Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10




Strategic Assessment 2009 / 10




                                                   1
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10




Contents
1. Executive Summary                                             3

2. Strateg...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
1        Executive Summary
1.1. This report is divided into two sections, a Strategic Asses...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
less detail, eg house/bungalow. Table 5 which shows the entry point and entry method shows
...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
2. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
2.1 Background:
2.1.1 Community Safety Partnerships were ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
2.2.4 Wider considerations: Further consideration was also given to those incident types th...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
Fly tipping
Criminal Damage (Arson)
2.3.9 These crime and disorder types scored highly in t...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
public place are only counted this still amounts to around 600 calls per month. Nationally
...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
knife crime incident it only needs to be believed that a knife was present and may actually...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10

RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority.
Consideration 8 – Robbery
2.5.1...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
3. Tactical Assessments
Burglary
3.1 This report acknowledges that the borough has had, to ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10

         Table 3
                                           A           B           C     ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
3.7 It is of little surprise that flats / maisonettes are mainly council owned. Of the priv...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10


                                                      Burglaries Havering

              ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
          0-1             287          21%                       15-16            38       ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
3.18 Another facet that has shown a marked increase this year is the theft of keys from a
p...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
          Mercedes               23          9.0%           3.8%
          Vauxhall        ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
          Grand Total               36          42         78
          Percentage         ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
3.32 It is suggested that such activities are considered and continued where appropriate bu...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
Race
3.33 The last five years racial incidents are shown in Table 1
          Table 1
     ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
Table 3
                                Not    Havering
          Ethnicity           Haver...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
                                      to   to   to    to   to   to    to
                  ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10

             Racial Crimes with Victims and Accused

                                     ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
                 Map 2

                Racial Crimes Hotspot - Harold Hill Area
          ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
                   Map 3

                               Racial Crimes Hotspot - Victims


...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
Map 4

                             Racial Crimes Hotspot - Accused


                     ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
Observations / Recommendations
3.53 In regard to the volume of crimes we are the 11th safes...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10
Domestic Violence
3.58 The boroughs performance over the last 12 months has been on a reduc...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10

          Table 3
                              A           B           C            D    ...
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc

627

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
627
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc

  1. 1. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Strategic Assessment 2009 / 10 1
  2. 2. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Strategic Assessment 5 3. Tactical Assessments - Burglary 12 - Race 21 - Domestic Violence 29 - Taking and driving away a motor vehicle 43 - Theft from a motor vehicle 51 - Violence 60 - Fire 82 Appendix 1 – 2008/9 – Achievements 85 2
  3. 3. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 1 Executive Summary 1.1. This report is divided into two sections, a Strategic Assessment (including an assessment of achievements in 2008/9) and then more detailed tactical assessments that give a detailed overview of each main crime area. 1.2. The Strategic Assessment concludes that the Havering Community Safety Partnership themes for 2009 should be as follows: Theme One – Serious Violence encompassing Serious Violence, Racial Crime, Assault with injury and Domestic Violence Theme Two - Serious Acquisitive Crime encompassing Burglary Residential, Theft of / taking of a motor vehicle and Theft from a motor vehicle Theme Three – Addressing Anti Social Behaviour encompassing the following incident types Disorder, Criminal Damage, Fly tipping, and Criminal Damage (Arson) Theme Four – Fear of Crime. The HCSP is committed to counter local and national media reports of violent crime, antisocial behaviour and isolated incidents of serious crime that increase fear of crime. As such, it is proposed that addressing the fear of crime remain a concurrent theme that crime reduction practitioners will be asked to incorporate through their existing work programmes. 1.3. The HCSP arrived at these themes through a series of analytical techniques including surveys via questionnaires through many events throughout the year, crime analysis and a PESTELO (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal and Organisational) analysis with partners. All data gathered when then analysed by the HCSP to create the themes. 1.4. The tactical assessment section of this report utilises data from various sources:  The police Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS);  The police Command & Despatch System (CAD);  The council CRM system; and  The London Fire Brigade (via the London Analysts Support Site). 1.5. The CRIS system is a live database that can change from day to day in its classification of a crime. As such the data will be different from centrally retained and released data and could be slightly different if the enquiry to extract the data were to be run again. However, with the volume of the data the change should be, at worse, very small. 1.6. The data used for this report covers the period 1 st December 2007 to 30th November 2008 being the most recent 12 month period available for use. 1.7. This data is subject to the quality of input. Many incidents have their location poorly recorded for a variety of reasons. For crime the victim may not know exactly where they are being unsure of the area, pressure of workload may also cause data to be less than accurate and lack of a detailed knowledge of the CRIS system may also create problems. This means that some data is located on an informed guess of all data to hand. The same is the case for disorder data (CAD). Data relating to fly tipping is even more difficult to plot and map as this data has, often, quite vague location data, ie only showing a road 1.8 A further problem in detailed analysis exists, in that the CRiS system relies on an officer knowing and inputting codes to describe features of the crime for both type and location, The type of venue alone has over 150 codes. Thus a burglary location may be described in some detail using these codes, eg a privately owned detached house. Or may be described in slightly 3
  4. 4. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 less detail, eg house/bungalow. Table 5 which shows the entry point and entry method shows how the detail can cause problems for analysis. 1.9 Where the data is mapped care should also be taken where a ‘hot spot’ map is produced. The centre of a hotspot does not mean that is the location of most incidents. It is a mathematical calculation that has caused this hotspot. By way of simple explanation if your neighbours are each burgled five times then the centre of the hot spot is your house. 1.10 The analysis and data is a guide to the formation of action plans, which would be adjusted in the light of developing situations. 1.11 The analysis seeks to address the ‘crime triangle’ (Location, victim and accused) where removing anyone item will prevent the crime occurring. 1.12 Appendix 1 contains an analysis by theme of the achievements of 2008/9 Strategic Assessment 4
  5. 5. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 2. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 2.1 Background: 2.1.1 Community Safety Partnerships were previously required to conduct an audit every three years to establish key priorities for the Borough. Legislative changes were brought in by the Police and Justice Act 2006 and subsequent regulations, which included the repeal of two main partnership duties from 1st August 2007:  The duty to produce three yearly audits and strategies (the 2005-08 audit and strategy will be the last in the current format); and  The duty to report annually to the Secretary of State on the Partnership’s work and progress. 2.1.2 In accordance with these new regulations, the Havering Community Safety Partnership produced their first Annual Strategic Assessment of community safety in 2008/9. This is the second assessment for 2009 / 10 2.1.3 In this assessment the key crime reduction priorities are identified for the Partnership over the next financial year. 2.1.4 The aim of the Strategic Assessment is to identify the priorities for crime, drugs, disorder and other partnership activities for the coming twelve months having regard to the future issues that may affect the borough. The purpose of the Strategic Assessment is for the HCSP to:  Agree the priorities for 2009/10 (the Control Strategy )  Identify and agree a person to take the lead in delivering the Control Strategy and produce the Action Plans;  Agree the targets for the Control Strategy;  Monitor throughout the year the success of the Action Plans. 2.2 Methodology: 2.2.1 The following methods were used to inform the assessment process which was agreed by the HCSP and in accordance with Home Office guidance: 2.2.2 An analysis of data sources: Data used was not only that supplied by partners but also accessed via i-Quanta and the London Analyst Support Site. This data covered a wide variety of incident types, for example, crime, disorder, enviro-crime (If available five years of data was utilised). This was used to identify three aspects of Havering’s performance:  Volume – to look at frequency  Performance – Data was used to compare Havering performance to London Boroughs, that of our family boroughs, where available  Trends – both historic and projected 2.2.3 National / Local Targets: Incident types were then assessed to see if they were aligned to any local or national targets such as:  National Indicators (NIs) - These are national targets that include a number of crime and criminal justice national indicators.  Local Area Agreements (LAAs) – These are three-year agreements between central government, Havering Council and their partners, to deliver national outcomes in a way that reflects local priorities. One specific theme is ‘Safer and stronger communities’, that incorporates targets to address arson, race hate crime, violent crime and the fear of crime (See Appendix 1). 5
  6. 6. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 2.2.4 Wider considerations: Further consideration was also given to those incident types that were issues of public concern – for example, based on IPSoS MORI, Police Satisfaction Surveys, Police SNT surveys and community safety questionnaires. 2.2.5 PESTELO Analysis: The incident types were then assessed against a PESTELO analysis matrix. PESTELO is an acronym that enabled data to be placed in a more realistic context of what may affect the borough in the future, short, medium and long term. Practitioners were asked to consider factors that may impact on trends over the forthcoming year. PESTELO stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal and Organisational. Results from these processes were brought together and assessed via a scoring matrix. The Strategic Assessment process involves a review and evaluation of the previous strategic assessment plan. 2.2.6 Time period covered This assessment reviews data over a five year period, where available. This assessment will be published by the end of March 2008 and the Action Plans implemented in April 2008 with a new Strategic Assessment being undertaken from September 2009 (for implementation on April 2010). 2.2.7 Report Limitations: The main limitation is around unavailability of some data and the ability to compare datasets from partner agencies, particularly historical performance data that would have enabled a more thorough trend analysis to take place. While this is an identified weakness efforts to address this during the year will be sought as will efforts to obtain data not currently supplied by agencies. 2.3 Theme types 2.3.1 Theme One – Serious Violence Serious Violence Racial Crime Assault with injury Domestic Violence 2.3.2 This work programme developed to address Violence will seek to meet the Local Government PSA 23: Priority Action 1 – ‘Reduce the most serious violence, including tackling serious sexual offences and domestic violence’. 2.3.3 It may be the view of the Partnership that Robbery Person, while not of high concern for the borough, is included in this area due to its national importance. 2.3.4 Theme Two - Serious Acquisitive Crime 2.3.5 It is proposed that the following incident types be incorporated in this category: Burglary Residential Theft of / taking of a motor vehicle and Theft from a motor vehicle 2.3.6 This would meet PSA 23: Priority Action 2 – ‘Continue to make progress on serious acquisitive crime through a focus on the issues of greatest priority in each locality and the most harmful offenders – particularly drug-misusing offenders’ 2.3.7 Theme Three – Addressing Anti Social Behaviour 2.3.8 It is proposed that the following incident types be incorporated in this category: Disorder Criminal Damage 6
  7. 7. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Fly tipping Criminal Damage (Arson) 2.3.9 These crime and disorder types scored highly in the strategic assessment process, and evidence points to it being a major challenge for the borough. 2.3.10 The allocation of resources to address this ‘local’ problem would meet PSA 23: Priority Action 3 – ‘Tackle the crime, disorder and anti social behaviour issues of greatest importance in each locality, increasing the public confidence in the local agencies involved in dealing with these issues’. 2.3.11 Theme Four - Fear of Crime 2.3.12 Whilst it is proposed that the above incident types remain a focus for the HCSP over the next year, it should be recognised that that the perception of crime amongst our residents (there are also a lot of perception based indicators), is a matter that also needs to be addressed. Despite being statistically one of the safest London boroughs, with overall crime going down in the borough, a police commissioned public attitude survey 2007/08 found respondents felt that crime was on the increase. The HCSP is committed to counter local and national media reports of violent crime, antisocial behaviour and isolated incidents of serious crime that increase fear of crime. As such, it is proposed that addressing the fear of crime remain a concurrent theme that crime reduction practitioners will be asked to incorporate through their existing work programmes. 2.4 ‘Top Five Priorities 2.4.1 This section cites those incidents that scored highest (top 5) under the scoring matrix, and should accordingly be deemed as priorities for the Partnership, for the forthcoming year. These priorities are grouped according to matrix themes. Violence and Disorder 2.4.2 Government Office for London have identified Romford Town ward as a locality with high levels of violence based on per 1000 population; although it does not take into account the night time economy in the borough. This is also a stretch target under the LAA (see appendix 1). 2.4.3 Trends for violent crime, with the change on classifications, make strict comparison difficult but over the year we have seen a small decrease. Most Serious violence accounts for on average 12 crimes per month and Assault with injury accounts for 125 offences per month. Public concerns over these crime types have been raised at public meetings. 2.4.4 In relation to disorder, the police receive approximately 1000 disorder calls per month. It is consistently raised as a concern by the community. Disorder categories are varied and this figure is all disorder categories used by the police and agreed with them. Criminal Damage 2.4.5 There has been a small decrease in these offences over the last 12 months (to September 2008).. 2.4.6 Fly-Tipping data from Homes in Havering suggests that an average of 370 incidents per month, whilst Streetcare data records an average of 210 incidents per month. This is a signal offence for quality of life issues and costly to remove.. Anti Social Behaviour 2.4.7 This priority has been based on consistent public concerns together with volume of calls. As stated already around 1000 calls per month are logged by police. When the categories for 7
  8. 8. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 public place are only counted this still amounts to around 600 calls per month. Nationally agreed categories for disorder calls were set two years ago, as such it is not possible to review data over the past five years. Residential Burglary 2.4.8 This is a relatively high volume crime for the borough that has increased over the past three years and with the ‘credit crunch’ deepening this trend is likely to continue. On average the borough experiences 110 incidents per month. It is extremely unlikely that we will meet the target for 2008/09 (a 2.5% reduction). 2.4.9 Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that this is a major concern (when compared to other crimes) to our residents, it should be included because it included in as a National Indicator (Serious Acquisitive Crime). Theft / Taking of Motor Vehicle, Theft from Motor Vehicle (not criminal damage) 2.4.10 Theft of / taking of motor vehicles is a high volume crime, that has witnessed an upward trend. This crime runs at approximately 100 offences per month. With scrap metal proving to be a valuable commodity, coupled with the existence of high value cars in relatively affluent parts of the borough, this crime trend is likely to continue. 2.4.11 Theft from a motor vehicle is also a high volume crime, about 150 per month. It seems logical that both crime types are focussed on, as they are both National Indicator targets. 2.5 Other Considerations 2.5.1 The incident types cited in this section did not score as highly in the scoring matrix. Some carry the potential of being included as priorities. Several of these crime types are aligned to local or national targets and as such failing to incorporate them as a priority may have serious ramifications if they are not addressed. Upon consideration of these incident types, the HCSP have three options: Option One: Incorporate it as an additional priority Option Two: Replace it with one of the identified priorities Option Three: Not incorporate it A recommendation has been left for the HCSP after each crime type is discussed. Consideration 1 - Race Hate Crime 2.5.2 Whilst race hate crime is low in volume in the borough, it is high in comparison to the low BME population. With the BME population increasing, due to factors such as the Thames Gateway, and predictions that the BME population shall increase to 10% by 2012, this should be a priority for the partnership. 2.5.3 Over the last year the trend has been upwards, with race hate crimes running at approximately 18 crimes per month. Whilst sanctioned detection rates for this offences are very high, if this offence is not prioritised, sanctioned detection rates may fall, that could result in a loss in public confidence amongst BME residents. A perceived or actual high level incidence of race hate crime could deter BME residents moving to the borough and this could promote racial tension and prevent Havering embracing diversity. RECOMMENDATION: This should be included as a priority. Consideration 2 – Knife crime 2.5.4 This crime type is low in volume although the trend does give some concern. There are on average 11 knife crime incidents per month. It should also be noted that to be included as a 8
  9. 9. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 knife crime incident it only needs to be believed that a knife was present and may actually not have been. Whilst the carrying of knives is not prevalent in the borough, considerations needs to be given to the emergence of a gang culture in neighbouring boroughs and the media portrayal of youth culture. 2.5.5 Public concern has been influenced through national media attention, and Government sound bites. Whilst the recording of these offences is dependent upon enforcement activity, this crime type should be monitored closely for the purposes of the subsequent strategic assessment. RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. Consideration 3 – Criminal Damage (Arson) 2.5.6 Figures for this crime type are based upon deliberate fire setting data supplied by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Havering is the consistently in the three worse performing London boroughs for this incident type. During times of economic downturn this crime normally increases. Havering is a borough with large open spaces, as such it is more susceptible to this problem. The credit crunch has seen an increase in suspicious fires within Havering and is a cause for concern for the local Commander. RECOMMENDATION: This should be included as a priority. Consideration 4 – Domestic Violence 2.5.7 Domestic Violence is on a downward trend over the past three years, however the caveat to this is that offences still average 70 per month. Again during times of economic downturn this is likely to be a crime that increases (however the last associated murder in Havering was in 1993). It accounts for about three in every ten violence against the person offences and should, perhaps, be included under the ‘violence’ theme. 2.5.8 With onset of the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) and current high profile child protection issues this remains high on the agenda. There is also a requirement for children to be found in domestic violence households to be identified. RECOMMENDATION: This should be included as a priority under the ‘serious violence’ theme. Consideration 5 – Burglary non residential 2.5.9 Non residential burglary is numerically higher than residential burglary. Much of this involves unlawful entry into commercial premises. The HCSP will need to consider whether resources should be set aside to address this, or if the onus is placed in businesses to invest in appropriate target hardening activities. The targeting of garages and outside sheds within the boundaries of residential properties accounts for a quarter of non residential burglary, these are ‘soft targets’, due to their poor construction, and it is difficult to stop such crimes. RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. Consideration 6 – Drug Offences 2.5.10 There is a lack of data regarding this offence. It may be a bigger problem than present data indicates, however as we know from national data this can be a motivator for other offences. Havering is not a DIP intensive borough and methods of research to investigate this problem need to be examined further. RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. Consideration 7 – Criminal damage to motor vehicles 2.5.11 This offence has a high volume but with fairly good performance. Trends are good and there are no indications to suggest that there may be an increase in this offence type (it is not a crime that increases given the prevailing economic, political and social environment). 9
  10. 10. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. Consideration 8 – Robbery 2.5.12 Robbery (personal property) was of low priority due to its low volume and good performance. Incidents average one per day. This crime is a LAA priority however due to its very low volume would detract scarce resources from higher priorities if included.. RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority under the ‘serious violence’ category. Consideration 10 – Gun crime 2.5.13 Like knife crime, statistics show a low volume, less than one crime per week for the last twelve months, however the trend is slightly upwards, Whilst this offence type is prevalent in certain inner London boroughs, at this stage the HCSP need only to monitor the situation to see if increased enforcement activity against organised gangs in hotspot boroughs may displace such activity into Havering. At this stage there is little evidence to suggest that this is the case. RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. Consideration 11 – Youth crime 2.5.14 It is recommended that the HCSP do not focus on young people as a specific category, since action plans and projects linked to the priority crime types will meet the needs of young offenders and young people at risk of offending or as victims. As part of its work programme to address ASB in the borough, it is recommended that the HCSP place a considerable focus on anti social behaviour involving young people, since they are disproportionately involved in such incidents RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. Consideration 12 – Carrying an offensive weapon 2.5.15 This is an extremely low volume crime, with recorded incidents running at 10 per month. Despite this, it remains of high public concern and is a crime generator. Apprehension of those carrying such weapons, is dependent upon pro active stop and search operations by the police. At this stage there is nothing to suggest that this offence type is a challenge for the HCSP. RECOMMENDATION: This should not be included as a priority. 10
  11. 11. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 3. Tactical Assessments Burglary 3.1 This report acknowledges that the borough has had, to date a poor year with regard to burglary. Table 1 below shows our performance for the last twelve months and the financial Year to date (FYTD). Table 1 2006-07 2007-08 Percentage3.3 Table 2 shows the yearly total and it can Dec-06 95 115 21% be seen how bad this year is likely to be. Jan-07 104 117 13% Already with four months to the end of the Feb-07 103 107 4% year we are within a hundred of our worse Mar-07 103 98 -5% year in the last seven. Apr-07 78 109 40% May-07 66 92 39% Table 2 Jun-07 62 101 63% Year Burglary Jul-07 92 128 39% 2001-02 1109 Aug-07 88 145 65% 2002-03 1058 Sep-07 107 119 11% 2003-04 962 Oct-07 86 150 74% 2004-05 903 Nov-07 85 115 35% 2005-06 1091 Total 1069 1396 31% 2006-07 1175 FYTD 664 959 44% 2007-08 1101 2008-09 * 1440 3.2 However, there are still 23 boroughs in London who have more burglaries than * Estimated figure - flat rate projection Havering (either using the volume of per thousand household yardstick). Detailed Analysis 3.4 Location: Table 3 shows the numbers of residential burglaries by ward. It shows the most recent 12 months (column B) and the previous 12 months (column A) and the percentage change (column C). The two remaining columns show the share of those two years crimes across the wards (column D and E). A ward with more than 5.6% is above the average - if all the burglaries occurred equally across the borough. 11
  12. 12. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Table 3 A B C D E Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 06 Dec 07 to Nov to Nov Percentage to Nov to Nov WARDNAME 07 08 Change 07 08 Brooklands 79 78 -1% 7% 6% Cranham 38 57 50% 4% 4% Elm Park 44 42 -5% 4% 3% Emerson Park 84 94 12% 8% 7% Gooshays 114 108 -5% 11% 8% Hacton 38 59 55% 4% 4% Harold Wood 82 85 4% 8% 6% Havering Park 34 63 85% 3% 5% Heaton 52 73 40% 5% 5% Hylands 41 71 73% 4% 5% Mawneys 55 78 42% 5% 6% Pettits 63 96 52% 6% 7% Rainham and Wennington 51 60 18% 5% 4% Romford Town 59 99 68% 6% 7% South Hornchurch 67 115 72% 6% 8% Squirrels Heath 63 75 19% 6% 5% St Andrews 44 46 5% 4% 3% Upminster 62 85 37% 6% 6% Grand Total 1070 1384 29% 3.5 From Table 3 it can be seen that some wards are above average for this crime, namely Emerson Park, Gooshays, Pettits, Romford Town and South Hornchurch. 3.6 Table 4 below shows the split between council owned and privately owned and the type of building. Following that are tables that show the main types of property by ownership (4a) and the main ownership by property type (4b). Table 4 Private Council Other Total Flat / Maisonette 47 68 98 213 Semi-Detached 316 24 299 639 Terraced 100 9 125 234 Other Residence 13 6 85 104 Detached 117 3 74 194 Total 593 110 681 1384 Table 4a Private Council Other Total Flat / Maisonette 8% 62% 14% 15% Semi-Detached 53% 22% 44% 46% Terraced 17% 8% 18% 17% Other Residence 2% 5% 12% 8% Detached 20% 3% 11% 14% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 4b Private Council Other Total Flat / Maisonette 22% 32% 46% 100% Semi-Detached 49% 4% 47% 100% Terraced 43% 4% 53% 100% Other Residence 13% 6% 82% 100% Detached 60% 2% 38% 100% Total 43% 8% 49% 100% 12
  13. 13. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 3.7 It is of little surprise that flats / maisonettes are mainly council owned. Of the private sector, semi-detached feature highest – due probably to both ease of access to the rear and the large number of such premises within the borough. Detached feature less despite the ease of access, probably due to the fact these are better defended – although this is not known. 3.8 Almost half of all burglaries feature semi-detached (46%) and when detached are included the figure is 60%. 3.9 Table 5 shows the entry method and entry point. Table 5 VEN Entry Method Break- Not Not Walk- Not Entry Point Artifice In Applicable Known In Shown Total Ceiling 1 1 Door 78 636 28 24 87 853 Fire Exit 1 1 2 Letter Box 3 4 7 Not App. 2 13 53 68 Not Known 1 36 1 38 Other 4 1 5 Patio Door 2 77 4 2 5 90 Roof 1 1 Wall 1 1 Window 253 24 1 23 301 Not Shown 17 14 Grand Total 83 990 113 64 117 17 1384 3.10 When detached and semi-detached properties are examined the method of approach is shown below, table 6 and for Terraced Table 7. Table 6 Table 7 Only Detached Premises Terraced Only Approach Number Percentage Approach Number Percentage Front 444 53% Front 157 65% Side / Rear 366 44% Side / Rear 75 31% Not known 30 4% Not known 8 3% Total 840 Total 240 3.11 While it is intuitive that property easily accessed all round would suffer attacks more from access points that are out of view (and this is indeed the case) there are still a significant number of attacks from the side / rear for terraced properties, clearly from alleyways and driveways. 3.12 As for hotspotting Map 1 below shows, using a 250m search radius, that our hotspots are widely spread over the borough. Put another way none are true hotspots but made up of a few burglaries spread widely. The exception to this statement is the hotspot which centres on Thurloe Gardens and Queen Mary Close. Even for this ‘hotspot’ it comprises of only about 35 burglaries over a year and reaches from Oldchurch roundabout in the west to Albert Road on the east and the railway to the north to Brentwood Road in the south, a large area in itself. 13
  14. 14. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Burglaries Havering Gooshays Havering Park Heaton Harold Wood Pettits Mawneys Squirrels Heath Romford Town Emerson Park Brooklands Cranham Hylands St Andrews Hacton Upminster Elm Park South Hornchurch Rainham and Wennington . 0 215 430 860 1,2901,720 Legend 250m Search Radius Metres Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to w h m ig Lo prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Havering iu H ed LA100024327 M 3.13 The time of day for burglary is difficult as the owner often leaves the house and finds the crime several hours later. Table 8 shows the hour of the day for burglary. To arrive at this a time midway between the time when the resident knew the property was fine and the burglary was discovered has been used. Table 9 shows this data grouped into Night time (2200 to 0600hours, daytime 0600 – 220 hours and work time 0900 to 1800 hours). Table 8 Hour-Slot Total Percentage 14
  15. 15. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 0-1 287 21% 15-16 38 3% 1-2 92 7% 16-17 33 2% 2-3 96 7% 17-18 31 2% 3-4 95 7% 18-19 28 2% 4-5 88 6% 19-20 13 1% 5-6 89 6% 20-21 20 1% 6-7 81 6% 21-22 10 1% 7-8 58 4% 22-23 11 1% 8-9 41 3% 23-24 16 1% 9-10 48 3% Total 1384 10-11 47 3% 11-12 43 3% Table 9 12-13 34 2% Time Count Percentage 13-14 47 3% 2200 - 0600 774 56% 14-15 38 3% 0600 - 220 610 44% 0900-1800 359 26% 3.14 It can be seen that over half occur during night time hours and one in four when the property could be expected to be empty due to work commitments. 3.15 Once property has been entered the next target area is the property stolen which, in general, will meet the mnemonic ‘CRAVED’:  Concealable  Removable  Available  Valuable  Enjoyable and  Disposable 3.16 Table 10 shows the items shown stolen and the value attributed to them. (It should be noted that the property categories are well in excess of 100 and so the items have been grouped to be more manageable.) Table 10 Property - Grouped Total Value Jewellery 1044 £ 561,385 Cash / Valuable Document 984 £ 195,439 Misc 458 £ 63,967 Computer / Mobile etc 404 £ 133,812 Audio/Radio/Hi-Fi/CD/Electrical 371 £ 216,027 Camera etc 354 £ 106,679 Handbag/Shoulder bag 102 £ 8,475 MV Parts 73 £ 1,820 Clothing 68 £ 13,170 Tools 52 £ 14,551 Sport Equipment 33 £ 20,035 Sat Nav 30 £ 5,780 Tobacco / Alcohol 13 £ 960 Household 11 £ 8,045 Drug / Chemical 1 £ 5 Grand Total 3998 £ 1,350,150 3.17 While it is often viewed that values are over inflated by claimants it should also be noted that in over 1200 entries no value is shown. While only a nominal value may be the case for credit cards (having little or no value in themselves) a lot of the items shown with no value are clearly of value, ie jewellery, games console, mobile phones. So it can be seen that the £1.35m is probably on the low side. 15
  16. 16. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 3.18 Another facet that has shown a marked increase this year is the theft of keys from a property and the subsequent removal of a vehicle (or vehicles) from outside. Table 11 shows this. Table 11 Recovered Damaged - Recovered Minus Recovered Stolen / Make Damaged Property Intact Taken Total Ford 13 19 37 69 BMW 6 25 21 52 Mercedes 3 9 11 23 Vauxhall 2 7 10 19 VW 4 10 3 17 Audi 2 8 5 15 Peugeot 2 7 3 12 Renault 4 3 7 Porsche 3 2 5 Honda 2 1 3 Lexus 1 2 3 BMW - Mini 2 2 Chrysler 1 1 2 Hyundai 1 1 2 Jaguar 1 1 2 Landrover 2 2 Mazda 1 1 2 Mitsubishi 2 2 Subaru 2 2 Toyota 1 1 2 Volvo 1 1 2 Ferrari 1 1 Fiat 1 1 Honda - Motorcycle 1 1 Jeep 1 1 Kia 1 1 Nissan 1 1 Rover 1 1 Skoda 1 1 Suzuki 1 1 Yamaha - Motorcycle 1 1 Grand Total 38 1 104 112 255 3.19 While Ford is the most taken make of vehicle this is not overly surprising as it accounted for 1 in 3 vehicles registered in the borough (in 2004). Using the 2004 data, and accepting this only shows vehicles registered in Havering not those parked up belonging to a company out of borough etc, Table 12 shows the percentage of cares stolen by make and it can be seen that BMW is grossly misrepresented. Table 12 Make Total Percentage Borough Make up Ford 69 27.1% 35.3% BMW 52 20.4% 3.8% 16
  17. 17. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Mercedes 23 9.0% 3.8% Vauxhall 19 7.5% 9.7% VW 17 6.7% 3.9% Audi 15 5.9% 1.1% Peugeot 12 4.7% 5.4% Renault 7 2.7% 5.0% Porsche 5 2.0% 0.2% Honda 3 1.2% 1.9% Lexus 3 1.2% 0.3% BMW - Mini 2 0.8% N/k Chrysler 2 0.8% 0.4% Hyundai 2 0.8% 0.8% Jaguar 2 0.8% 0.9% Landrover 2 0.8% N/k Mazda 2 0.8% 0.9% Mitsubishi 2 0.8% 0.9% Subaru 2 0.8% 0.1% Toyota 2 0.8% 2.9% Volvo 2 0.8% 1.3% Ferrari 1 0.4% N/k Fiat 1 0.4% 2.1% Honda - Motorcycle 1 0.4% N/k Jeep 1 0.4% 0.4% Kia 1 0.4% 0.5% Nissan 1 0.4% 5.4% Rover 1 0.4% 5.3% Skoda 1 0.4% 0.5% Suzuki 1 0.4% 0.7% Yamaha - Motorcycle 1 0.4% N/k Grand Total 255 100.0% 3.20 BMW represents around 20% of those stolen and 4% of those registered in Havering. Only one vehicle in two is recovered over a quarter recovered is damaged or have property removed from them. 3.21 No victim profile has been produced for burglary as there is little evidence of a house being burgled because it is owned by a particular group, either ethnic, aged or other grouping. It is usually opportunistic with little regard of the owner. 3.22 From the data supplied only 68 persons were arrested for burglary, according to CRiS data. The ethnic data on CRiS does not as yet follow the ‘16+1’ accepted classifications and so the groupings may seem strange. Table 13. shows the breakdown of ethnicity and whether they live within the borough. Table 13 Outside Ethnicity Havering In Havering Total Percentage Afro-Caribbean 4 2 6 8% Asian 1 3 4 5% Dark European 4 4 5% White European 27 37 64 82% 17
  18. 18. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Grand Total 36 42 78 Percentage 46% 54% As can be seem the majority of those arrested are white but almost one out of every two reside outside the borough boundaries. 3.23 When age is looked at the 10 to 17year age range accounts for two in every five and three in four is under 25 years. (Table 14) Table 14 Outside Age Groups Havering In Havering Total Percentage 10 - 17 6 25 31 40% 18 - 25 16 12 28 36% 26 - 35 8 1 9 12% 36 - 45 6 4 10 13% Grand Total 36 42 78 3.24 Gender: Of those arrested only one was female in the age range 18 to 25 and was a Havering resident. 3.25 When the distance to the crime (for the accused) is looked at the first thing that should be remembered is that those who live outside the borough are not included. Four people who committed burglary live in the premises burgled, suggesting a block of flats, maisonette or bed- sit location. There is also three other that have burgled their neighbour. Of those remaining the minimum distance travelled to commit the crime is 70m and those most 5.5Km (3.4 miles). The average distance is 1170m (3/4 of a mile). 3.26 Ten premises in the year were victims of repeat burglaries involving properties in nine wards. Only Emerson Park had two premises that were repeat victims. There are, however, many blocks of flats with more than one burglary. Observations / Recommendations 3.27 This is a crime that while relatively low within London boroughs has increased significantly within Havering. While the volume is quite low and even ignoring the large green areas of the borough the crime is widely spread making attacking it a difficult task. 3.28 The crime triangle requires at least one of the three elements addressed to prevent a crime occurring (location, accused, or victim). 3.29 The victim is not something that can be affected as they are synonymous with the location. 3.30 Criminal intelligence identifying the perpetrator is one effort required to address this. Clearly cross border intelligence is required as a large percentage of those accused were from other boroughs (and police force areas). Having regard to the number of late night / early morning offences, some late night Automatic Number Plate Recognition work may assist with the night time burglaries where vehicles are stolen, especially if photographs are associated with them to identify driver / passengers although RIPA may cause problems in this area. 3.31 It is known that much activity has been undertaken to raise awareness without unnecessarily raising the fear of crime. As an example  33% of all properties in Gooshays ward and 11% in Hacton and Heaton have been visited and advice given on the doorstop;  In Upminster ward properties in areas with UPVC doors and burglaries have been leafleted and every fifth householder spoken to;  Many events have been held throughout Havering giving advice and items to reduce the likelihood of burglaries. 18
  19. 19. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 3.32 It is suggested that such activities are considered and continued where appropriate but also some additional attention to the more vulnerable properties may be of benefit, ie detached and semi-detached houses and terraced houses with easy rear access – which may be difficult to identify. 19
  20. 20. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Race 3.33 The last five years racial incidents are shown in Table 1 Table 1 Period Count Dec 03 to Nov 04 309 Dec 04 to Nov 05 295 Dec 05 to Nov 06 242 Dec 06 to Nov 07 184 Dec 07 to Nov 08 202 3.34 From the table above the increase in 07/08 is 9.8% however in the financial year to date, April to November, reports of Racial Incidence have increased by 14%. However, numbers of reported incidents are a poor performance indicator as it is known this is a crime that is greatly under-reported. However, since 2003 there has been a dedicated effort to increase reporting, e.g. third party reporting and dedicated hot lines. 3.35 The ethnic population of the borough has increased. At the time of the last census (2001) it was 4.8%. Data for Havering projected this figure around 7.2% in 2007 and it is anticipated to rise to 7.8% by 2010. However, the caveat to this is that the figures may be affected by the current downturn in business. Detailed Analysis 3.36 Table 2 shows the type of offences that are classified as racial. Table 2 Crime Type Total Percentage ABH 11 5% Assault with Injury 17 8% Common Assault 21 10% Criminal Damage To a Dwelling 5 2% Criminal Damage To M/V 8 4% Criminal Damage To Other Bldg 10 5% Harassment 66 31% Other Criminal Damage 7 3% Other Notifiable 1 0% Others - Other Accepted Crime 65 30% Theft From Shops 3 1% Grand Total 214 3.37 “Others Other accepted crime” are racial incidents that cover a wide variety of offences, eg offences under the Communications Act, animal cruelty or record only. While this may appear unhelpful the offences are so disparate that analysis of them produces no useful information. Almost one in four racial reports are for an assault although none involve serious injury (GBH or Most Serious Violence). One in three is a case of harassment and one in seven involves criminal damage 3.38 Table 3 shows the victims of racial crimes as recorded. 20
  21. 21. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Table 3 Not Havering Ethnicity Havering Resident Total Percentage Asian 24 71 95 36% Afro-Caribbean 9 67 76 29% White European 11 49 60 23% Dark European 6 10 16 6% Not Known 1 8 9 3% Egyptian / Arab 4 4 2% Oriental 1 1 0% Grand Total 51 210 261 Percentage 20% 80% 3.39 Table 3 shows that four out of five victims reside in Havering. Almost four out of ten are Asian, three out of ten are Afro-Caribbean and this is also the case of white victims. A more detailed examination of the white victims revealed almost none of the victims were English (most were Eastern European in origin). Table 4 shows the ethnicity and gender. Table 4 Ethnicity Female Male Total Asian 21 74 95 Afro-Caribbean 29 47 76 White European 35 25 60 Dark European 6 10 16 Not Known 8 1 9 Egyptian / Arab 2 2 4 Oriental 1 1 Grand Total 102 159 261 Percentage 39% 61% 3.40 Three out of every five victims are males. Where males are the victim one out of every two is Asian. For females the highest victim group is ‘White European’ who account for one in every three. The ‘White Europeans’ excludes ‘British’ and is mainly eastern Europeans. 3.41 Table 5 shows the age breakdown of victims by gender. Table 5 Age Grouped Female Male Total 10 - 17 23 25 48 18 - 25 15 33 48 26 - 35 23 47 70 36 - 45 28 27 55 46 - 55 10 19 29 56 - 65 3 7 10 76 - 85 1 1 Total 102 159 261 Those aged 26 to 35 years are the largest single group of victims. 3.42 Table 6 shows the age grouping by crime type. Table 6 Crime Type 10 18 26 36 46 56 76 Total 21
  22. 22. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 to to to to to to to 17 25 35 45 55 65 85 ABH 10 4 1 3 1 19 Assault with Injury 5 8 10 2 25 Common Assault 11 4 6 4 1 26 Criminal Damage To a Dwelling 4 1 5 Criminal Damage To M/V 2 1 6 3 1 13 Criminal Damage To Other Bldg 5 1 6 Harassment 9 19 28 18 11 3 88 Other Criminal Damage 2 1 4 7 Others - Other Accepted Crime 11 11 22 12 8 6 70 Theft From Shops 1 1 2 Grand Total 48 48 70 55 29 10 1 261 3.43 Of those victims aged 10 to 17 years 54% are subject to assault. This figure drops to 33% for the age group 18 – 25 and 24% for 26 – 35. Harassment is a consistent feature for a large age range 18 to 55 years. 3.44 65 incidents (30%) are committed at home address of the resident. The maximum distance that a victim travels (from their own home) to become a crime victim is 6.0Km (3.8 miles). The average distance of those who are not a victim of crime in their own home is 1.9Km (1.2 miles). 3.45 Only 44 persons are shown as accused for this crime type. Of these 91% are ‘White European’, 7% Afro-Caribbean and 2% ‘Dark European’. 3.46 Of the ‘White Europeans’, seven out of ten of these are male. Further to this, fourteen (32%) of all accused are males aged 10 to 17 years of age. Finally, one in four of all accused are ‘White Europeans, aged 10-17 years. 3.47 Similar to victims the distance the accused travel to commit an offence is fairly small. The maximum was 5.4Km (3.4 miles) the average was 1.5Km (0.9 mile). 3.48 The sanctioned detection target for 2007/08 is 50%. Currently the rate is 37%. This year there have been 56 sanctioned detections which is 24 short of the number required to meet the target (all information is correct to 24th November 2008). 3.49 Map 1 below shows the spread of this crime with victims and accused locations also. The following maps are then hotspots maps for this crime type. Map 2 shows the hotspots for the crime locations, Map 3 the hotpots for where the victims live and map 4 a hotspot for where the accused live. Map 1 22
  23. 23. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Racial Crimes with Victims and Accused _ ^ __ _ ^^ ^ Gooshays Havering Park _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ __ _ _ _ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ __ ^^ _^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ _ ^ ^ Heaton _ ^ _ __ _ ^ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ____ _ ^ ^^^^^ ^ _ ___ ^ ^^^ _ ^ _ _ ^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _^ _^ _ ^ ^_ Harold Wood Pettits Mawneys _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ Squirrels Heath _ ^ __ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ _ __ ^ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ __ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ _ __ _ ^ ^^^ ^ __ _ _ _ __ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ Romford Town ^ _ ^ Emerson Park _ ^ _ ^ _ __ _ ^ ^^ ^ Brooklands _ ^ __ _ ^^ ^ _ ^ Cranham _ ^ _^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ __ _ ^^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ Hylands _ ^ ___ ^^^ _ ^ __ _ ^^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ St Andrews _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ __ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ __ ^^ __ ^^ _ ^ _ _ ^ ^ Hacton _ ^ _ ^ __ ^^ Upminster _ _ ^ ^ Elm Park __ ^ ^ ___ _ ^^^ ^ _^ _ ^ _ ^ __ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ South Hornchurch _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _^ __ ^^ _ ^ _ __ ^ ^^ _ _ ^ ^ Rainham and Wennington . Legend 0 230 460 920 1,380 1,840 Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Metres Race - Accused Events Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to Race - Victims Events _ ^ prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Havering LA100024327 Race - Main Data Events 23
  24. 24. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Map 2 Racial Crimes Hotspot - Harold Hill Area Havering Park Gooshays Heaton Harold Wood Pettits Mawneys Squirrels Heath Romford Town Emerson Park Brooklands Cranham Hylands St Andrews Hacton Havering Park Upminster Elm Park South Hornchurch Gooshays Rainham and Wennington Heaton Harold Wood . Legend 0 485 970 1,940 2,910 3,880 Metres 500m Radius Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Havering m w hg Lo iu LA100024327 Hi ed M 3.50 This map shows the main hotspot which centres around Farnham Road and Briar Road. The next hotspot is Romford Town centre. 24
  25. 25. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Map 3 Racial Crimes Hotspot - Victims Gooshays Havering Park Heaton Harold Wood Pettits Mawneys Squirrels Heath Romford Town Emerson Park Brooklands Cranham Hylands St Andrews Hacton Upminster Elm Park South Hornchurch Rainham and Wennington . 0 370 740 1,480 2,220 2,960 Legend Metres 500m Radius Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Havering w m gh Lo iu LA100024327 Hi ed M 3.51 It can be seen that victim hotspots are similar to map 1 which is as would be expected as victims do not travel far from their homes. 25
  26. 26. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Map 4 Racial Crimes Hotspot - Accused Gooshays Havering Park Heaton Harold Wood Pettits Mawneys Squirrels Heath Romford Town Emerson Park Brooklands Cranham Hylands St Andrews Hacton Upminster Elm Park South Hornchurch Rainham and Wennington . 0 370 740 1,480 2,220 2,960 Legend Metres 500m Radius Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Havering w h m g Lo iu LA100024327 Hi ed M 3.52 This is similar to previous hotspot maps for the same reason previously referred to (distance travelled). Due to the small number each accused has become a hotspot. The hotspots areas are Farnham Road, Elvet Avenue and Elm Park Shopping area. Care should be given to this as each hotspot is likely to be two or three persons or one person arrested two or three times. 26
  27. 27. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Observations / Recommendations 3.53 In regard to the volume of crimes we are the 11th safest London borough and 10th safest when measuring crime against population statistics. However, when the ‘target’ population is only taken into account we are 31st or 32nd (out of 32 London boroughs). While all large outer boroughs with a low ethnic population come out poor in this measurement, it clearly is something that needs addressing. 3.54 The classic crime triangle, victim, accused and location should be considered. 3.55 For the location, with three cases in ten occurring in their home and for the remaining cases which are, relatively, few spread over a large area this presents a problem. Some publicity in the main hotspot area – Briar Road area, Farnham Road area and Romford Town centre may be of use. This publicity may be of use especially where prosecutions or other action is being taken against offenders or their families, eg consideration by Homes in Havering and other housing providers of intentional homelessness. It is difficult to see how the location can be addressed in any other way with such low numbers. 3.56 For victims again it is difficult to remove them from the triangle. The main area should be around encouraging reporting, support and positive action, including covert and overt videoing where appropriate. 3.57 For accused, consideration may be to focus on the schools near to the hotspots areas. 27
  28. 28. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Domestic Violence 3.58 The boroughs performance over the last 12 months has been on a reducing level of reported incidents. Table 1 below shows our performance for the last twelve months and the financial Year to date (FYTD). It can be seen that for a twelve month period this crime has reduced 8% and 16% for the whole twelve month period under review. Table 1a shows domestic incidents – where no crime is committed and it can be seen that these are set to rise slightly. Table 1 Table 1a Last Current Last Current Year Year Percentage Year Year Percentage Dec 90 61 -32% Dec 167 169 1% Jan 101 59 -42% Jan 195 185 -5% Feb 81 52 -36% Feb 151 160 6% Mar 87 77 -11% Mar 166 206 24% Apr 83 54 -35% Apr 181 167 -8% May 69 80 16% May 176 194 10% Jun 91 97 7% Jun 184 227 23% Jul 101 84 -17% Jul 208 215 3% Aug 88 75 -15% Aug 221 193 -13% Sep 92 80 -13% Sep 203 195 -4% Oct 70 77 10% Oct 186 191 3% Nov 61 57 -7% Nov 171 181 6% Total 1014 853 -16% Total 2209 2283 3% FYTD 655 604 -8% FYTD 1530 1563 2% 3.59 Table 2 shows the yearly total and it can be seen that we have a similar level to 2007/08 and a 25% reduction on 2004/05 levels Table 2 Count 2004/05 1216 2005/06 1377 2006/07 1114 2007/08 904 2008/09 * 906 * Flat rate projection Detailed Analysis 3.60 Location: Table 3 shows the numbers of domestic violence offences by ward. It shows the most recent 12 months (column B) and the previous 12 months (column A) and the percentage change (column C). The two remaining columns show the percentage share of those two years crimes across the wards (column D and E). A ward with more than 5.6% is above average - if all the crimes occurred equally across the borough. 28
  29. 29. Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10 Table 3 A B C D E Dec 06 to Dec 07 to Dec 06 to Dec 07 to Ward Nov 07 Nov 08 Percentage Nov 07 Nov 08 Brooklands 133 117 -12% 7% 6% Cranham 40 49 23% 2% 3% Elm Park 90 98 9% 5% 5% Emerson Park 51 64 25% 3% 3% Gooshays 194 179 -8% 10% 10% Hacton 57 61 7% 3% 3% Harold Wood 128 106 -17% 7% 6% Havering Park 124 114 -8% 7% 6% Heaton 142 147 4% 8% 8% Hylands 68 62 -9% 4% 3% Mawneys 113 116 3% 6% 6% Pettits 74 58 -22% 4% 3% Rainham and Wennington 106 117 10% 6% 6% Romford Town 210 195 -7% 11% 11% South Hornchurch 118 131 11% 6% 7% Squirrels Heath 84 74 -12% 5% 4% St Andrews 85 124 46% 5% 7% Upminster 37 35 -5% 2% 2% Total 1854 1847 0% 3.61 From Table 3 it can be seen that some wards are above average for this crime in the last twelve months, especially Gooshays, Heaton, and Romford Town. It is worthy of note that almost without exception these three wards are prominent irrespective of what crime or incident is investigated. The reason for this are as follows:  Romford usually due to the volume of people visiting  and Gooshays and Heaton, as these are high on the Index of Deprivation. 3.62 Table 4 shows where the locations of offences are recorded. As there are over 150 potential locations these have been grouped as best as possible into six. Table 4 Grouped Total Percentage Car Park / Shopping Precint 21 1% Commercial 27 1% Other 34 1% Private Residence 2614 91% Street 158 6% Not Stated 8 0% Total 2862 3.63 Not unsurprisingly over nine out of every ten crimes are in the privacy of the victims homes. This clearly creates a huge problem for prevention. 3.64 The offences vary widely as can be seen in Table 5 Table 5 29

×