Borough performance: 2005/06 financial year (April to December)

Report: 9
Date: 13 February 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report reflects the requirements outlined by members following the Borough Performance report presented to Planning, Performance and Review Committee (PPRC) on 13 October 2005. It provides an overview of the key volume crime indicators in each borough for the financial year to date i.e. April 2005 to December 2005 compared with April 2004 to December 2004. Home Office iQuanta data is currently updated to December 2005. Comment is also made on the remedial work in under-performing boroughs, the dissemination of good practice, the type and effectiveness of support, the effectiveness and expectations of Safer Neighbourhoods and on other factors influencing borough performance.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Total Notifiable Offences (Appendix 2)

1. By the end of December 2005, Total Notifiable Offences (TNOs) across the whole of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) were down by 2.8%, over 21,000 fewer offences so far this year. Additionally, in every month since May the volume of offences has been a five year low for each particular month.

2. On the Home Office iQuanta tables, the MPS is showing as ‘in line with peers’ (three months to December) with ‘no apparent change’. This equates to a victimisation rate of 33.1 crimes per 1,000 population, which is the same rate as in Greater Manchester. West Midlands is the best placed in the group with a rate of 28.1 (see Appendix 1).

3. Any boroughs that are shown as ‘worse than peers’ and ‘deteriorating’ on the iQuanta overview chart for ‘all crimes’ i.e. TNOs and/or ‘British Crime Survey (BCS) comparator’ crime may be at risk of Policing Standards Unit (PSU) attention or intervention. At the end of December 2005, no MPS borough fell into this category for ‘all crimes’. Since the last update, Camden has joined Haringey, Islington, Newham and Westminster showing as ‘worse than peers’, whereas Lambeth has moved up into the ‘in line with peers’ category.

4. It is possible for a borough to be achieving a reduction but still be shown as worse than peers on iQuanta. The former relates to their change from the previous year, regardless of how well or badly they performed last year, and is not linked to any other borough’s performance. The latter relates to victimisation rates in relation to their peer group and their position is influenced not only by their own performance, but also by the performance of their peers.

5. For example, Camden is recording a 7.2% reduction in total offences (and this follows an 11% reduction last year). However, it is still shown as 'worse than peers' on iQuanta, because its victimisation rate is still higher than most of its group (49.6 per 1,000 population against a group average of 40.2). The recent reductions are reflected in the overview chart where it is shown as improving. It would need to reduce crime at a better rate than the group average in order to move to the 'in line with peers' category. In fact, it could improve its position on iQuanta without actually reducing crime, if its peer average were to rise.

6. Twenty-two boroughs have now recorded fewer TNOs so far this year. Boroughs of note in terms of larger reductions are Tower Hamlets (-10%, 2.9k offences), Westminster (-9%, 5.7k offences) and Kensington & Chelsea (-9%, 1.9k offences).

7. Total crime has risen in the financial year on just ten London boroughs, and only on two is this increase greater than 5%. These are Newham (+8%, 2.3k offences) and Waltham Forest (+5%, 1.2k offences). Both recorded reductions of at least -5% in 2004/05.

8. Newham’s increase stems from a rise in all three of the old priority crime areas with robbery up 34%, residential burglary up 45% and vehicle crime up 11%. This accounts for an extra 1,565 offences, around three quarters of the overall increase.

9. On iQuanta Newham is currently shown as ‘worse than peers’ with ‘no apparent change’.

10. Similarly, in Waltham Forest there has been increases in robbery, residential burglary and vehicle crime (751 more offences), but a further increase of 832 offences in violence against the person (VAP) is also significant. Nearly half of this relates to an increase in harassment (409 more offences), with most of the remainder in wounding and common assault (396 more offences).

11. iQuanta is showing Waltham Forest as ‘in line with peers’ but ‘deteriorating’.

12. Good performance on Tower Hamlets is being driven by large reductions in criminal damage, vehicle crime and fraud.

13. Good performance on Westminster is being driven by large reductions in wounding and common assault, criminal damage, pickpockets and fraud.

14. Good performance on Kensington & Chelsea is being driven by large reductions in residential burglary, thefts, criminal damage and fraud.

Robbery (Appendix 3)

15. Across the MPS, robbery to the end of December 2005 was up by 14.8%, an additional 4,294 offences. After three successive years of robbery reductions up to last year, the April to December volume this year is the highest since 2001. Though the current performance figure is a slight improvement from the last update (+16.2% at the end of August), recent levels remain above last year.

16. In the three months to December 2005, the MPS position on iQuanta is unchanged. The force is shown as the poorest performer against its most similar forces with a victimisation rate of 1.5 offences per 1,000 population. This remains well above the West Midlands which is placed next on 0.9 offences per 1,000 population.

17. Just three boroughs are currently recording a reduction in robbery offences, these being Hammersmith & Fulham (-10%), Hackney (-7%) and Camden (-6%). In both Hackney and Camden, this is the fourth successive year of robbery reductions.

18. The most notable robbery increases are still being recorded in Haringey (+61%, 581 offences), Waltham Forest (+34%, 447 offences) and Newham (+34%, 480 offences). Waltham Forest and Newham are both recording five-year highs for the April to December period.

Street Crime (Appendix 4)

19. Street Crime (personal robbery plus snatch theft) is currently up by 10.4% (4,046 more offences) across the MPS, which is the same performance position as at the end of August. Despite three years of reductions up to last year, the April to December figure is now higher than both of the last two financial years, and only just below the 2002/03 total. It is still, however, 18% below the street crime peak year of 2001/02.

20. As with robbery, there are just three boroughs recording reductions, though Camden has slipped from –18% at the end of August to –3% by the end of December. Hackney (-11%) and Hammersmith & Fulham (-10%) are the other boroughs. Sutton is now recording the greatest increase in offences (+62%) though as a low volume borough this is only an extra 121 offences. The most significant volume increase has been on Haringey (+47%, 635 offences), though the current financial year total is still below any of the years previous to 2004/05.

Residential Burglary (Appendix 5)

21. Residential Burglary is up 2.9% (1,354 offences), which is a slight deterioration in performance since the last update (+1.6% at the end of August). However, this follows a long period of burglary reductions, and levels are still well below those of the six years prior to 2004.

22. For the three months to December, the MPS is a little above its most similar force average on iQuanta, having slipped to second worst in the group with a victimisation rate of 5.5 offences per 1,000 households. Only Greater Manchester had a higher victimisation rate, with 5.9 offences per 1,000 households.

23. The most notable reductions have been in Wandsworth (-18%, 356 offences), Lewisham (-12%, 226 offences) and Kensington & Chelsea (-12%, 155 offences). All are recording a five-year low in residential burglary offending for April to December.

24. 18 boroughs are recording increases so far this year, the most significant of which are Newham (+45%, 618 offences), Bexley (30%, 206 offences) and Tower Hamlets (29%, 375 offences). In the case of Newham, the December total was a five-year high for that month.

Motor Vehicle Crime (Appendix 6)

25. With a 14% reduction and the lowest levels in over six years, motor vehicle crime was an area of key success for the MPS in 2004/05. Although there has been no further reduction this year, last year’s levels have been maintained (no FYTD change).

26. The MPS no longer sits as worst in its most similar force group, with the victimisation rate of 4.7 offences per 1,000 population now just a little away from the group average of 4.6. West Midlands is placed best in the group with a rate of 4.0 per 1,000 population.

27. Hammersmith & Fulham (-38%, 658 offences), Enfield (-13%, 481) and Ealing (-12%, 663) have recorded the best reductions so far this year, and are all recording a five-year low in vehicle crime offences.

28. There are now no increases in excess of 20% and though the biggest rises are still on Barnet (+19%, 784 offences) and Islington (+16%, 605 offences), performance on both has improved since August. In the case of Islington, it achieved a big reduction in offences last year, and current levels are well below any of the previous three years. In Barnet this will be the fourth successive year of vehicle crime increases and it is now the highest volume contributor in the MPS.

29. Within vehicle crime, thefts of vehicles have continued to fall (-6.3% FYTD change). The rise in thefts from vehicles (+3.4%), the first increase in over six years, is still preventing an overall reduction this year.

Comment on the remedial work that the centre is doing with boroughs that are struggling with performance

30. The previous report outlined the range of central support available for Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs) that are facing performance challenges in one or more crime types. It summarised the TP Performance Unit (TPPU) processes for identifying poor performance and explained the hierarchy of performance interventions and visits that has been established within TP. It also showed the central support provided by the TP Crime Squad, Emerald and Forensic Science Services.

31. Recent visits to BOCUs during January have included Greenwich and Tower Hamlets by Assistant Commissioner Godwin and Islington and Barnet by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Paddick. Each visit is supported by extensive analysis and research by the TPPU and an action plan is agreed with the borough commander that will be revisited in three months time.

32. Operation Autumn was set up at Newham to tackle the rise in street crime. Operation Strongbox, a similar process, commenced at Waltham Forest in early December and provided the borough with an additional 100 officers per-day. In just over a month, 872 arrests have been made, of which 300 were a direct result of the initiative. Arrests ranged from possession of controlled substances with intent to supply, possession of bladed weapons, firearm offences and robbery.

33. During this period the borough deployed additional units, such as Territorial Support Group, Traffic Tasking Teams, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Teams, Mounted Branch, Air Support Unit, Dog Section, Transport for London officers, British Transport Police, Revenue Inspection Teams and Surveillance Teams.

34. Operation Halifax V (17.10.05 – 07.11.05) targeted fail to appear warrants resulting in a PYTD decrease of outstanding warrants by 20%. Operation Halifax VI (21.11.05 – 11.12.05) was then implemented to target offenders identified on DNA and fingerprint dockets.

35. Where an individual borough is facing a particularly challenging performance environment, a package of support is put in place. This begins with process improvements in relation to intelligence, tasking, deployment and evaluation. There is a specialist ‘Borough Support Team’ within TP Crime Directorate who conduct this work. Once systems and processes are quality assured, central operational resources are focussed on that particular borough.

36. The Team have been deployed at Newham, Lewisham and Waltham Forest to review and evaluate their intelligence structures. For the latter two BOCUs, having identified critical areas the team provided support in a controlled manner and within an agreed timescale. This entailed working with one or two modules of the intelligence unit and improving delivery in this area. The team will not disengage from a BOCU until they are satisfied that its intelligence processes are fully National Intelligence Model (NIM) compliant.

37. In relation to motor vehicle crime, Commander Jarman is co-ordinating the borough response to the vehicle crime rate increase in the northwest, and his gold group is pooling resources to identify and progress solutions. Of particular focus at present are thefts of satellite navigation systems and thefts of number plates.

38. Haringey have identified the problem of illicit tow trucks and has mounted an operation to focus on them, utilising Traffic Operational Command Unit resources to issue PG9s (unroadworthiness certificates).

39. Six boroughs where most impact can be delivered have been identified (Brent, Ealing, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets). They are now supported by resources from Central Operations, are intelligence-led and directed to target locations and offenders (a similar approach to Operation Challenger). Intelligence managers from the boroughs meet regularly with tactical advisors and staff from TPHQ to ensure the deployments remain relevant, targeted and effective. This activity is supported by around £1.25m taken from a variety of sources including the TP Contingency Fund. Outcomes will be monitored and managed at Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) level.

40. The establishment of Victim and Witness Units on every borough (due for completion summer 2006) will ensure that the best service possible is provided to those who we require to support successful prosecutions. This should have the effect of improving confidence in the process.

41. A review will shortly be undertaken of the Prolific and Persistent Offender (PPO) Scheme. This will ensure that the right people are identified and receive the benefits of PPO status.

42. Operation Anchorage is now underway to maximise the returns from fingerprint and DNA identifications. This is looking to improve further the speed at which the MPS actions such identifications. Those identified or otherwise wanted for offences of burglary and robbery will be targeted as part of this operation. The tactics will include rapid and robust responses to all identified offenders, effective management of warrants and maximising of forensic opportunities. Commander Allen and a central Gold group will closely monitor the activities.

43. The extension of the Drug Intervention Programme in April (test on arrest/reverse the presumption of bail) will assist in delivering more effective interventions to those who rob to support drug habits.

How the MPS are keeping on top of good and bad practice and how good practice is disseminated across boroughs

44. There have been a number of changes since the previous report which outlined the TP process for capturing and disseminating good practice across boroughs.

45. The CCSM (Crime Control Strategy Meeting) process, the program of themed performance meetings, is now chaired by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Paddick. The number of peer groups has reduced from five to four. Each meeting should now be attended by up to eight borough commanders.

46. The December round of CCSMs focussed on the personal leadership style of borough commanders in driving forward performance on their respective BOCUs. The next round of meetings will focus on forensics, warrants, PPOs and Crimestoppers and will link in to Operation Anchorage (see paragraph 42).

47. These meetings are specifically designed to identify good practice and barriers to performance. This good practice is shared between borough Senior Management Teams present and captured by TP staff. It is then circulated to all borough commanders.

48. Good practice and successful solutions are also placed on the TP Good Practice database, to which all MPS staff have access. This database has now been simplified and repopulated. The hit rate for the recently relaunched TPPU intranet site has quadrupled and almost half of the visitors to the site access the good practice database.

49. The Performance Unit Field Teams visit boroughs and conduct themed reviews of crime management processes. Good practice and barriers to performance are fed back to the borough and link commanders who share this with their other boroughs.

50. The borough performance link meetings chaired by link commanders are attended by representatives of the TPPU who identify good practice, document it and forward to the improvement team where it is reviewed and if suitable placed on the TPPU good practice website.

Explanation of the type of support that is given and how effective it is (e.g. Hackney’s improved performance with the use of initiatives used in other boroughs)

51. The type of support that is given varies from borough to borough dependent on the specific issues identified (see also paragraphs 30 to 43).

52. Hackney is planning to place a Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) in Homerton Hospital. This is to mirror Tower Hamlets who have a SNT based in the Royal London Hospital where it has had considerable success in reducing crime.

53. Other good practice initiatives that Hackney has recently undertaken include providing crime prevention advice at point of sale of satellite navigation systems, a reduction plan focussing on violent crime, which includes structured multi-agency visits to pubs and clubs, the recruitment of bi-lingual station reception officers, Turkish language tuition for SNT and CID officers and the holding of Turkish police surgeries.

54. Regarding the effectiveness of Operation Autumn at Newham, figures in the three weeks of the initiative were considerably lower than those in the preceding three weeks, and were lower than all but one of any other rolling three-week periods in the current performance year.

55. When the initiative was rolled out at Waltham Forest, it showed similar results. The figures for the first three weeks of Operation Strongbox were lower than all but two of any other rolling three-week periods in the current performance year.

A summary of safer neighbourhood effectiveness (the areas of performance that SN impacts upon and does not impact upon)

56. Perhaps the most telling impact of Safer Neighbourhoods can be seen from the views of residents who live in Safer Neighbourhood (SN) wards. Structured surveys reveal that people living in these wards, when compared to those living in non-Safer Neighbourhoods, have: -

• higher levels of satisfaction with neighbourhood policing,
• greater confidence in local police,
• lower levels of worry about crime,
• more positive perceptions of the trend in levels of crime and anti-social behaviour,
• increased visibility of a uniformed presence, and
• greater personal contact with the police.

57. From 1 April 2006, it is planned to have a Safer Neighbourhood team in every London ward. Initially these teams might not be full strength but will work up to the 1-2-3 model in due course.

58. Crime data has shown that, in the main, crime reduction is better on Safer Neighbourhoods wards. Tower Hamlets, a fully Safer Neighbourhood rolled out borough, has enjoyed double figure crime reductions for some months.

59. The MPS has emphasised that reduction in crime and disorder is one of the main benefits of Safer Neighbourhoods policing. However, as time goes on it has become clear that the relationship between crime reduction and Safer Neighbourhoods policing is not straightforward.

60. Recently, some of the crime data have been difficult to interpret. For example, burglary and robbery have sometimes been higher in Safer Neighbourhood wards. There is a lesson to be learnt here. The fundamental philosophy behind the Safer Neighbourhoods programme is not really about enhanced crime performance; it is to do with how people feel about crime and their perceptions about the risk of being a victim. This emphasis is exactly what underpins the significance of the British Crime Survey (BCS).

61. Interest in crime performance will always be high but in the context of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme there needs to be an additional focus, namely, how people feel that local crime is being tackled. The MPS has already done significant work in this area providing the public with Internet access to ward maps and ward crime figures

62. Informal discussions with significant stakeholders (e.g. Greater London Authority, Metropolitan Police Authority) has revealed a preference for Safer Neighbourhoods outcomes that are more to do with peoples’ perceptions and wider socio-economic benefits rather than a crime focused perspective. Thus far, much has been made from comparing crime data between Safer and Non-Safer neighbourhood areas. This comparison will soon fall by the wayside with full rollout in April 2006. It is time to refocus on more appropriate outcomes that are more faithful to the vision behind the Safer Neighbourhoods programme.

63. From a variety of sources, it has been established that a major concern for many Londoners is anti-social behaviour. Thus, issues that regularly surface in surveys include: youths hanging around, graffiti, fly tipping and noise. These issues are revealing. In the main, they invite partnership working, a basic cornerstone of the Safer Neighbourhood programme.

64. As noted earlier the public will expect the police to combat serious crime such as robbery, burglary and sexual offences. However, they also have a serious expectation and need for other ‘disorder issues’ to be addressed. This point needs to be fully embraced by Safer Neighbourhood teams.

Explanation of the MPS expectations around Safer Neighbourhoods including visibility and performance of teams

65. If Safer Neighbourhoods policing is successful the picture of success should include:

Crime and Disorder

• Positive trends in recorded crime – crime staying stable or decreasing.
• Survey data – perceptions of lowered levels of crime or no increases.
• Perceptions of lowered levels of antisocial behaviour (or no increases).

Reassurance

• Positive trends – satisfaction with way local neighbourhood is policed.
• Lowered levels of worry about crime(s).
• Improved feelings of personal safety.
• Improved perceptions of being informed about local police activities.
• Satisfaction with local police visibility.

Policing for People’s Needs

• Residents’ satisfaction with identification and resolution of local issues.
• Satisfaction with accessibility to local police.
• Satisfaction with content and method of information exchange with police.

66. These three areas provide structure and direction when considering performance outcomes for the Safer Neighbourhoods programme.

67. Reassurance to the public is wholly consistent with the MPS delivering policing services for Londoners in a manner that is accessible, visible and familiar. In principle, Safer Neighbourhood Teams have huge opportunities to promote reassurance. However, visibility is not enough; recent research has shown that, to be effective, visibility must be accompanied by effective engagement and information sharing. Every patrol must be viewed as an opportunity for proactive community engagement.

68. This above pattern of findings is a significant picture of success around the objective of promoting public reassurance and the MPS has significant survey instruments in place to track trend-data over time. But what of the future? Shortly, every ward in London will have a safer neighbourhoods team; the traditional comparison in performance with non-safer neighbourhoods will not be possible. This situation requires a change in focus around performance measurement. The survey data will be vital but just as important will be qualitative approaches that can capture the views of hard to reach and hard to hear community groupings. Reassurance needs careful measurement.

Other factors influencing borough performance

Seasonality

69. There are some seasonality factors that may have impacted upon borough performance over the past couple of months. Street Crime is volatile and shows wide fluctuations over time. Although the darker nights associated with winter do not increase the number of offences, the times of the offences does shift into the darker evenings.

70. Domestic Burglary is seasonal, but this does not account for the last increase. Based on seasonality, more offences can be expected in the winter months (November to February), with the seasonal rise primarily attributed to offences committed in the evening.

71. Motor vehicle crime (both theft of and theft from Motor Vehicle) is seasonal showing an autumn peak (October, November). Higher offence levels can be expected in these months. The future picture for theft of Motor Vehicle is uncertain. If historical trends continue, and car security and car park security continue to improve, further reductions may be expected. However, the downward trend seemed to have slowed recently and this might continue. The future picture for theft from Motor Vehicle is also uncertain. If trends of the past year continue a rise might be expected.

Theft of MP3 players

72. Theft of MP3 players i.e. iPods has increased by 73% in a year, but the volumes are still relatively low, with only 2,364 personal audio items taken between January 2005 and December 2005 compared with 1,361 the previous year. In the same period, theft of mobile phones went from 28,022 to 31,275. MP3 players now account for 5% of property stolen in street crime with mobile phones at 56%. To put it another way, for every MP3 player taken - over ten mobile phones are stolen.

73. Although the levels are increasing, there is no way to say whether this is targeting of the players or just the fact that more are being carried. Inconsistent compliance with Crime Report Information System (CRIS) property codes requires these figures to be treated with an appropriate health warning.

Satellite navigation system thefts

74. There is an emerging trend of theft of satellite navigation systems from motor vehicles, particularly on some northeast boroughs. Barnet, Havering and Barking & Dagenham account for almost a third of the MPS total for this particular property type. Although improving, there is still poor compliance with the use of new codes on CRIS so the figures need to be treated with caution.

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 reports throughout the year, which examine performance at the corporate level. Within the TP monitoring framework, there is recognition of diversity issues relevant to the basket of performance measures, where particular attention is paid to crimes against women and crime against specific communities receives significant consideration.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial or resource implications of the current work.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Superintendent Craig Mitchell, Performance Unit, TPHQ.

For more information contact:

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

List of abbreviations

TNO

Total Notifiable Offences

MPS 

Metropolitan Police Service

BCS

British Crime Survey

PSU

Policing Standards Unit

VAP

Violence Against the Person

FYTD

For Year to Date

BOCU

Borough Operational Command Unit

ANPR

Automatic Number Plate Recognition

TSG

Territorial Support Group

TPPU 

Territorial Policing Performance Unit

PPO

Prolific and Persistent Offender

CRIS

Crime Report Information System

SNT 

Safer Neighbourhood Team

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback