughs which is resulting in off-target performance for robbery reduction. With respect to detections, the target is being met on total detections (15.3% against 15% target).

Residential Burglary (Appendix 3)

9. The Metropolitan Police is performing well in reducing residential burglary. Overall, the number of recorded offences is down 7.9%, almost 4,500 fewer offences compared to last year. On the thirteen Operation Safer Homes boroughs, the figure is enhanced further: these boroughs together show an 8.4% decrease, well in excess of the target 7% reduction.

10. Boroughs performing well are Harrow (-22%), Enfield (-21.2%) and Lambeth (-17%). Lambeth borough’s performance has led to 541 fewer burglary offences being recorded so far in this financial year.

11. Richmond, Wandsworth and Barnet, by comparison have not performed so well: with 6.9%, 4.9% and 4.3% increases respectively; they are currently failing to meet the MPA target. This is compounded by the fact that Wandsworth and Barnet are Operation Safer Homes boroughs.

12. Harrow borough attribute their success to a combination of activity, including:

• More effective use of intelligence. By targeting priority offenders and linking other crimes to those offenders using intelligence, Harrow has achieved large reductions in burglary offences. The borough also has the highest TNO detection rate, a sign that intelligence-led policing is producing good results across the board
• identification of suspects through efficient processing of forensic evidence
• The use of high visibility policing, especially the deployment of PCSOs and Harrow’s six Safer Neighbourhood teams, in recognised crime hotspots
• Responding effectively to challenging tasking.

Motor Vehicle Crime (Appendix 4)

13. The MPA target of an 8% reduction is almost assured: current performance puts vehicle crime reductions at 13.5%, equating to over 18,000 fewer offences. Three boroughs in particular have been showing substantial reductions in vehicle crime this year: Islington (-34.8%), Camden (-34%) and Newham (-24.4%) are leading the field, as high volume boroughs, in cutting vehicle crime.

14. Motor vehicle crime has fallen in Islington as a result of the creation of a dedicated Motor Vehicle Crime Unit, set up in April to tackle thefts of vehicles, and other crimes in which the vehicles are used. This unit works closely with other units such as the telephone reporting bureau and scene examiners’ office to provide early response to reports of vehicle crime. This ensures the early preservation and collection of forensic evidence, which is prioritised and acted on by a dedicated team, leading to an increase in offender identifications and as a consequence, arrests. Vehicle crime reduction may have also been helped by an increase in visibility amongst police officers on the borough of 8.7% in the year to date, plus a greater use of proactive patrols in recognised crime hotspots. The result has been almost 2,300 fewer vehicle crime offences in the borough compared to last year.

15. Only four boroughs throughout the whole of London are showing increases in Motor Vehicle crime offences this year – a strong indicator that the general trend in vehicle crime offences across the MPS is downward. Of those boroughs which are showing increases in motor vehicle crime, only Hammersmith and Fulham (9%), Harrow (6.9%) and Barnet (5.9%) are of note. The one other borough with an increase in offences is Sutton – the number of offences here is up 0.9%.

Request for Police Authority Report: ‘Provide analysis of the impact of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CRDPs), looking at synergies and best practice’

16. It is clear that CDRPs can play a part in reducing the opportunity and risk factors relating to criminality. It is however difficult to provide any detailed analysis of the contribution made by CDRPs in reducing crime, there is little doubt they do make a significant contribution. There are many separate organisations involved, each have their own remit and methods. As a result no rounded performance picture currently exists. Further, performance is not always assessed against outputs. Although crime has fallen in the last few years, it is difficult to assess the direct contribution that CDRPs have made.

17. The introduction of Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) across London has started to address this issue; with performance indicators closely linked to local action plans, which are in turn linked to local priorities.

18. An example of where performance monitoring is starting to work is with the BCU and Building Safer Communities (BSC) funding streams. The financial spends are monitored and costs are balanced against outcomes. CDRPs are held accountable for the way the money is spent.

Examples

19. Significant contributions have been made by partners and CDRPs against Street Crime. It is unlikely that the outstanding results would have been made without the significant resources of CDRPs across the MPS. It is problematical to accurately identify the extent of this contribution, as there are various agencies across the MPS who support our enforcement role. The HMIC’s inspection of the Street Crime Initiative recognised that whilst most of the media headlines and ministerial focus concentrated on crime reduction, detection and enforcement, much partnership work was going on in other areas.

20. In summer 2004 an Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign took place and later that year Operation Optic involved many CDRPs in joint initiatives to tackle alcohol misuse and associated alcohol fuelled violence. The Police Standards Unit are now working to extend this initiative to cover violence in general and make best use of the Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary. It is important for CDRPs to be fully integrated in any such initiatives. CDRPs should be looking to include this as additional work when their strategies are launched in April 2005.

Synergy

21. The introduction of CDRPs has created a forum for the furtherance of partnership activity covering a broad range of community safety issues. Considerable progress has been made in recent years in integrating community safety issues into the mainstream activities of local authorities.

22. An example of this is provided by the Safer Schools Partnerships (SSPs), which have seen police officers posted to specific schools, forging good working partnerships with school staff and pupils. These officers are an additional resource and will be integrated into Safer Neighbourhood Teams as these teams develop. A full evaluation of the impact of SSPs has been undertaken by KPMG and has been subject to a separate briefing to MPA members.

23. Borough Crime Reduction Strategies to be published later this year, should give a much stronger indication of the contribution and successes of the local partnerships. These strategies are the result of extensive consultation at Borough level and joint priority setting between the Police, Local Authority and Statutory Partners. There is now strong pressure from the local priorities set through the work of Safer Neighbourhood Teams and the inclusions of these priorities within the CDRP strategy. There is emerging evidence that these strategies now link partners’ planned local activities with achievement of Home Office PSA targets.

24. One of the key issues for the new strategies is how to tackle prolific offenders. The Priority and Prolific Offenders (PPO) Strategy affords the MPS an ideal opportunity to work with the resources of the CDRPs on a relatively small number of individuals. This may have a dramatic impact on crime levels across London, which will not only be reflected in the performance of the MPS but also in the performance and confidence in CDRPs to achieve results.

25. Local Area Agreements (LAA) are intended to offer greater freedom and flexibility through the amalgamation of funding streams to achieve priority outcomes at a local level. They are being piloted in two Boroughs within the MPS, Hammersmith and Fulham and Greenwich (21 areas Nationally). LAAs are allowing Boroughs to agree on local solutions according to local needs. Within the MPS these appear to be closely linked to the work of Safer Neighbourhoods. Hammersmith and Fulham are currently finalising arrangements to use LAA funding to purchase two additional SNTs. LAA funding will also purchase some additional officers and PCSOs to supplement the numbers on two existing Safer Neighbourhoods teams on particularly challenging wards within the Borough. Greenwich Borough are compiling a bid for funding over the next two years for 6 PCSOs to work in local schools (in a similar way to current Safer Schools Partnership SSP officers). This is a new and innovative use of PCSOs and is still at an early stage of development.

26. Assistant Commissioner Brown is currently leading on a Service review for the Commissioner. This will look at redefining the Services operating practises according to the Commissioner’s new vision. It will look at the key drivers across all business units as well as Home Office PSAs, redirecting resources to the front line and Safer Neighbourhoods against performance, cost projects and partnerships. The partnership aspect of this will focus on the effectiveness of CDRPs and identify best working practices with the major service partners such as Criminal Justice Boards and Youth Justice Boards. It will also consider the role and development of business partners and other community partnerships.

27. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are used extensively in the United States and Canada. The basic concept is to allow the private sector to finance services over and above the level which can be reasonable be expected of the local authority or statutory agencies. These services are funded through a combination of voluntary contribution and a supplementary charge levied on the business rate. Primary legislation was enacted in 2003 (Local Government Act 2003) allowing these funds to be raised following a ballot of business in the area.

28. Now that the legislation is in place, a number of BID proposals are coming to the ballot stage. The first to submit to a ballot is the Kingston BID (called Kingston First). The ballot was successful in that a majority of those voting were in favour of the proposal. As a result all businesses in the BID area will be required to pay the additional levy.

30. A number of other BIDs will be subject to ballot in the coming months. These include: Bromley, New West End Company and the five central London BID proposals that comprise the ‘Circle Initiative’ - Piccadilly Circus Partnership, Better Bankside (Southwark), Pool of London Partnership, Holborn Business Partnership (Ballot in Feb 2005), Paddington Circle.

BIDS and Safer Neighbourhoods

31. As there is a particular focus on security and maintenance - in larger city BIDs - there are some obvious parallels for the agencies engaged in community safety. In North America there has been enthusiasm for the development of warden schemes as part of the BID activity. As a result of the level of commitment by the MPS in delivering the Safer Neighbourhoods programme, and given the clear and coordinated structure that this programme will give to the delivery of community based policing, as a matter of policy the MPS will only provide active support for those BIDs that utilise SNTs and/or PCSOs rather than developing separate warden schemes.

32. It would be appropriate to seek to engage BIDs in the delivery of a range of diversionary activities. This may include graffiti removal and/or litter patrols by young offenders or restorative justice programmes focusing on prevalent offences such as retail theft, alcohol related offending and criminal damage.

Tensions

33. The following are issues that may have implications for the police and or their statutory partners:

• BIDs can become a form of local government for the areas they cover.
• They can create a sense of privatisation of public space - wardens akin to shopping mall security staff.
• The baseline assessment must be careful and realistic. This is particularly so in terms of the timing of BID proposals and the roll out of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme:
• Will the SNTs be included in the baseline assessment.
• Is there potential tension between a newly formed SNT seeking to establish itself alongside BID wardens.

34. In addition, baseline assessment should include SLAs relating to the extra demand created by the increased visible presence.

• They may create pressure from non-BID areas, including potential displacement.
• Their focus is clearly the benefit of the businesses, which may not always mirror the broader needs of a neighbourhood. For example, some elements of social service provision may be seen as detrimental to private business interest.
• There are different interest groups involved in developing BIDs, including, the private sector (Central London Partnership - Circle Initiative), Association of Town Centre Managers and the London Development Agency. It has been identified that there may be an underlying tension in the way that each of these bodies conceptualise the BID: Schemes sponsored by those whose focus is the civic management of public space may be established with different criteria from those sponsored by the private sector where the benefits for business are paramount.
• The degree of control achieved by employing wardens as opposed to PCSOs may mean that the former is the preferred option for BID managers.
• They are not co-terminus with local authority wards or Safer Neighbourhood areas.

Conclusion

35. The success of the Kingston ballot, considerably improves the chances for the other proposals. The emphasis on security and streetscape maintenance offers both opportunities and challenges. A question may be asked in respect of the application of Sec. 17 Crime and Disorder Act, which currently relates to statutory bodies and their duties in respect of the reduction of crime and disorder. BIDs will be engaged in activities that have implications for crime and disorder and will do this, at least in part, through spending tax revenue. Given the current review of Sec 17, the MPS are lobbying for the inclusion of BIDs within this provision.

36. The MPS is supportive of the BID concept. However, It must be remembered that it has implications for the policing of public space. As a result of the major investment, in terms of resources and organisational structure, being made by the MPS with the Safer Neighbourhoods programme, a strong stand must be taken in order to encourage BIDs to purchase PCSOs rather than developing warden schemes. This can be done without prejudice to the integrity of the BID process and will allow the resulting teams to draw on the considerable organisational resources and support of the MPS, which in itself will constitute a significant contribution to the BIDs.

C. Race and equality impact

Although there were varying borough performances, the MPS remains committed to making the whole of London safer. Furthermore, implications of performance against individual targets are considered in the in-depth performance report throughout the year, which examine performance at the corporate level.

D. Financial implications

None.

E. Background papers

• Borough Performance (presented to PPRC July 2004 and November 2004).

F. Contact details

Report authors:  James Bennett, Performance Analyst, Corporate Performance Group and Detective Chief Inspector David Palmer, Territorial Policing.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback