MPS performance against burglary

Report: 7
Date: 12 July 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

This is the third of the quarterly reports on burglary and reviews recent performance against targets. Details of borough performance are also provided together with an update on implementation of aspects of the Scientific Support Strategy.

A. Recommendation

Members are asked to note the report.

B. Supporting information

Performance against burglary – crime reduction:

• 2000/2001 target
  to achieve a 2 per cent decrease in offences compared to the level in 1999/2000
• 2001/2002 target
  to achieve a 2 per cent decrease in offences compared to the level in 2000/2001

1. During 2000/2001 the MPS reduced burglary offences by 9.5 per cent. This comfortably achieved the reduction target of 2 per cent set against 1999/2000 level. Achievement of the target has been sustained in 2001/2002, with the rate for April-May 2001 2.8 per cent below the same months in 2000/2001. It should be noted that this reduction is set against the lower baseline level of 2000/2001.

2. Table 1 (see Supporting material) provides a summary of performance over the past two years, and the first two months of the current year. Figures are displayed as a daily rate in order to provide a useful comparison, and show burglary of a dwelling, and other burglary, separately:

3. This chart shows that the reductions have been sustained across both types of burglary, but that the greater reduction in recent months relates to burglary of dwellings.

Performance against burglary – judicial disposal:

• 2000/2001 target
  to achieve a JD rate of 10 per cent
• 2001/2002 target
  to achieve a JD rate of 12 per cent

4. The JD rate for the year to date (April– May 2001) at 9.6 per cent is below the current year target (12 per cent) and last year's target of 10 per cent. The JD rate in May was however 10.2 per cent - the highest monthly rate since October 2000.

5. Table 2 (see Supporting material) summarises judicial disposal rates using a similar format to the previous chart. This shows that the improvement in May came from a better JD rate in respect of burglary of dwellings. Since this is the larger proportion of total burglary, it has a greater impact on the overall JD rate. The rate relating to other buildings has deteriorated slightly over the same comparison period:

6. The last quarterly report on burglary identified a fall in January in the number of JDs relating to cases taken into consideration (TIC) at court where the crime had been previously recorded. The January TIC rate was low both in terms of burglary of dwellings and burglary of other buildings. Recent performance has improved and is displayed in Table 3 (see Supporting material) . This shows a clear increase in the TIC rate relating to burglary of a dwelling over the first two months of this planning year. The rate relating to burglary of other buildings has however fallen over the same two months, as reflected in the overall JD rate relating to other buildings.

Borough performance (including good practise and boston box explanation)

7. Appendices 1 and 2 are charts showing borough performance against burglary displayed using the "Boston Box". Appendix a shows performance over the last planning year in terms of levels of offences and judicial disposal rate. The vertical axis shows performance during the 2000/2001 planning year (number of offences per 1,000 premises*, or per cent judicial disposals). Those boroughs performing better than the MPS overall performance are shown in either section 1 or 2 (ie: above the horizontal axis).

*since the appendices compare performance for total burglary (ie: dwelling and other buildings), the level of offences has been shown per 1,000 premises. This figure is a combination of households per borough and stock of businesses (whilst this may not be a fully accurate comparator it is intended that this will provide a better comparison that households alone.)

8. The horizontal axis (trend) shows how last year compared with the year before (either per cent increase/reduction in number of offences in 2000/01 compared with 1999/00, or change in JD rate between 1999/00 and 2000/01). Those boroughs whose performance has improved in the last year are shown in either section 1 or 3 (ie: to the right of the vertical axis.) The four sections of the box are summarised below:

9. Appendix 1 shows year to date performance (currently April-May 2001). Here, the horizontal (trend) axis shows crime variation compared with the same months in 2000/2001. The judicial disposal trend compares year to date performance with that over the whole of the last planning year.

10. The main benefit of the boston box is that it enables improvements in performance to be seen in the context of underlying level of crime. For example, in the current year, Merton and Sutton both show increases in burglary, but have levels of offences that are below the MPS level. Similarly, the JD rate at Greenwich has deteriorated slightly but is nevertheless above the overall MPS rate.

11. A comparison between Appendices 1 and 2 shows some changes in the placing of boroughs. For example, Hillingdon have moved from box 3 (below average performance but improving) in 2000/2001 for both crime reduction and judicial disposal rate, to box 1 (above average performance and improving) in the current year for both cases. Hillingdon attribute their improvement in part to Operation Broadsword, an offender based operation which resulted in a number of persistent active criminals being taken into custody at the end of the last year. A more detailed analysis of the work at Hillingdon is contained in the Autocrime report.

12. Improved performance can also been seen at Ealing who have moved from box 4 in terms of both crime reduction and judicial disposal rate, to box 1 in both cases. Ealing cite dedicated focus desks, the amalgamation of DIUs and a number of persistent offenders receiving custodial sentences as reasons for recent improved performance.

Update on Scientific Support Strategy

13. The MPS strategy for scientific support services was published as an MPS Special Notice in February 2001 and laid out the future direction for scientific support services. The previous report on burglary referred to the introduction of a Forensic Intelligence Unit and Forensic Intelligence IT system which will lead to a greater number of linked scenes being identified and the early arrest of serial offenders. Funding of the Forensic Intelligence IT system has been agreed with the Home Office (£274k) and will allow for development of the system during 2001/02 and maintenance of the system over the following two years. The cost of running the Forensic Intelligence Units is subject to a separate bid to the Home Office awaiting approval.

14. In order to provide a better link between forensic identifications and their contribution to detection rates, new codes were introduced to the Crime Report Information System (CRIS) from 1 April 2001. At present it is too early to make use of this information, but it is expected that details will be available later in the year once use of the new codes has been established across the MPS.

15. One strand of the strategy is the recruitment of an additional 200 Level I crime scene examiners. Level I crime scene examiners are trained to lift fingermarks and retrieve potentially useful DNA rich material from crime scenes and property known to have been involved in crime, particularly burglary and autocrime. They also retrieve potential physical evidence from suspects and undertake non-specialist photography. The first eight newly recruited Level I examiners commenced training in January 2001 and were posted to boroughs in March 2001. Since then a further three courses have been completed and officers posted to borough. The main impact of this has been to backfill against wastage, with a net gain of 12 officers.

C. Financial implications

None arising from this report.

D. Background papers

• Report to Professional Standards and Performance Monitoring - MPS Performance against Burglary - 13 March 2001
• Report to Professional Standards and Performance Monitoring - Burglary and Autocrime - 12 December 2000 - available from the MPA

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Lesley Nichols, Corporate Performance Analysis Unit.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback