Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc

Strategic Assessment 2009 - 10

Strategic Assessment 2009 / 10

1


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


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 1st 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


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


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


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 ViolenceRacial Crime Assault with injuryDomestic 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 andTheft 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

6


Criminal DamageFly tippingCriminal 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

7


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 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 Crime2.5.2 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.

8


Consideration 2 – Knife crime2.5.4 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 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 Violence2.5.7 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 residential2.5.9 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.


Consideration 6 – Drug Offences2.5.10 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.


9


Consideration 7 – Criminal damage to motor vehicles2.5.11 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).


Consideration 8 – Robbery2.5.12 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 crime2.5.13 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.


Consideration 11 – Youth crime2.5.14 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


Consideration 12 – Carrying an offensive weapon2.5.15 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.


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 PercentageDec-06 95 115 21%Jan-07 104 117 13%Feb-07 103 107 4%Mar-07 103 98 -5%Apr-07 78 109 40%May-07 66 92 39%Jun-07 62 101 63%Jul-07 92 128 39%Aug-07 88 145 65%Sep-07 107 119 11%Oct-07 86 150 74%Nov-07 85 115 35%Total 1069 1396 31%FYTD 664 959 44%

3.2 However, there are still 23 boroughs in London who have more burglaries than Havering (either using the volume of per thousand household yardstick).

3.3 Table 2 shows the yearly total and it can be seen how bad this year is likely to be. Already with four months to the end of the year we are within a hundred of our worse year in the last seven.

Table 2Year Burglary2001-02 11092002-03 10582003-04 9622004-05 9032005-06 10912006-07 11752007-08 11012008-09 * 1440

* Estimated figure - flat rate projection

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


Table 3A B C D E

WARDNAME

Dec 06 to Nov

07

Dec 07 to Nov

08Percentage

Change

Dec 06 to Nov

07

Dec 07 to Nov

08Brooklands 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 TotalFlat / Maisonette 47 68 98 213Semi-Detached 316 24 299 639Terraced 100 9 125 234Other Residence 13 6 85 104Detached 117 3 74 194Total 593 110 681 1384Table 4a Private Council Other TotalFlat / 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 TotalFlat / 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


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

Entry Point ArtificeBreak-

InNot

ApplicableNot

KnownWalk-

InNot

Shown TotalCeiling 1 1Door 78 636 28 24 87 853Fire Exit 1 1 2Letter Box 3 4 7Not App. 2 13 53 68Not Known 1 36 1 38Other 4 1 5Patio Door 2 77 4 2 5 90Roof 1 1Wall 1 1Window 253 24 1 23 301Not Shown 17 14Grand 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 6Only Detached Premises

Approach Number PercentageFront 444 53%Side / Rear 366 44%Not known 30 4%Total 840

Table 7Terraced Only

Approach Number PercentageFront 157 65%Side / Rear 75 31%Not known 8 3%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


Upminster

Havering ParkGooshays

Cranham

PettitsHarold Wood

Rainham and Wennington

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Burglaries Havering

0 430 860 1,2901,720215Metres

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 LA100024327

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


0-1 287 21%1-2 92 7%2-3 96 7%3-4 95 7%4-5 88 6%5-6 89 6%6-7 81 6%7-8 58 4%8-9 41 3%9-10 48 3%10-11 47 3%11-12 43 3%12-13 34 2%13-14 47 3%14-15 38 3%

15-16 38 3%16-17 33 2%17-18 31 2%18-19 28 2%19-20 13 1%20-21 20 1%21-22 10 1%22-23 11 1%23-24 16 1%Total 1384

Table 9Time Count Percentage2200 - 0600 774 56%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 10Property - Grouped Total ValueJewellery 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


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

MakeRecovered Damaged

Recovered Damaged -

Minus Property

Recovered Intact

Stolen / Taken Total

Ford 13 19 37 69BMW 6 25 21 52Mercedes 3 9 11 23Vauxhall 2 7 10 19VW 4 10 3 17Audi 2 8 5 15Peugeot 2 7 3 12Renault 4 3 7Porsche 3 2 5Honda 2 1 3Lexus 1 2 3BMW - Mini 2 2Chrysler 1 1 2Hyundai 1 1 2Jaguar 1 1 2Landrover 2 2Mazda 1 1 2Mitsubishi 2 2Subaru 2 2Toyota 1 1 2Volvo 1 1 2Ferrari 1 1Fiat 1 1Honda - Motorcycle 1 1Jeep 1 1Kia 1 1Nissan 1 1Rover 1 1Skoda 1 1Suzuki 1 1Yamaha - Motorcycle 1 1Grand 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 12Make Total Percentage Borough Make up

16


Ford 69 27.1% 35.3%BMW 52 20.4% 3.8%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/kChrysler 2 0.8% 0.4%Hyundai 2 0.8% 0.8%Jaguar 2 0.8% 0.9%Landrover 2 0.8% N/kMazda 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/kFiat 1 0.4% 2.1%Honda - Motorcycle 1 0.4% N/kJeep 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/kGrand 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

EthnicityOutside Havering In Havering Total Percentage

Afro-Caribbean 4 2 6 8%

17


Asian 1 3 4 5%Dark European 4 4 5%White European 27 37 64 82%Grand Total 36 42 78Percentage 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

Age GroupsOutside 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 / Recommendations3.27 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;

18


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.

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


Race

3.33 The last five years racial incidents are shown in Table 1

Table 1Period CountDec 03 to Nov 04 309Dec 04 to Nov 05 295Dec 05 to Nov 06 242Dec 06 to Nov 07 184Dec 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 Analysis3.36 Table 2 shows the type of offences that are classified as racial.

Table 2

Crime Type TotalPercentag

eABH 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


Table 3

EthnicityNot

HaveringHavering 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 261Percentage 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 4Ethnicity Female Male TotalAsian 21 74 95Afro-Caribbean 29 47 76White European 35 25 60Dark European 6 10 16Not Known 8 1 9Egyptian / Arab 2 2 4Oriental 1 1Grand Total 102 159 261Percentage 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 5Age Grouped Female Male Total10 - 17 23 25 4818 - 25 15 33 4826 - 35 23 47 7036 - 45 28 27 5546 - 55 10 19 2956 - 65 3 7 1076 - 85 1 1Total 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.

21


Table 6Crime Type 10

to 17

18 to 25

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

76 to 85

Total

ABH 10 4 1 3 1 19Assault with Injury 5 8 10 2 25Common Assault 11 4 6 4 1 26Criminal Damage To a Dwelling 4 1 5Criminal Damage To M/V 2 1 6 3 1 13Criminal Damage To Other Bldg 5 1 6Harassment 9 19 28 18 11 3 88Other Criminal Damage 2 1 4 7Others - Other Accepted Crime 11 11 22 12 8 6 70Theft From Shops 1 1 2Grand 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.

22


Map 1

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂ _̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂ _̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Upminster

Havering ParkGooshays

PettitsHarold Wood

Cranham


Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Racial Crimes with Victims and Accused

0 460 920 1,380 1,840230Metres 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 LA100024327

23


Map 2

Upminster

Cranham

PettitsHarold Wood

Havering Park Gooshays

Heaton


Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Squirrels Heath

Romford Town

Racial Crimes Hotspot - Harold Hill Area

0 970 1,940 2,910 3,880485Metres


3.50 This map shows the main hotspot which centres around Farnham Road and Briar Road. The next hotspot is Romford Town centre.

24


Map 3

Upminster

Gooshays

Havering Park

Cranham

PettitsHarold Wood


Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Racial Crimes Hotspot - Victims

0 740 1,480 2,220 2,960370Metres


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


Map 4

Upminster

Gooshays

Havering Park

Cranham

PettitsHarold Wood


Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Racial Crimes Hotspot - Accused

0 740 1,480 2,220 2,960370Metres


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


Observations / Recommendations3.53 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


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

Last Year

Current Year Percentage

Dec 90 61 -32%Jan 101 59 -42%Feb 81 52 -36%Mar 87 77 -11%Apr 83 54 -35%May 69 80 16%Jun 91 97 7%Jul 101 84 -17%Aug 88 75 -15%Sep 92 80 -13%Oct 70 77 10%Nov 61 57 -7%Total 1014 853 -16%FYTD 655 604 -8%

Table 1a

Last Year

Current Year Percentage

Dec 167 169 1%Jan 195 185 -5%Feb 151 160 6%Mar 166 206 24%Apr 181 167 -8%May 176 194 10%Jun 184 227 23%Jul 208 215 3%Aug 221 193 -13%Sep 203 195 -4%Oct 186 191 3%Nov 171 181 6%Total 2209 2283 3%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 Count2004/05 12162005/06 13772006/07 11142007/08 9042008/09 * 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


Table 3A B C D E

WardDec 06 to

Nov 07Dec 07 to

Nov 08 PercentageDec 06 to

Nov 07Dec 07 to

Nov 08Brooklands 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 4Grouped Total PercentageCar 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

29


Table 5

Crime Type

Dec 07To

Nov 08 PercentageOthers - Other Accepted Crime 1071 58%Assault with Injury 193 10%Common Assault 170 9%ABH 153 8%Harassment 71 4%Criminal Damage To a Dwelling 42 2%Other Notifiable 38 2%Other Criminal Damage 26 1%Criminal Damage To M/V 22 1%Other Theft 15 1%Other Violence 10 1%Burglary in a Dwelling 7 0%Other Sexual 7 0%Serious Wounding 6 0%Rape 5 0%GBH 3 0%Theft/Taking of M/V 3 0%Burglary in Other Buildings 2 0%Criminal Damage To Other Bldg 1 0%Murder 1 0%Offensive Weapon 1 0%Other Fraud & Forgery 1 0%Possession Of Drugs 1 0%Total 1849 1849

3.65 Almost six out of ten are in the category ‘Other accepted crime’. This includes a very wide categorisation of crime (for example, telephone nuisance and other forms of communication nuisance and also the most unhelpful of all ‘Other Crime or Record Only Entry not catered for Elsewhere’).

3.66 Three out of every ten have a level of violence used to varying degrees. The one murder is a special case in that it is not the traditional domestic violence scenario as it is not between married or co-habiting couples (or ones that have parted). It was a mother / son relationship and it would appear there were other behavioural issues also. The last domestic murder between partners (or ex-partners) in the borough was around 2003.

3.67 Table 6 shows the categories included as ‘’assault’. It could be argued that other crime types are however this is the generally accepted set. (Due to a change in reporting ‘Assault with Injury’ and ‘ABH’ are combined as is ‘Serious Violence’ and ‘GBH’).

Table 6

30


Violence Only Count PercentageAssault with Injury 346 63%Common Assault 170 31%Other Violence 10 2%Other Sexual 7 1%Serious Wounding 9 2%Rape 5 1%Murder 1 0%Total 548

3.68 It can be seen that one in three violent offences result in no or extremely minor injury, which is not to trivialise the pernicious effect that such action can have. Conversely two out of three are more serious and 2% are of a sexual nature.

3.69 Graph 1 shows that despite the expected reduction in offences for the year that the trend for both domestic violence and domestic offences is upward, albeit only slightly.

Domestic Violence - Dec 2007 to Nov 2008

R2 = 0.1205

R2 = 0.1352

0

50

100

150

200

250

Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08

Offences Incidents

Linear (Incidents) Linear (Offences)

3.70 When the time of the day and day of the week is investigated, weekends and evenings are key periods. Four out of ten incidents occur on a Saturday and Sunday and the same figure applies to the hours 6.00pm to midnight. Tables 7 and 7a highlights this information.

31


Table 7

Hour Block (2 hr) Sun

day

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0159 20% 11% 10% 13% 11% 14% 20% 100%0200 - 0359 25% 10% 8% 10% 10% 13% 23% 100%0400 - 0559 25% 7% 10% 8% 10% 10% 31% 100%0600 - 0759 9% 14% 16% 16% 7% 21% 16% 100%0800 - 0959 21% 14% 15% 11% 12% 12% 16% 100%1000 - 1159 17% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 24% 100%1200 - 1359 16% 11% 15% 15% 15% 13% 16% 100%1400 - 1559 25% 15% 16% 10% 11% 8% 13% 100%1600 - 1759 20% 12% 13% 9% 15% 12% 20% 100%1800 - 1959 17% 17% 14% 13% 11% 13% 15% 100%2000 - 2159 16% 15% 13% 14% 11% 16% 15% 100%2200 - 2359 13% 12% 16% 12% 16% 15% 16% 100%Total 18% 13% 13% 12% 13% 13% 18% 100%

Table 7a

Hour Block (2 hr) Sun

day

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0159 10% 8% 7% 10% 9% 10% 11% 9%0200 - 0359 8% 5% 3% 5% 5% 6% 7% 6%0400 - 0559 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 6% 3%0600 - 0759 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 2% 2%0800 - 0959 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7%1000 - 1159 7% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8% 10% 8%1200 - 1359 7% 8% 10% 10% 10% 8% 8% 9%1400 - 1559 11% 9% 9% 6% 7% 5% 6% 8%1600 - 1759 11% 9% 9% 7% 12% 8% 11% 10%1800 - 1959 12% 16% 13% 13% 11% 12% 10% 12%2000 - 2159 12% 16% 13% 16% 12% 16% 11% 13%2200 - 2359 10% 13% 17% 14% 18% 15% 13% 14%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Victims: Table 8 shows the percentage of victims who reside in Havering.

Table 8

GenderNot in

HaveringHavering Resident Total Percentage

Female 72 1116 1188 67%Male 42 551 593 33%Not Known 5 5 0%Total 114 1672 1786Percentage 6% 94%

As can be seen and expected almost all are Havering residents.

Tables 9, 9a and 9b show the number of victims by volume and then percentages, where age and gender are noted,

Table 9 32


Age Group Female Male Total<10 3 1 410 - 17 19 8 2718 - 25 319 103 42226 - 35 321 159 48036 - 45 339 165 50446 - 55 127 95 22256 - 65 42 49 9166 - 75 10 10 2076 - 85 4 2 686+ 4 1 5Total 1188 593 1788

Table 9a Age Group Female Male Total<10 0% 0% 0%10 - 17 2% 1% 2%18 - 25 27% 17% 24%26 - 35 27% 27% 27%36 - 45 29% 28% 28%46 - 55 11% 16% 12%56 - 65 4% 8% 5%66 - 75 1% 2% 1%76 - 85 0% 0% 0%86+ 0% 0% 0%Total 100% 100% 100%

Table 9b Age Group Female Male Total<10 75% 25% 100%10 - 17 70% 30% 100%18 - 25 76% 24% 100%26 - 35 67% 33% 100%36 - 45 67% 33% 100%46 - 55 57% 43% 100%56 - 65 46% 54% 100%66 - 75 50% 50% 100%76 - 85 67% 33% 100%86+ 80% 20% 100%Total 66% 33% 100%

3.71 It may surprise that one in three of reported cases, the victim is male. Victims under the age of 17 years account for only 2% of all reported instances, and those over 56 years only 6%. The peak age range for victims is 18 to 45 which shows that this crime is non specific when applied to age range. (Table 10)

33


Table 10 Age Groups Age Total

Age Groups Age Total


18 - 25

18 50

26 - 35

26 53

36 - 45

36 6019 48 27 56 37 3820 70 28 60 38 6121 48 29 57 39 5322 54 30 48 40 5523 54 31 43 41 4224 60 32 35 42 4225 38 33 43 43 54

18 - 25 Total 422 34 34 44 4535 51 45 54

26 - 35 Total 480 36 - 45 Total 504

3.72 Table 11 shows the breakdown of DV regarding ethnicity. Tables 11a and 11b show the percentage breakdown.

Table 11Ethnicity Female Male TotalAfro-Caribbean 71 46 117Asian 33 19 52Dark European 12 5 17Egyptian / Arab 4 2 6Not Known 80 16 101Oriental 1 1White European 988 504 1492Total 1188 593 1786Percentage 67% 33%

Table 11aEthnicity Female Male TotalAfro-Caribbean 6% 8% 7%Asian 3% 3% 3%Dark European 1% 1% 1%Egyptian / Arab 0% 0% 0%Not Known 7% 3% 6%Oriental 0% 0% 0%White European 83% 85% 84%Total 100% 100% 100%

Table 11bEthnicity Female Male TotalAfro-Caribbean 61% 39% 100%Asian 63% 37% 100%Dark European 71% 29% 100%Egyptian / Arab 67% 33% 100%Not Known 79% 16% 100%Oriental 0% 100% 100%White European 66% 34% 100%Total 67% 33% 100%

34


3.73 It can be seen by table 11b that the victim ratio is 2:1 by gender is fairly well spread across the racial groups, with Afro-Caribbean males being slightly disproportionate. When victims are looked at along gender lines the majority are of victims are white, however where racial groups are known the BAME represent 11% which is about 50% more than their representation within the borough.

Accused: Table 12 shows those who reside in Havering.

Table 12

GenderNot in Havering

Havering Resident Total Percentage

Female 9 43 52 13%Male 92 265 357 87%Total 101 308 409Percentage 25% 75%

3.74 For victims 95% were residents of Havering so it can be extrapolated that the difference is due to separation of partners.

3.75 Tables 13, 13a and 13b show the age grouping and gender of accused, where recorded. Tables again show number and then percentage.

Table 13Age Groups Female Male Total<10 1 110 - 17 2 218 - 25 14 92 10626 - 35 8 85 9336 - 45 23 114 13746 - 55 5 53 5856 - 65 2 10 12Total 52 357 409

Table 13aAge Groups Female Male Total<10 0% 0% 0%10 - 17 0% 1% 0%18 - 25 27% 26% 26%26 - 35 15% 24% 23%36 - 45 44% 32% 33%46 - 55 10% 15% 14%56 - 65 4% 3% 3%Total 100% 100% 100%

Table 13bAge Groups Female Male Total<10 0% 100% 100%10 - 17 0% 100% 100%18 - 25 13% 87% 100%26 - 35 9% 91% 100%36 - 45 17% 83% 100%46 - 55 9% 91% 100%56 - 65 17% 83% 100%Total 13% 87% 100%

3.76 For accused four out of ten are in the age range of 18 to 45, which is the same as victims. The 36 to 45 year age range accounts for one in three. Almost nine out of ten accused are male.

3.77 Table 14 shows the single years across the peak age group and again no single years is of particular noteworthiness, there is a reasonably even spread.

35


Table 14 Age Groups Age Total



18 - 25

18 11

26 - 35

26 5

36 - 45

36 1919 10 27 13 37 2120 21 28 11 38 1021 8 29 8 39 1722 22 30 9 40 1223 14 31 13 41 1524 9 32 7 42 1525 11 33 13 43 9

18 - 25 Total 106 34 11 44 1135 3 45 8

26 - 35 Total 93 36 - 45 Total 137

3.78 Table 15 shows the ethnicity of the accused where shown.

Table 15Ethnicity Female Male TotalAfro-Caribbean 2 35 37Asian 1 12 13Dark European 1 6 7Not Known 3 3White European 48 301 349Total 52 357 409

Ethnicity Female Male TotalAfro-Caribbean 4% 10% 9%Asian 2% 3% 3%Dark European 2% 2% 2%Not Known 0% 1% 1%White European 92% 84% 85%Total 100% 100% 100%

Ethnicity Female Male TotalAfro-Caribbean 5% 95% 100%Asian 8% 92% 100%Dark European 14% 86% 100%Not Known 0% 100% 100%White European 14% 86% 100%Total 13% 87% 100%

36


3.79 Table 16 shows the main crime type that those accused were arrested for.

Table16Crime Type TotalAssault with Injury 174Burglary in a Dwelling 4Burglary in Other Buildings 1Common Assault 87Criminal Damage To a Dwelling 31Criminal Damage To M/V 10Criminal Damage To Other Bldg 1Harassment 41Murder 1Offensive Weapon 1Other Criminal Damage 16Other Notifiable 25Other Theft 1Other Violence 3Others - Other Accepted Crime 1Possession Of Drugs 1Serious Violence 9Theft/Taking of M/V 2Grand Total 409

3.80 With regard to the above list, the top seven crimes reported to police are those with the highest number of accused, with the exception of ‘other accepted crime’.

The following map shows the hotspot locations for domestic Violence.

37


Map 1

Upminster

Havering Park

Cranham


Gooshays

PettitsHarold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Romford Town Ward - Hotspot Area

0 720 1,440 2,160 2,880360Metres


3.81 This map shows several hotspots . The deep red (top centre) is centred on Hilldene Avenue / Bridgewater Road and goes down to Briar Road. Central (Left) is centred on The Brewery site. Further south is Elm Park Avenue and at the bottom is Upminster Road South / Wennington Road. Most of these are heavily residential areas. The hotspot around the Brewery was further looked at.

38


3.82 Map 2 shows the area used to extract all domestic violence data to determine why Romford Town ward is a hotspot, ie is it like most crimes and due to the commercial draw the area has and the large number of persons who attend.

Map 2

Romford Town

Brooklands

Hylands

Pettits

Mawneys

Squirrels Heath

Romford Town Ward - Hotspot Area

0 120 240 360 48060Metres 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 LA100024327

3.83 From the data extracted table 17 shows the venue described for where the offence occurred.

39


Table 17Venue Total PercentageCouncil Owned 15 9%Detached 1 1%Flat/Maisonette 58 34%Ground Level Car Park - Uncovered 2 1%House/Bungalow 8 5%Licensed Club 2 1%Not Known 1 1%Other Shop 4 2%Privately Owned 15 9%Public House 1 1%Sauna/Health Studio 1 1%Semi-Detached 19 11%Street 24 14%Super/Hypermarket 1 1%Terraced 19 11%Total 171

3.84The above table was then simplified onto ‘public’ and ‘private’ as shown in table18

Table 18Hotspot Total PercentagePrivate 135 79%Public 35 20%Not Known 1 1%Total 171

3.85 It can be seen that four out of five domestic violence offences are in private locations and the commercial sector is not a major factor to this crime.

Observations / Recommendations3.86 The current financial year will be about the lowest reported number of offences for five years, as does the last 12 months of the calendar year. However, with the level of unreported crime for this type of offences being high, a reduction may not, necessarily, be good. To think that domestic violence is reducing seems unusual, especially with the known phenomenon of this crime type expected to increase when there is a downturn in the national economy.

3.87 While it is not going to be exact it would be expected that, broadly speaking, if 33% of victims were male then around 33% of accused would be female, whereas the figure for female accused is only 13%, this appears to be on the low side. There may be a simple reason why this figure is so low however it is not apparent.

3.88 Great efforts have been made over a number of years to encourage the reporting of DV, raise awareness of professionals, and support those who report offences. It is not apparent that this has had any significant success, although all the support and positive action may have dissuaded those prone to this form of behaviour. Neither is there any information about how many of those now recorded as offences would have previously featured in the ‘domestic incidents’ classification, and have now ‘progressed’ to being victims of a specific crime.

3.89 ‘Refuge’ have a campaign about ‘warning signs’ this may be of use to prevent incidents becoming offences (accessible through the website http://www.refuge.org.uk/page_l1-3_l2-426_l3-270_l4-3049_.htm). Refuge also have statistics of the number of females who would

40

http://www.refuge.org.uk/page_l1-3_l2-426_l3-270_l4-3049_.htm

http://www.refuge.org.uk/page_l1-3_l2-426_l3-270_l4-3049_.htm


have liked domestic abuse warning signs, what constitutes abuse and advice as to their options when suffering it at school age.

81% of women said they received no information about domestic violence when they were at school and yet nearly all of them would have liked to have had lessons about domestic violence as they saw the subject as important. *

95% of respondents recognised physical abuse as domestic violence but only a quarter of respondents understood the more subtle techniques of control such as jealousy and possessiveness as indicators of domestic violence. *

* From the ‘refuge website shown above.

3.90 While outreach and information to schools has been undertaken it might well be that more is required or that this information and communication strategy may need to be revisited.

3.91 The understanding is that those seeking help, especially when offences have occurred are given support to leave their partner, where applicable. It may be that in some cases those involved still wish to remain with the partner but are seeking cessation of the abuse. It maybe that use of ‘Conditional Cautioning’, where the abuser seeks professional help as part of the ‘condition’ may increase reporting of incidents and decrease the reporting of offences. This would probably require considerable cash input and a change in procedure /guidance. However, it may be something that could be tried.

3.92 With the vast majority of offences occurring behind closed doors a positive arrest and high sanctioned detection rate may clearly assist but this also needs to be consistently published to keep this high on the agenda. This borough has the highest arrest rate for sanctioned detections in London at 82% (as of 19th January 2009) and a detection rate of 55%. For the latter case the target is 65% and should be regarded as a minimum.

3.93 External means of funding for the support of victims should also be sought to ensure that if a strategic assessment and the Partnership should in the future decide not to include it in the Control Strategy then the service and support could continue uninterrupted.

3.94 It is not known what facilities exist for ‘out of hours’ support / advice but with the majority of cases being evening and weekends when office staff are not able to be reached a clear policy of publishing and promoting where help can be obtained should be implemented

41


Taking and Driving Away (TDA) – Taking of a Motor Vehicle

3.95 The boroughs performance over the last 12 months has been mixed. 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 and financial year to date this crime has not changed. It should also be noted that by volume we have more theft / taking of a motor vehicle than all but nine London Boroughs

Table 1

Last yearCurrent Year Percentage

Dec 80 80 0%Jan 102 104 2%Feb 103 90 -13%Mar 82 94 15%Apr 83 108 30%May 91 111 22%Jun 98 97 -1%Jul 86 100 16%Aug 86 107 24%Sep 105 87 -17%Oct 110 99 -10%Nov 123 70 -43%Total 1149 1147 0%FYTD 782 779 0%

3.96 Table 2 shows the yearly total and it can be seen how we are like to finish around the same level for this crime as last year but better than any of the three previous years.

Table 2Fin Yr Count2004/05 15272005/06 14572006/07 12372007/08 11502008/09 * 1168

* flat projection to end of year

Detailed Analysis3.97 Location: Table 3 shows the numbers of theft / taking of motor vehicles 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 crimes occurred equally across the borough.

42


Table 3A B C D E

WardDec 06 to

Nov 07Dec 07 to


Nov 07 Dec 07 to

Nov 08 Brooklands 84 96 14% 7% 8%Cranham 39 41 5% 3% 4%Elm Park 36 44 22% 3% 4%Emerson Park 39 24 -38% 3% 2%Gooshays 81 102 26% 7% 9%Hacton 45 44 -2% 4% 4%Harold Wood 66 56 -15% 6% 5%Havering Park 61 64 5% 5% 6%Heaton 89 75 -16% 8% 7%Hylands 31 42 35% 3% 4%Mawneys 74 64 -14% 6% 6%Pettits 63 60 -5% 5% 5%Rainham and Wennington 104 81 -22% 9% 7%Romford Town 72 72 0% 6% 6%South Hornchurch 99 81 -18% 9% 7%Squirrels Heath 48 48 0% 4% 4%St Andrews 58 99 71% 5% 9%Upminster 62 50 -19% 5% 4%Total 1151 1143 -1%

3.98 From Table 3 it can be seen that some wards are above average for this crime in the last twelve months, especially Brooklands, Gooshays, Heaton, Rainham & Wennington, South Hornchurch and St Andrews (5.6% would be an equal share).


Table 4Location Total PercentageCar Park / Shopping Precinct 174 15%Commercial 41 4%Not Stated 9 1%Other 7 1%Private Residence 258 23%Street 654 57%Total 1143

3.100 Almost three in every five offences are with the vehicle parked in the street. Given the size of the borough and number of road this is not too surprising. Further, one in four is shown at residential premises – usually on the front or driveway. One in seven is at car parks / shopping precincts, eg the Brewery, B&Q, Tesco.

3.101 Over 50 different makes of vehicle were subject to this crime. Table 5 shows the top five models.

43


Table 5Make Total PercentageFord 497 40%Vauxhall 87 7%Mercedes 73 6%Nissan 69 6%BMW 50 4%Total 1237

3.102 Ford is the most prevalent make of vehicle registered within the borough (2004 data). Ford accounted for 35% of registered vehicles although this ignores those businesses who parked within the borough either at their home address or business location.

3.103 Table 6 shows the top five models of the top two makes of car involved in this crime type

Table 6 Ford Vauxhall TotalFiesta 182 182Focus 68 68Escort 65 65Transit 65 65Mondeo 29 29Astra 27 27Corsa 19 19Vectra 6 6Cavalier 5 5Movano 4 4Total 409 61 470

3.104 Finally Table 7 shows the top ten makes, irrespective of the maker of the vehicle.

Table 7Model Make Total PercentageFiesta Ford 182 15%Focus Ford 68 5%Escort Ford 65 5%Transit Ford 65 5%Van Not Known 34 3%Sprinter Mercedes 32 3%3 Series BMW 31 3%Mondeo Ford 29 2%Astra Vauxhall 28 2%Total 1237

3.105 Ford fiesta’s alone account for one in seven offences Transit, sprinter and ‘vans’ account for 11% of the models and all vans, irrespective of make, account for 17%, again like theft from motor vehicle ’white van man’ is a favoured target of criminals.

3.106 It is generally thought that newer vehicles are more difficult to steal and so thieves would be targeting older vehicles. Of the 1237 vehicles recorded stolen 1194 had registration (Index) numbers recorded. 42% of those vehicles were registered since 2000. Showing that security is not as good as it would be hoped.

44


3.107 While this is only a guide as vehicles are recovered occasionally quite along time after the crime around three in every ten vehicles stolen are recovered. Some of these are damaged and or with property missing. About one in ten are recovered intact.

45


3.108 If we ignore the property or damage and attribute a notional value of £6000 per vehicle then the cost is in the region of £0.5m.

3.109 Looking at the day and time of day for this crime also presents a problem as, similar to burglary, the vehicle is left intact and some time later found to be missing. This period that the vehicle has been left can be a few minutes or even days but is typically several hours. While there are sophisticated methods and software programmes for attempting to resolve this we are not in possession of them. The crimes have therefore been grouped into three hour blocks from the committed from time

3.110 Table 8 shows the hour blocks by day and the percentage of crimes committed in that day

Table 8

Time Slot (3Hr) Sun

day

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0259 4% 6% 15% 2% 8% 5% 8% 7%0300 - 0559 2% 4% 4% 1% 1% 4% 3% 3%0600 -0859 1% 9% 9% 7% 11% 7% 4% 7%0900 - 1159 3% 11% 15% 16% 12% 11% 12% 12%1200 - 1459 10% 16% 10% 8% 10% 7% 8% 10%1500 - 1759 20% 11% 10% 13% 15% 13% 17% 14%1800 - 2059 32% 22% 14% 30% 25% 31% 30% 26%2100 - 2359 28% 22% 23% 23% 19% 21% 17% 22%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3.111 Table 9 uses the same data to show which day has most theft from vehicle committed.

Table 9

Time Slot (3Hr) Sun

day

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

0000 - 0259 6% 13% 27% 5% 19% 13% 16%0300 - 0559 7% 20% 20% 7% 3% 27% 17%0600 -0859 1% 18% 15% 17% 24% 17% 7%0900 - 1159 2% 14% 16% 23% 16% 16% 13%1200 - 1459 11% 24% 13% 14% 16% 12% 11%1500 - 1759 14% 12% 9% 16% 18% 16% 15%1800 - 2059 13% 13% 6% 19% 15% 20% 14%2100 - 2359 13% 15% 13% 18% 14% 17% 10%Total 10% 15% 12% 17% 16% 17% 13%

3.112 The offence is fairly well spread across the week (an even spread would be about 14% a day). It can be seen then that Sunday is below the average and Wednesday through to Friday above. The two peak three hour period during the week are both in the 6.00pm to 9.00pm slot on a Wednesday and a Friday.

3.113 When the wards with a raised incidence are looked (Brooklands, Gooshays, Heaton, Rainham & Wennington, South Hornchurch and St Andrews) at the day and time slot are in keeping with the borough as a whole

3.114 The victim in this crime is the vehicle , to examine the age, gender or ethnicity of the owner is not an activity that assist the analysis.

46


3.115 All those arrested for this offence are male.

3.116 Table 10 shows the ethnic breakdown and whether those arrested are Havering residents.

Table 10

Ethnicity

Not Havering Resident


Afro-Caribbean 1 1 2%Asian 1 1 2 4%White European 17 36 53 95%Total 19 37 56Percentage 34% 66%

3.117 It can be seen that two in every three are residents of Havering and almost all are white.

Table 11 looks at age groups and 11a shows the single years.

Table 11

Age Groups

Not Havering Resident


10 - 17 1 12 11 20%18 - 25 15 22 39 70%26 - 35 3 3 6 11%Total 19 37 56

Table 11aAge Total Percentage14 2 4%15 3 5%16 3 5%17 3 5%18 10 18%19 6 11%20 5 9%

21 4 7%22 7 13%23 2 4%24 1 2%25 4 7%26 4 7%30 1 2%33 1 2%Total 56

3.118 It can be seen that although seven in ten arrested are aged 18 to 25 years almost half of this age group are aged 18 and 19 years.

3.119 The following maps use the data to identify hotspots for this crime.

Map 1

47


Upminster

Gooshays

Cranham

Havering Park


Pettits Harold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

4Legend

TDA - No Car Parks

500m RadiusLow

Medium

High

Ward&Pop

Theft / Taking of Motor Vehicle

Upminster

Gooshays

Cranham

Havering Park


Pettits Harold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Metres


3.120 These two maps show the hotspots for all theft / taking of motor vehicle (left) and hotspots when ‘car parks’ are removed (right). While the general pattern is similar it can be seen that when car parks are removed, and they only account for 1 in seven crimes, that the problem is wide spread which is very problematical to address. Despite this there are some clear areas for attention. Heaton ward especially (it should be noted that Heaton ward is an area that, when almost anything is analysed, feature as a key area.

3.121 Map 2 uses all theft / taking of motor vehicle crimes where a van (any make) are the target.

48


Map 2

Upminster

Cranham

GooshaysHavering Park


Pettits Harold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

4

Legend

Fords - 500m RadiusLow

Medium

High

Theft / Taking of Motor Vehicles - Ford and Vans

Upminster

Cranham

Havering Park


Gooshays

Pettits Harold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

0 1,900 3,800 5,700 7,600950Metres


3.122 It can be seen that when all vans are looked at that to the south Rainham Shops are an area of concern and to the north it is B&Q / Tescos (Gallows Corner) area. When Ford vans alone are looked at Hornchurch Town centre is a key area.

Observations / Recommendations3.123 With regard to the crime triangle (Location, Victim (Vehicle) and Accused) this crime presents a problem for all aspects. For location it is clear that the crime is widespread and, even if a hotspot were reduced to zero, the total effect on numbers would be small. The vehicle (victim) presents a problem as there is not much technology to deter the smashing of a window to gain access and with over 130000 vehicles registered to Havering addresses plus business vehicles and those of visitors and workers in the borough the opportunity is huge. The accused while appearing to be white males are a small cohort and may not truly represent the problem.

3.124 Location: It should be of interest to all business that crime, associated with their location, is low, especially in current financially tight times. Efforts to improve security at car parks should be considered. Failure to address this might then require publishing of number of vehicles stolen, or that have had items stolen, by location to enable the public to make an informed choice of where to park. The down side is it may cause businesses to be less supportive of our efforts to spread the message of security and safety.

3.125 For the last two years Brooklands, Gooshays, Heaton, Rainham and Wennington and South Hornchurch wards have had an increased percentage of this crime type. It is considered that some increased awareness and information should be made to these residents.

3.126 Victims (Vehicles): Although this is clearly an area which presents difficulties van drivers are a key target and along with theft from motor vehicle advice to this group may be of benefit – especially as the cost to them if the van (or their tools) are stolen in loss of earnings exacerbates the cost to the owner. Improved alarm / security is clearly a cost effective option.

49


3.127 Accused: While information is sparse, with one in three offenders coming from out of the borough ANPR / border stops of vehicles leaving Havering may be disruptive or even productive. Additionally cross border liaison, which is occurring should continue with a view to increasing intelligence.

50


Theft from Motor Vehicle

3.128 The boroughs performance over the last 12 months has been mixed. 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 5%. However for this financial year it has increased by7%, demonstrating the problems we have faced in the mid year period. It should finally be acknowledged that last year we did well and so we are comparing relatively good figures as a base. It should also be noted there are 27 boroughs in London who have more theft from motor vehicles than Havering by volume.

Table 1

Last yearCurrent

Year PercentageDec 182 128 -30%Jan 225 159 -29%Feb 175 149 -15%Mar 162 158 -2%Apr 147 183 24%May 137 155 13%Jun 106 157 48%Jul 119 142 19%Aug 108 144 33%Sep 131 91 -31%Oct 139 87 -37%Nov 112 109 -3%Total 1743 1662 -5%FYTD 999 1068 7%

3.129 Table 2 shows the yearly total and it can be seen how bad the current year is likely to be. Already with four months still to the end of the year we are within a hundred of last years figure.

Table 2Year Crime2003/04 24952004/05 19992005/06 27612206/07 24422007/08 17552008/09 * 2412

* Estimated figure - flat projection

Detailed Analysis3.130 While there were 1850 vehicles shown as involved in theft from motor Vehicle only 1686 actually had property stole from them.

3.131 Location: Table 3 shows the numbers of theft from motor vehicles 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 crimes occurred equally across the borough.

51


Table 3A B C D E

WardDec 06 to

Nov 07Dec 07 to


Nov 07Dec 07 to

Nov 08Brooklands 111 93 -16% 7% 6%Cranham 40 32 -20% 2% 2%Elm Park 91 60 -34% 5% 4%Emerson Park 97 73 -25% 6% 4%Gooshays 97 117 21% 6% 7%Hacton 75 36 -52% 5% 2%Harold Wood 112 140 25% 7% 9%Havering Park 61 64 5% 4% 4%Heaton 69 139 101% 4% 8%Hylands 100 96 -4% 6% 6%Mawneys 77 66 -14% 5% 4%Pettits 98 68 -31% 6% 4%Rainham and Wennington 110 126 15% 7% 8%Romford Town 129 137 6% 8% 8%South Hornchurch 105 134 28% 6% 8%Squirrels Heath 77 82 6% 5% 5%St Andrews 116 104 -10% 7% 6%Upminster 98 72 -27% 6% 4%Grand Total 1663 1639 -1%

3.132 From Table 3 it can be seen that some wards are above average for this crime in the last twelve months, especially Gooshays, Harold Wood, Heaton, Rainham & Wennington, Romford Town and South Hornchurch.


Table 4Location Count PercentageStreet 995 61%Car Park / Shopping Precinct 290 18%Private Residence 220 13%Commercial 77 5%Not Known 47 3%Other 10 1%Total 1639

3.134 Three out of every five are on the street. The category car park / precinct includes commercial locations such as the brewery or Tesco car parks. ‘Commercial’ are a wide category of locations, e.g. public houses / school / nurseries, petrol stations, motor vehicle repair garage and factory.

3.135 Over 50 different makes of vehicle were subject to this crime. Table five shows the top five models.

52


Table 5Make Total PercentageFord 509 30.2%Vauxhall 160 9.5%Renault 99 5.9%Mercedes 98 5.8%Peugeot 95 5.6%

3.136 Ford is the most prevalent make of vehicle registered within the borough (2004 data). Ford accounted for 35% of registered vehicles although this ignores those businesses who parked within the borough either at their home address or business location.

3.137 Table 6 shows the top five models of the top two makes of car involved in this crime type

Table 6

Model Ford VauxhallGrand Total

Transit 151 151Fiesta 117 117Focus 77 77Mondeo 33 33Escort 28 28Astra 48 48Corsa 26 26Combo 15 15Vectra 14 14Movano 12 12

3.138 Finally Table 7 shows the top ten makes, irrespective of the maker of the vehicle.

Table 7Model Make Total PercentageTransit Ford 154 9%Fiesta Ford 118 7%Focus Ford 77 5%Van Not Shown 74 4%Astra Vauxhall 48 3%Golf VW 35 2%Mondeo Ford 33 2%Micra Nissan 32 2%Sprinter Mercedes 29 2%Escort Ford 28 2%Not Shown Not Shown 253 15%Total 1686 1686

3.139 Transit, sprinter and ‘vans’ account for 15% of the models and all vans 30%, clearly showing that ’white van man’ is a favoured target of criminals

3.140 Similar to the multiple venue codes, the property stolen codes are many. Table 8 shows the property grouped and the number of items stolen and total cost is also shown.

53


Table 8Property Type

Audio/Radio/Hi-Fi/CD/Electrical

Count 242Value Stolen £ 18,874

Camera etc


Cash / Valuable Document


Clothing


Computer / Mobile etc


Drug / Chemical


Handbag/Shoulder bag

Count 54Value Stolen £ 795

Household


Jewellery


Misc


Motor Vehicle Registration Plates


MV Parts


Sat Nav


Sport Equipment


Tobacco / Alcohol


Tools


Total Count 2879Total Value Stolen £ 490,466

3.141 This is showing almost £0.5m as being stolen. However the situation is considerably worse as almost 50% of the items shown stolen have no value attributed to them. Some items are of nil, or nominal, value, e.g. a driving licence or work pass. However, of the 1472 items shown at one penny or less only 103 (7.5%) would reasonably be expect to be recorded as no or nominal value. This would means that the value of property stolen is around £1m.

54


3.142 Table 9 shows a breakdown of the biggest value of items stolen, tools.

Table 9Tools/equip-other/NK

Building Material

Count of Crime No 1Sum of PROP Value Stolen £ 100

Compressor

Count of Crime No 3Sum of PROP Value Stolen £ 1,050

Copper


Hand Tool - Mech


Hand Tool - Power


Ladder/steps/trestle


Tools/equip-other/NK


Weld/Cutting equip


Total Count of Crime No 638Total Sum of PROP Value Stolen £ 180,018

3.143 Looking at the day and time of day for this crime also presents a problem as, similar to burglary, the property is left intact and some time later found to be the subject of as crime. This period that the vehicle has been left can be a few minutes or even days but is typically several hours. While there are sophisticated methods and software programmes for attempting to resolve this we are not in possession of them. The crimes have therefore been grouped into three hour blocks from the committed from time.

3.144 Table 10 shows the hour blocks by day and the percentage of crimes committed in any hour block in that day..

Table 10

Hour Block (Committed) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0259 7% 7% 6% 5% 2% 6% 6% 6%0300 - 0559 1% 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3% 2%0600 - 0859 2% 6% 7% 8% 7% 8% 3% 6%0900 - 1159 8% 13% 15% 15% 17% 16% 11% 14%1200 - 1459 11% 13% 16% 15% 18% 14% 20% 15%1500 - 1759 20% 15% 16% 16% 15% 20% 19% 17%1800 - 2059 27% 29% 23% 24% 24% 23% 25% 25%2100 - 2359 24% 16% 15% 15% 17% 13% 15% 16%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3.145 It can be seen that 1800 to 2100 hours is when 1 in 4 offences appear to be committed. Also on Sunday three in five crimes are committed twelve and midnight.

55


3.146 Table 11 uses the same data to show which day has most theft from vehicles committed.

Table 11

Hour Block (committed) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0259 15% 18% 16% 13% 5% 18% 14% 100%0300 - 0559 7% 19% 26% 11% 4% 11% 22% 100%0600 - 0859 3% 13% 19% 19% 16% 21% 7% 100%0900 - 1159 7% 13% 17% 16% 18% 19% 11% 100%1200 - 1459 9% 11% 17% 15% 17% 15% 17% 100%1500 - 1759 13% 12% 15% 14% 12% 19% 15% 100%1800 - 2059 12% 16% 15% 15% 14% 15% 13% 100%2100 - 2359 17% 13% 15% 14% 15% 13% 12% 100%Total 11% 14% 16% 15% 14% 16% 13% 100%

3.147 When looking at the day of the week there is a slight decrease on Sunday but in general it is fairly consistent

3.148 When the wards with raised incidents are looked at for day and time of offences (Gooshays, Heaton, South Hornchurch, Rainham & Wennington and Romford Town) it is found that all except Romford Town match the pattern of day and time indicated above. Romford Town ward has a very different make up from the others. Its target day is a Friday and the time period is extended from 0900 to 2100hours.

3.149 Very few persons have been dealt with for theft from vehicles. However, those that were, were white males. Table 12 shows the age breakdown.

Table 12

Age Groups

Not Resident

Resident in

Havering Total Percentage10 - 17 1 10 11 46%18 - 25 4 2 6 25%26 - 35 2 1 3 13%36 - 45 1 1 4%46 - 55 3 3 13%Total 10 14 24Percentage 42% 58%

3.150 Those committing this crime are under driving age and reside in the borough. Those of driving age in the main do not live on the borough.

3.151 Victim profiling is not a useful exercise as there is little if any instance when the target vehicle’s owner is known.


Map 1

56


Upminster


Cranham


Pettits Harold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

4 Legend

500m Radius

Low

Med

ium

High

Theft From Motor Vehicle


3.153 These two maps shows the hotspots for all theft from motor vehicle (left) and hotspots when ‘car parks’ are removed (right). While the general pattern is similar it can be seen that when car parks are removed, and they only account for one in five crimes, that the problem is wide spread which is very problematical to address. Having said that Heaton ward is clearly a problem area.

3.154 p 2 uses all theft from motor vehicle crimes and highlights the hotspot centres.

57


Map 2

Upminster

Havering Park

Cranham

Gooshays

PettitsHarold Wood


Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Theft From Motor Vehicles

0 525 1,050 1,575 2,100262.5Metres


Observations / Recommendations3.155 With regard to the crime triangle (Location, Victim ‘Vehicle’ and Accused) this crime presents a problem for all aspects. For location it is clear that the crime is wide spread and even if hotspots were reduced to zero the total effect on numbers would be small. The Vehicle (victim) presents a problem as there is not much technology to deter the smashing of a window to gain access and with over 130000 vehicles registered to Havering addresses plus business vehicles and those of visitors and workers in the borough the opportunity is huge. The accused while appearing to be white males are a small cohort and may not truly represent the problem.

58


3.156 The recording of locations and it wide number clearly present a problem especially in relation to car parks. Two examples of this

Often a crime is reported in The Brewery car park but it is rarely clear whether this is the open (ground) site or multi-story, without reading the actual ‘details’

Where a crime is shown at a ‘bank’ or similar does this mean the car was parked outside (and therefore in the street) or did the premises have a car park (in which case ‘bank’ should not be used.

3.157 Some guidance is clearly needed for those reporting this crime as clearly it would be unusual for a car to be at a bank, photographic shop, restaurant or public house (and should be ‘street’ or ‘car park’ in most instances) but could be at a car sales. This would assist in better analysis

3.158 Location: It is suggested that the three areas to apply extra effort would be:

North (Heaton and Gooshays wards - 15% of theft from motor vehicle crimes); Central (Romford Town ward - 8% of theft from motor vehicle crime); and South (South Hornchurch and Rainham and Wennington wards - 16% of

theft from motor vehicle crimes).

3.159 Increased patrols and targeted stop and search, raising public awareness involving wardens and others who patrol or are in the area could assist. Another aspect for some of the locations, especially, business one is the deployment of CCTV systems. Some locations that are a business and display a car crime problem should be requested to make checks of their car parks, akin to their check of toilets for cleanliness. The use of publicity for the less secure areas is also a tactic that could promote acceptance that crime reduction is the responsibility of all.

3.160 While the interpretation and grouping of car parks is quite wide, with one in five offences committed in such a location looking further into this aspect could be of use. An exercise of raising vehicle users awareness of simple safety rules to reduce the risk has been carried out at many locations throughout the borough but these perhaps need looking at again as a sign soon becomes unseen due to it always being there. Some smaller locations could also benefit from signage and others from good quality CCTV.

3.161 Victims (Vehicles): Very little can be done in this area, although the raising of awareness applies here also.

3.162 One clear target, also of high value, is ‘white van man’ and the tools of his trade. Efforts to identify ways of securing these vehicles better, alarms and getting the information that they are a key target should be made. Many of these victims are true victims as there tools are uninsurable. A system of promoting this security together with recording of details of the serial numbers etc via their trade outlets may be of benefit.

3.163 Accused: It would appear that the youth are involved in this disproportionately. The increase in the crime of an early evening tends to support this. An increase in intelligence can assist identifying those responsible or on the fringes, as it unlikely that all the offences go totally unnoticed by the local population. Early intervention for those on the fringe of this activity or positive action for the more persistent could assist. Youths are not a priority area in their own right but to be addressed if an area pointed towards their significant involvement. This appears to be an area where the multi-agency approach will require youth providers to assist.

59


Violence

3.164 The boroughs performance over the last 12 months has been mixed. Table 1 below shows our performance for the last twelve months and the financial Year to date (FYTD). It can be seen that this reported violent crime has reduced.

Table 1

Last YearCurrent

Year PercentageDec 120 83 -31%Jan 151 102 -32%Feb 117 106 -9%Mar 144 132 -8%Apr 132 117 -11%May 128 143 12%Jun 144 152 6%Jul 141 162 15%Aug 151 132 -13%Sep 145 127 -12%Oct 125 102 -18%Nov 138 119 -14%Total 1636 1477 -10%FYTD 1104 1054 -5%

3.165 Table 2 shows the yearly total and it can be seen that violent crime is likely to be slightly up when compared to last year however it is lower than the two years prior to that. Table 2 predicts an increase whereas table 1 shows a decrease. .This apparent anomaly can be explained by the fact that some offences that were common assault in 2007/08 are now AWI inflating this years figure. This illustrates the problem of comparing data for this report.

Table 2Fin Yr Count2004/05 13732005/06 20082006/07 18282007/08 15272008/09 * 1618**

* Flat rate projection of 8 months data

Detailed Analysis3.166 Location: Table 3 shows the numbers of violent crimes 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 crimes occurred equally across the borough.

60


Table 3 A B C D E

WardDec 06 to

Nov 07Dec 07 to


Nov 07Dec 07 to

Nov 08Brooklands 103 91 -12% 7% 7%Cranham 33 27 -18% 2% 2%Elm Park 60 49 -18% 4% 4%Emerson Park 38 43 13% 3% 3%Gooshays 163 114 -30% 11% 9%Hacton 31 34 10% 2% 3%Harold Wood 71 65 -8% 5% 5%Havering Park 62 45 -27% 4% 3%Heaton 87 76 -13% 6% 6%Hylands 44 48 9% 3% 4%Mawneys 59 51 -14% 4% 4%Pettits 41 30 -27% 3% 2%Rainham and Wennington 82 84 2% 6% 6%Romford Town 347 348 0% 23% 26%South Hornchurch 87 84 -3% 6% 6%Squirrels Heath 52 37 -29% 4% 3%St Andrews 79 68 -14% 5% 5%Upminster 43 40 -7% 3% 3%Total 1482 1334 -10%

3.167 From Table 3 it can be seen that some wards are above average for this crime in the last twelve months, especially Brooklands, Gooshays and, Romford Town, (5.6% would be an equal share). Romford town accounts for one in four offences and has been considered by others as one of the most violent wards in London. (However the measure used for this was a ‘per thousand population’, which ignores the fact that at weekends and especially in the evening the ward can increase due to the night time economy from around 13000 to double that figures or more. In addition the market attracts large numbers.) Although Gooshays has a 9% share violent crime is down in that ward by 30% and Brooklands saw a 12% reduction.

3.168 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 five categories.

Table 4

Venue (Grouped) Total PercentageCar Park / Shopping Precinct 96 7%Commercial 140 10%Other 42 3%Private Residence 538 40%Street 535 40%Total 1351

Three in five offences occur in a public place and two out of five are in the street.

3.169 Looking at the time of day and the day, the information is more accurate than for a lot of crimes because the victim knows, in most cases within a few minutes, what time the offence occurred. Indeed, this presents a problem in itself as the analysis can be too detailed. Table 5 shows crime by day and time of day using two hour slots. Table 5a and 5b use this data to show the percentage of crime by day (5a) or by hour (5b).

Table 5

61


Time Block (2Hrs) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0159 38 8 13 17 14 22 53 1650200 - 0359 28 10 1 6 4 12 35 960400 - 0559 12 4 2 3 7 9 370600 - 0759 4 3 1 2 4 3 8 250800 - 0959 15 15 6 15 6 6 10 731000 - 1159 11 7 12 9 12 18 25 941200 - 1359 17 16 13 17 9 10 17 991400 - 1559 24 14 21 14 13 17 21 1241600 - 1759 20 17 21 14 16 26 28 1421800 - 1959 26 16 17 14 23 22 23 1412000 - 2159 22 20 18 15 16 41 37 1692200 - 2359 21 12 19 23 22 53 36 186Total 238 142 144 146 142 237 302 1351

Table 5a

Time Block (2Hrs) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0159 23% 5% 8% 10% 8% 13% 32% 100%0200 - 0359 29% 10% 1% 6% 4% 13% 36% 100%0400 - 0559 32% 11% 5% 0% 8% 19% 24% 100%0600 - 0759 16% 12% 4% 8% 16% 12% 32% 100%0800 - 0959 21% 21% 8% 21% 8% 8% 14% 100%1000 - 1159 12% 7% 13% 10% 13% 19% 27% 100%1200 - 1359 17% 16% 13% 17% 9% 10% 17% 100%1400 - 1559 19% 11% 17% 11% 10% 14% 17% 100%1600 - 1759 14% 12% 15% 10% 11% 18% 20% 100%1800 - 1959 18% 11% 12% 10% 16% 16% 16% 100%2000 - 2159 13% 12% 11% 9% 9% 24% 22% 100%2200 - 2359 11% 6% 10% 12% 12% 28% 19% 100%Total 18% 11% 11% 11% 11% 18% 22% 100%

62


Table 5b

Time Block (2Hrs) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0159 16% 6% 9% 12% 10% 9% 18% 12%0200 - 0359 12% 7% 1% 4% 3% 5% 12% 7%0400 - 0559 5% 3% 1% 0% 2% 3% 3% 3%0600 - 0759 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2%0800 - 0959 6% 11% 4% 10% 4% 3% 3% 5%1000 - 1159 5% 5% 8% 6% 8% 8% 8% 7%1200 - 1359 7% 11% 9% 12% 6% 4% 6% 7%1400 - 1559 10% 10% 15% 10% 9% 7% 7% 9%1600 - 1759 8% 12% 15% 10% 11% 11% 9% 11%1800 - 1959 11% 11% 12% 10% 16% 9% 8% 10%2000 - 2159 9% 14% 13% 10% 11% 17% 12% 13%2200 - 2359 9% 8% 13% 16% 15% 22% 12% 14%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3.170 It can be seen that violence increases from 6.00pm and reduces from 1.00am. Three of every five offences occur in this time slot. Again Friday and Saturday are the key days of the week (Sunday only features due to Saturday night / Sunday morning crimes.)

3.171 Table 6 shows the peak period by hour and day. Table 6a and 6b use this data to show the percentage of crime by day (6a) or by hour (6b).

Table 6

Time Block (1 Hr) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0059 15 5 6 12 9 13 27 871800 - 1859 15 5 8 8 14 11 12 731900 - 1959 11 11 9 6 9 11 11 682000 - 2059 16 11 11 8 9 15 16 862100 - 2159 6 9 7 7 7 26 21 832200 - 2259 9 5 9 14 8 18 14 772300 - 2359 12 7 10 9 14 35 22 109Total 238 142 144 146 142 237 302 1351

Table 6a

Time Block (1 Hr) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0059 17% 6% 7% 14% 10% 15% 31% 100%1800 - 1859 21% 7% 11% 11% 19% 15% 16% 100%1900 - 1959 16% 16% 13% 9% 13% 16% 16% 100%2000 - 2059 19% 13% 13% 9% 10% 17% 19% 100%2100 - 2159 7% 11% 8% 8% 8% 31% 25% 100%2200 - 2259 12% 6% 12% 18% 10% 23% 18% 100%2300 - 2359 11% 6% 9% 8% 13% 32% 20% 100%Total 18% 11% 11% 11% 11% 18% 22% 100%

63


Table 6b

Time Block (1 Hr) S

unda

y

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ay

Thu

rsda

y

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Tot

al

0000 - 0059 6% 4% 4% 8% 6% 5% 9% 6%1800 - 1859 6% 4% 6% 5% 10% 5% 4% 5%1900 - 1959 5% 8% 6% 4% 6% 5% 4% 5%2000 - 2059 7% 8% 8% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6%2100 - 2159 3% 6% 5% 5% 5% 11% 7% 6%2200 - 2259 4% 4% 6% 10% 6% 8% 5% 6%2300 - 2359 5% 5% 7% 6% 10% 15% 7% 8%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3.172 This shows a similar trend for days of the week but 1.00pm to midnight on Friday accounts for one in seven violent crimes for Friday and one in three for that time of the week. While alcohol fuelled violence is not something specifically recorded it can be deduced that the increase in violence of an evening and especially at weekends may have alcohol as a causal factor. However, that alone may not be the sole reason as that time / day less people are working and more congregate around the night time economy, so the high concentration of people may be a factor also.

3.173 Victims: When victim data is examined Table 7 shows the male female split by those who live in the borough and those who do not.

Table 7Not Resident

Female Male TotalTotal 82 246 328

Percentage 25% 75%

Resident Female Male Total

Total 579 672 1251Percentage 46% 54%

Total 661 918 1579

Percentage 42% 58%

3.174 As can be seen two out of three victims are Havering residents just over half of whom are male. Of visitors to the borough three in four victims are male.

3.175 Table 8 shows the ethnicity of victims and by residence.

Table 8Not Resident Resident Total

Ethnicity Count Percentage Count Percentage Count PercentageAfro-Caribbean 24 7% 70 6% 94 6%Asian 37 11% 50 4% 87 6%Dark European 9 3% 16 1% 25 2%Egyptian / Arab 1 0% 3 0% 4 0%Not Known 16 5% 36 3% 52 3%Oriental 0% 1 0% 1 0%White European 241 73% 1075 86% 1316 83%Total 328 1251 1579

64


3.176 It is clear that white Europeans are the main victims but both Asian and Afro-Caribbean are high.

3.177 Table 8 shows age groups of victims and gender. Table 8a shows the percentage of that age group for that gender.

Table 8 Age Groups Female Male Total<10 20 19 3910 - 17 119 180 29918 - 25 163 305 46826 - 35 144 151 29536 - 45 147 114 26146 - 55 44 95 13956 - 65 17 39 5666 - 75 3 5 876 - 85 3 6 986+ 1 2 3Total 661 916 1577Percentage 42% 58%

Table 8a Age Groups Female Male Total<10 3% 2% 2%10 - 17 18% 20% 19%18 - 25 25% 33% 30%26 - 35 22% 16% 19%36 - 45 22% 12% 17%46 - 55 7% 10% 9%56 - 65 3% 4% 4%66 - 75 0% 1% 1%76 - 85 0% 1% 1%86+ 0% 0% 0%

3.178 Two of every five victims are female and three out of ten of all victims are in the age group 18 - 25 years

3.179 Offenders: When offender data is examined Table 9 shows the male female split by those who live in the borough and those who do not

Table 9 Not Resident

Female Male TotalTotal 9 89 98

Percentage 9% 91%

Resident Female Male Total



3.180 Four out of five offenders reside within Havering and of those the same proportion are male to female. One in four offenders is from another borough and nine out of ten of those are male.

65


3.181 Table 10 shows the ethnicity of victims and by residence.

Table 10Not Resident Resident Total

Ethnicity Count Percentage Count Percentage Count PercentageAfro-Caribbean 19 19% 25 9% 44 11%Asian 4 4% 13 4% 17 4%Dark European 5 5% 6 2% 11 3%Egyptian / Arab 1 1% 1 0% 2 1%Not Known 1 1% 1 0% 2 1%Oriental 0% 2 1% 2 1%White European 68 69% 243 84% 311 80%Total 98 291 389

3.182 Four out of five offenders are white and one in ten Afro-Caribbean. 251 (65%) are white males

3.183 Table 11 shows the age group / gender breakdown.

Table 11Female Male Total

Age Group Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage10 - 17 19 26% 39 12% 58 15%18 - 25 17 23% 103 33% 120 31%26 - 35 8 11% 63 20% 71 18%36 - 45 23 32% 70 22% 93 24%46 - 55 3 4% 31 10% 34 9%56 - 65 2 3% 7 2% 9 2%66 - 75 0% 2 1% 2 1%76 - 85 1 1% 0% 1 0%Total 73 315 388

3.184 As can be seen young females (10-17) are more prone to violence than there similar aged males and females again are the major age group in 36 – 45 years. The largest single age group is for 18 – 25 with this also being the main male age range (33%).

3.185 Journey to Crime: Table 12 shows the distance that victims and offenders travel for the crime to be committed. (This is solely for those who reside in Havering.)

Table 12Victims

Kms MilesAverage 2.37 1.5Max 10.4 6.5Min 10m At Home 432

AccusedAverage 2.1 1.3Max 9.1 5.7Min 19m At Home 133

3.186 One on four victims are at their own residence when assaulted and one in three offenders. The average distance travelled is similar for both groups.


66


Map 1

Upminster


Cranham

PettitsHarold Wood

Heaton


Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

4

Legend

Violence - 500m RadiusLow

Medium

High

Violence

Upminster

Gooshays

Cranham

Havering Park

PettitsHarold Wood

Heaton


Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Metres


3.188 These two maps shows the hotspots for all violence. The left hand ma with red hotspots uses a 500m radius for its calculations and the right hand map a 250m radius. Heaton ward shows a hotspot that goes south from Briar Road estate and B&Q / Tescos Romford Town centre also features as does around Elm Park station. To the south of the borough, Cherry Tree Lane and to a lesser extent Rainham Shopping area are ‘hot’

3.189 Map 2 offender data

67


Map 2

Upminster

Cranham

Havering Park


PettitsHarold Wood

Gooshays

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Violence - Accused

0 850 1,700 2,550 3,400425Metres


3.190 Here it can be seen that offender hotspots are closely aligned with location data for the crime itself.

3.191 When a hotspot map is produced removing offenders who have committed offences at their own house Map 3 is the result. There are now fewer, and smaller, ‘pockets’ of offenders.

68


Upminster

Cranham

Havering Park


PettitsHarold Wood

Gooshays

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Violence - Accused

0 840 1,680 2,520 3,360420Metres


Observations / Recommendations3.192 With regard to the crime triangle (Location, Victim and Accused) The interaction (and alcohol) between people is the key. There is a clear propensity for some to cause mischief and it is to these that efforts should be addressed if possible.

3.193 Location: It should be of interest to all business that crime, associated with their location, is low, especially in current financially tight times. Much effort in Taxi Marshalls, CCTV, trained door security staff, etc has been undertaken, especially in Romford Town centre. Changes in licensing hours and cheap drinks all add to the mix. Recent legislation which relaxed licensing in some aspects also brought in accountability to the premises. In Romford Town centre (and to a

69


lesser degree other main commerce areas) this is a problem. If a lot of arrests / disorder occur outside one premises it is feasible that it actually may have emanated from another near neighbour. This data is not gathered. It may be useful when disorder / violence arrests are made for the information of where they have been drinking to be obtained and recorded. This could then be used to address licensing applications and impose conditions to assist in reducing the prevalence of violence and disorder.

3.194 Victims: Again much effort has been made to reduce the likelihood of people becoming victims; Taxi marshals, CCTV are again of use as is the deployment of Pastors on Patrol. In addition advertising has also been used. Apart from continuing to develop these areas further it is difficult to see significant areas not tried.

3.195 Accused: If the assumption of close proximity of large number of people and drink are part of the problem then ensuring an environment to make those predisposed to violence is required. This is the main is expensive in that the main successful way is by a visible deterrent, and clearly door supervisors is not sufficient. Nationally and locally many initiatives have been tried and all found partially successful, eg giving out lollipops - as sucking a lollipop makes it less likely to feel ‘macho’.

3.196 In 2000 a Home Office document entitled “Home Office Research Study 217 – The Economic and Social Costs of Crime” estimated violent crime costs to the Health Service as being, on average, £1200 per incident; more serious violence was estimated at £8500 and less serious £200 an incident. Total cost of violent crime was £18000 (average); £130000 (Serious) and £2000 (slight). This took into account such areas as police, health, social services, loss of earning etc). The last year that violent crime data can be separated easily into ‘serious’ and ‘slight’ was 2007/08. Table13 below shows the cost of violent crime.

Table 13Cost of Crime

2007/08 Serious Slight TotalIncident Count 110 1417Health Costs £ 8,500 £ 200 Total Health Cost £ 935,000 £ 283,400 £ 1,218,400 All Costs £ 1,300 £ 2,000 Total Cost £ 143,000 £ 2,834,000 £ 2,977,000

3.197 This report and the initial analysis were conducted with no input from the ‘Acute’ side of the Health Authority. Simple questions such as “How many people present themselves to A&E and do not report the assault to police” are not known. The answer may be ‘zero’; and we may have the full picture. Input from the Health Authority may paint a different picture of, not only how large the problem is, but also where the problem is. Even if we know 100% of the detail of violent crime it must be in the interest of the local Health Authority to take part in addressing and reducing violence as the savings could be quite considerable, indeed the cost was £1.2m (using 2000 costing) for 2007/08.

70


Disorder

3.198 The recording of disorder by the police is subjective, by way of example two people having an argument outside (or near to) a public house could be recorded as ‘licensed premises’, ‘community problem’, ‘drunkenness’, ‘noise’, ‘rowdy / inconsiderate behaviour’ or ‘Other disorder / nuisance’, depending upon the operator recording it. Table 1 below shows the categories that fall under the banner of ‘disorder’.

Table 1 Abandoned Phone callsAbandoned VehiclesAnimal ProblemsBegging/VagrancyCivil DisputeDomestic IncidentEnviro Damage / LitterHate IncidentHoax Call to Emer ServicesLicensingMalicious Nuisance CommunicationsNoiseRowdy/Inconsiderate behaviourRowdy/Inconsiderate NeighboursSubstance MisuseTrespassVehicle Nuisance / Inappropriate UseDrunkennessOther Disorder / Nuisance

3.199 Those items in black are, in this report, those included as ‘disorder’ as they are seen as the ‘street face’ of disorder. Those in purple are reported on as a separate issue, being a distraction for emergency services in their prime role and those with a blue background are also reported separately as they are the neighbour nuisance, a more private, more difficult, issue but nonetheless one that has a major impact on those surrounding the issue.

3.200 Graph 1 shows the years disorder trend and graph 2 the trend for hoax /abandoned calls and domestic / neighbour nuisance.

Graph 1

CAD - Disorder calls

R2 = 0.1958

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Total Linear (Total)

71


Graph 2

Hoax Calls and Ne ighbour Problems

R2 = 0.0032

R2 = 0.5042

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Hoax NeighboursLinear (Hoax) Linear (Neighbours)

3.201 Maps in these reports are usually under the following section but for this area are in an appendix. For some reason the data showing north is missing on the maps but the top of each map is north.

Detailed AnalysisDisorder3.202 Table 2 shows the number of incidents by month.

Table 2 Date Total PercentageDec-07 493 7.0%Jan-08 512 7.3%Feb-08 503 7.2%Mar-08 463 6.6%Apr-08 654 9.3%May-08 645 9.2%Jun-08 524 7.5%Jul-08 816 11.6%Aug-08 632 9.0%Sep-08 571 8.1%Oct-08 672 9.6%Nov-08 533 7.6%Total 7018

3.203 Warmer months tend to show an above average number of incidents (around 8% a months would be an even spread).

72


3.204 Although results are somewhat objective, table 3 shows the call types.

Table 3 RESULT Total PercentageAbandoned Vehicles 324 5%Animal Problems 597 9%Begging/Vagrancy 48 1%Drunkenness 348 5%Enviro Damage / Litter 4 0%Hate Incident 104 1%Licensing 59 1%Noise 160 2%Other Disorder / Nuisance 2 0%Prostitution 2 0%Rowdy/Inconsiderate behaviour 4112 59%Substance Misuse 638 9%Vehicle Nuisance / Inappropriate Use 620 9%Total 7018

Three out of five are ‘inconsiderate behaviour’.

3.205 When the day and time are examined Table 4, 4a, 4b and 4c show this data,

Table 4Hour Block MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total0 - 2 55 48 55 54 71 175 176 6342 - 4 21 31 29 30 37 117 114 3794 - 6 4 13 15 10 14 36 32 1246 - 8 18 19 18 22 17 34 19 1478 - 10 32 34 39 40 22 29 24 22010 - 12 52 69 49 52 51 66 47 38612 - 14 72 62 60 59 67 83 84 48714 - 16 80 92 96 75 78 98 103 62216 - 18 107 107 141 116 132 120 138 86118 - 20 150 146 160 159 232 178 135 116020 - 22 137 138 149 132 269 213 117 115522 - 24 69 78 106 94 236 179 81 843Total 797 837 917 843 1226 1328 1070 7018

Table 4a Hour Block MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN0 - 2 9% 8% 9% 9% 11% 28% 28%2 - 4 6% 8% 8% 8% 10% 31% 30%4 - 6 3% 10% 12% 8% 11% 29% 26%6 - 8 12% 13% 12% 15% 12% 23% 13%8 - 10 15% 15% 18% 18% 10% 13% 11%10 - 12 13% 18% 13% 13% 13% 17% 12%12 - 14 15% 13% 12% 12% 14% 17% 17%14 - 16 13% 15% 15% 12% 13% 16% 17%16 - 18 12% 12% 16% 13% 15% 14% 16%18 - 20 13% 13% 14% 14% 20% 15% 12%20 - 22 12% 12% 13% 11% 23% 18% 10%22 - 24 8% 9% 13% 11% 28% 21% 10%Total 11% 12% 13% 12% 17% 19% 15%

Table 4b 73


Hour Block MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total0 - 2 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 13% 16% 9%2 - 4 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 9% 11% 5%4 - 6 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2%6 - 8 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2%8 - 10 4% 4% 4% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3%10 - 12 7% 8% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 6%12 - 14 9% 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 8% 7%14 - 16 10% 11% 10% 9% 6% 7% 10% 9%16 - 18 13% 13% 15% 14% 11% 9% 13% 12%18 - 20 19% 17% 17% 19% 19% 13% 13% 17%20 - 22 17% 16% 16% 16% 22% 16% 11% 16%22 - 24 9% 9% 12% 11% 19% 13% 8% 12%

3.206 It is of little surprise that Friday and Saturday are the busiest days and that evenings throughout the week also feature.

Table 4c Hour Block MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total18 - 24 356 362 415 385 737 570 333 3158Percentage 45% 43% 45% 46% 60% 43% 31% 45%

3.207 The last four hours in every day (25%) account for, at least, 30% of calls and more typically just under 50% of all calls. While this may tend to point to alcohol (for some) as being the cause it should also be noted that this is the time when most people are not working or at school giving a greater propensity for this behaviour to occur. There is also more people at home to notice this behaviour. Anecdotally, it is always stated that the level of tolerance varies across the borough, i.e. behaviour in one area is children enjoying themselves while in another is noise / inconsiderate behaviour. Due to the lack of objectivity in record taking and the lack of precise detail this cannot be verified but it is a widely held belief.

3.208 Table 5 shows the incidents by ward. 5.6% for each ward would be an even spread of incidents.

Table 5

Ward TotalRank

(Volume) PercentageBrooklands 403 14 6%Cranham 123 1 2%Elm Park 418 15 6%Emerson Park 130 2 2%Gooshays 637 17 9%Hacton 169 3 3%Harold Wood 287 8 4%Havering Park 302 10 4%Heaton 432 16 6%Hylands 274 7 4%Mawneys 288 9 4%Pettits 243 5 4%Rainham and Wennington 372 12 6%Romford Town 1419 18 21%South Hornchurch 385 13 6%Squirrels Heath 246 6 4%St Andrews 369 11 5%Upminster 220 4 3%Total 6717

74


3.209 Romford Town ward is, as with almost all issues, a leader for disorder and in this case one in five is in this ward. Gooshays ward is also high (9%). For this problem Heaton ward, also usually a prominent ward is less so.

3.210 Map 1 of the appendix shows hotspots for disorder using a 250m radius. In keeping with other data Romford Town ward has the hottest’ location, which centres around the Railway Station / Transport hub. Heaton and Gooshays also have a large lower level hotspot centring around Briar Road estate and Hilldene Avenue / Farnham Road extending north. Other hotsposts include (working from the top down) Hillrise Road, Gobions Avenue, Collier Row shopping area Hornchurch shopping area, Elm Park LRT / shops and the Mardyke estate. There are a few much smaller areas also. All these areas have been areas of raised incidence for a considerably long period of time.

Domestic Incidents and Neighbour Problems 3.211 Table 6 shows the calls for the year with a slight increase in July to September.

Table 6 Date Neighbours PercentageDec-07 179 7.3%Jan-08 186 7.6%Feb-08 162 6.6%Mar-08 188 7.7%Apr-08 183 7.5%May-08 213 8.7%Jun-08 213 8.7%Jul-08 245 10.0%Aug-08 238 9.7%Sep-08 224 9.1%Oct-08 213 8.7%Nov-08 206 8.4%Total 2450

3.212 Table 7 shows the call type.

Table 7 RESULT Total PercentageDomestic Incident 1997 81.5%Rowdy/Inconsiderate Neighbours 453 18.5%Total 2450

Four of every five is of a domestic nature.

75


3.213 Table 8, 8a and 8b show the day and time for this problem type

Table 8 Hour Slot MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total0 - 2 30 23 30 37 21 62 60 2632 - 4 11 10 9 10 12 35 44 1314 - 6 4 9 9 4 3 26 20 756 - 8 8 12 9 5 8 8 21 718 - 10 13 18 20 15 21 25 15 12710 - 12 26 20 25 30 21 36 26 18412 - 14 19 29 25 22 17 34 37 18314 - 16 27 23 21 30 20 28 42 19116 - 18 31 37 27 38 35 40 38 24618 - 20 55 53 48 31 41 51 52 33120 - 22 47 44 52 48 51 51 46 33922 - 24 44 43 44 45 52 35 46 309Total 315 321 319 315 302 431 447 2450

76


Table 8a Hour Slot MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN0 - 2 11% 9% 11% 14% 8% 24% 23%2 - 4 8% 8% 7% 8% 9% 27% 34%4 - 6 5% 12% 12% 5% 4% 35% 27%6 - 8 11% 17% 13% 7% 11% 11% 30%8 - 10 10% 14% 16% 12% 17% 20% 12%10 - 12 14% 11% 14% 16% 11% 20% 14%12 - 14 10% 16% 14% 12% 9% 19% 20%14 - 16 14% 12% 11% 16% 10% 15% 22%16 -18 13% 15% 11% 15% 14% 16% 15%18 - 20 17% 16% 15% 9% 12% 15% 16%20 - 22 14% 13% 15% 14% 15% 15% 14%22 - 24 14% 14% 14% 15% 17% 11% 15%Total 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 18% 18%

Table 8b Hour Slot MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total0 - 2 10% 7% 9% 12% 7% 14% 13% 11%2 - 4 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 8% 10% 5%4 - 6 1% 3% 3% 1% 1% 6% 4% 3%6 - 8 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 5% 3%8 - 10 4% 6% 6% 5% 7% 6% 3% 5%10 - 12 8% 6% 8% 10% 7% 8% 6% 8%12 - 14 6% 9% 8% 7% 6% 8% 8% 7%14 - 16 9% 7% 7% 10% 7% 6% 9% 8%16 -18 10% 12% 8% 12% 12% 9% 9% 10%18 - 20 17% 17% 15% 10% 14% 12% 12% 14%20 - 22 15% 14% 16% 15% 17% 12% 10% 14%22 - 24 14% 13% 14% 14% 17% 8% 10% 13%

3.214 The day of week and time is not dissimilar for general disorder in that the weekend and evenings feature as the main time for this problem, probably for the very same reason.

3.215 Table 9 shows the ward that his type of incident occurs in.

77


Table 9

Ward TotalRank

Volume PercentageBrooklands 157 13 6%Cranham 63 3 3%Elm Park 139 9 6%Emerson Park 55 2 2%Gooshays 263 18 11%Hacton 64 4 3%Harold Wood 149 11 6%Havering Park 164 14 7%Heaton 245 17 10%Hylands 89 6 4%Mawneys 146 10 6%Pettits 75 5 3%Rainham and Wennington 154 12 6%Romford Town 221 16 9%South Hornchurch 183 15 8%Squirrels Heath 99 7 4%St Andrews 128 8 5%Upminster 29 1 1%Total 2423

3.216 While Romford Town ward has a high incidence of this it is less than Gooshays and Heaton wards (the usual three ‘suspects’).

3.217 Table 10 shows the percentage of calls that result in a crime entry, including a record only call) This is not to suggest that domestic incidents that are not crime when they should be but almost 30% (55) are resulted as no crime entry being made and an further 3% the information is not available.

Table 10

Crimed?Domestic Incident Percentage

Crime Report 1360 69%Not Crimed 550 28%Not Known 64 3%NOT MPS CR 1 0%Total 1975

78


Hoax and Abandoned Calls3.218 Table 11 shows this incident during the year.

Table 11 Date Hoax PercentageDec-07 121 7.4%Jan-08 89 5.5%Feb-08 103 6.3%Mar-08 116 7.1%Apr-08 238 14.6%May-08 129 7.9%Jun-08 140 8.6%Jul-08 229 14.1%Aug-08 124 7.6%Sep-08 114 7.0%Oct-08 104 6.4%Nov-08 119 7.3%Total 1626

3.219 It can be seen that, unusually there are two distinct ‘spikes’ during the year namely April and July.

3.220 Table 12 shows the split between the two types of calls.

Table 12 RESULT Total PercentageAbandoned Phone calls 1622 100%Hoax Call to Emergency Services 4 0%Total 1626

3.221 Hoax calls are almost negligible. In the same year the fire brigade only recorded 48 hoax calls, Table 13 (ambulance data was not available).

79


Table 13 Stop Code Description Total PercentageCHIMNEY FIRE 1 0%FALSE ALARM CALL TO FIRE: AFA 621 25%FALSE ALARM CALL TO FIRE: GOOD INTENT 314 13%FALSE ALARM CALL TO FIRE: MALICIOUS 48 2%FDR1 FIRE 319 13%SECONDARY FIRE 525 22%SPECIAL SERVICE 608 25%Grand Total 2436

3.222 Table 14, 14a and 14b show the day and time of the calls

Table 14 Hour Slot MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total0 - 2 11 3 7 9 14 21 28 932 - 4 2 5 5 3 8 14 17 544 - 6 3 2 2 2 5 7 216 - 8 7 5 5 6 4 3 5 358 - 10 15 12 15 17 17 18 17 11110 - 12 18 12 22 20 18 17 23 13012 - 14 24 23 23 27 23 42 32 19414 - 16 30 27 27 25 27 33 53 22216 -18 30 30 45 38 35 41 27 24618 - 20 29 37 41 21 38 26 35 22720 - 22 18 18 16 23 35 27 27 16422 - 24 15 14 23 17 18 31 11 129Total 199 189 231 208 239 278 282 1626

Table 14a Hour Slot MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN0 - 2 12% 3% 8% 10% 15% 23% 30%2 - 4 4% 9% 9% 6% 15% 26% 31%4 - 6 0% 14% 10% 10% 10% 24% 33%6 - 8 20% 14% 14% 17% 11% 9% 14%8 - 10 14% 11% 14% 15% 15% 16% 15%10 - 12 14% 9% 17% 15% 14% 13% 18%12 - 14 12% 12% 12% 14% 12% 22% 16%14 - 16 14% 12% 12% 11% 12% 15% 24%16 -18 12% 12% 18% 15% 14% 17% 11%18 - 20 13% 16% 18% 9% 17% 11% 15%20 - 22 11% 11% 10% 14% 21% 16% 16%22 - 24 12% 11% 18% 13% 14% 24% 9%Total 12% 12% 14% 13% 15% 17% 17%

80


Table 14b Hour Slot MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Total0 - 2 6% 2% 3% 4% 6% 8% 10% 6%2 - 4 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% 5% 6% 3%4 - 6 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%6 - 8 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%8 - 10 8% 6% 6% 8% 7% 6% 6% 7%10 - 12 9% 6% 10% 10% 8% 6% 8% 8%12 - 14 12% 12% 10% 13% 10% 15% 11% 12%14 - 16 15% 14% 12% 12% 11% 12% 19% 14%16 -18 15% 16% 19% 18% 15% 15% 10% 15%18 - 20 15% 20% 18% 10% 16% 9% 12% 14%20 - 22 9% 10% 7% 11% 15% 10% 10% 10%22 - 24 8% 7% 10% 8% 8% 11% 4% 8%

3.223 The volume of calls for this type of incident are much lower but again, like both previous areas, show Saturday and Sunday as a peak day, with Friday to a lesser degree. Also the evening period although instead of 6.00pm to midnight it is 4.00pm to 10pm, possibly this displaying the fact hat school age children and young adults are more likely to be those responsible. This is though purely conjecture as there is not evidence to be obtained to support this.

3.224 Table 15 shows the wards where this is most prevalent.

Table 15

Ward TotalRank

Volume PercentageBrooklands 105 15 7%Cranham 31 1 2%Elm Park 75 10 5%Emerson Park 39 2 3%Gooshays 170 17 11%Hacton 47 4 3%Harold Wood 74 8 5%Havering Park 78 12 5%Heaton 156 16 10%Hylands 74 8 5%Mawneys 59 6 4%Pettits 49 5 3%Rainham and Wennington 99 13 6%Romford Town 222 18 14%South Hornchurch 103 14 7%Squirrels Heath 61 7 4%St Andrews 77 11 5%Upminster 41 3 3%Total 1560

3.225 The usual three wards are prominent, Romford Town, Gooshays and Heaton wards.

Observations / Recommendations

Disorder3.226 It is noted from the data that all areas can suffer some level of disorder on occasions. The main area is Romford Town which is linked to the commercial and night time economy but also the main transport hub. Data from TfL (at present not downloadable as it is on a test database we have access to) also notes that the transport hub around Romford railway station as a problem area. The centre of the problem has moved slightly north from previous assessments

81


due to the gating scheme in Victoria Road. The location is one for regeneration which may assist in increasing the guardianship of the area although it has comprehensive CCTV coverage at the moment. The only clear other area for an increase in guardianship appears to be by staff being present as a visible deterrent (door staff at licensed premises are already in High-Vis jackets). To some degree alcohol will be a factor with the ‘credit crunch’ it could be that less drinking occurs which may result in a downturn of violence but licensed establishments are offering cheap inducements that may prevent this reduction in consumption from occurring.

3.227 As mentioned most of the hotspots are now long term, albeit mainly low level problems. Some reductions of problems are noted, e.g. Collier Row and Elm Park shops. This to some degree may be due to the introduction of ‘Alert Boxes’ creating an atmosphere of self-help for the businesses in those areas.

3.228 It may be that Safer Neighbourhood Teams would be considered the answer to this problem but as most issues are of an evening time and especially at weekends the unsocial hours needed to address this is not reasonable. The use of the Yellow / red card scheme can be used. Some areas, like Hillrise Road, have remained unchanged.

3.229 It may be that some intelligence from the residents and then house calls to those causing problems might produce results. While not scientific it has been noted in the past that, in general, our Neighbourhood Watch areas are the subject of lower crime and disorder problems, and the fostering of’ business watch’ by alert boxes tends to support this. While I know efforts to start these have been made this again may point towards a possible solution for the low level problem areas at least.

Domestic Incidents and Neighbour Problems3.230 Briar Road and the surrounding area is the most concentrated area for this problem. It is clearly a difficult area to address as it usually requires for the authorities to be called to the address or invited in to deal with the issue. One area that may require some further looking into is the level of domestic incidents that go unreported. As stated previously this may be quite correctly done but if not then this will impact upon many areas of problem – noise / disorder / standard of living nuisance, personal safety of those n the household are the most obvious ones.

3.231 The maps (3 and 4) in the appendix show that the domestic incident is more widespread but neighbour problems are more concentrated – again Briar Road area but also Farnham Road and the Mardyke being areas of raised problems. It could be the case that this is due to the housing in the area, eg maisonettes, allowing general living to impinge upon more neighbours than traditional houses.

Hoax and Abandoned Calls3.232 Hoax calls seem to be extraordinarily low and there is a suspicion that some calls classified as abandoned may be hoax calls.

3.233 Abandoned calls are a nationwide issue, with silent calls where mobiles are not key locked presenting a particular problem. Continued campaigns around this may be of use. It is known that the impact upon safety of hoax and abandoned calls upon public safety is delivered in schools but this is clearly an area that should be continued. It should be noted that the hotspots and locations are only where the service was called to and the caller could be anywhere in the borough, or indeed the country, which further presents problems to resolve.

82


Fire

General3.234 This report utilises data from the London Fire Brigade (via the London Analysts Support Site).

3.235 The data used for this report covers the period 1st November 2007 to 31st October 2008 being the most recent 12 month period available for use. More recent data is awaited which may change, albeit slightly, some of the key areas and may require an update to the report.

Detailed Analysis3.236 When incidents were analysed and the process of agreeing arson to be in our Control Strategy, fire was a weak downward trend for the last 12 months (data was only available to July 2008 at the time). Table 1 below shows the data to November 08.

Table 1

Malicious and Deliberate Fires

R2 = 0.4184

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08

Fires

Linear (Fires)

Observations / Recommendations3.237 Data around this issue has been difficult to analyse and much emphasis has been placed on discussions with fire staff within the borough.

3.238 It is known that deliberate fires are more likely in a recession and with the current state of our economy this is likely to be the case again, especially as it appears that it could be more critical than some of the previous financial downturns.

3.239 Anything that can realise cash is likely to become a target and this will include vehicles and premises, both residential and business.

3.240 Anecdotally, a further target appears to present a problem for the borough, namely residential premises being re-developed. Where an application for conversion, usually into flats, has been submitted and declined, the property is more likely to have a fire. A link between the fire brigade and the Planning Department needs to be pursued with a view to notifying the brigade of residential properties where applications for major conversions have been declined, preferably the same day that the person making the application is informed. This will enable the brigade to visit these addresses and give fire prevention advice and inform the owners that they may be reassured that if a fire does occur a full and thorough investigation will be undertaken.

3.241 Vehicles present a problem due to their mobility but if a hotspot is identified, CCTV could be deployed. While this will by unlikely to prevent an incident it will increase the possibility of

83

It can be seen that the trend is now quite firmly set upward, although the high July figure has not been exceeded.


detection.

3.242 For commercial properties it may be that a list can be compiled of types of businesses that may be more prone to commercial failure, although this may not prove possible. Should it be possible then these premises should be visited and again give advice / reassurance. Failing that, the high density commercial / industrial areas should receive extra attention and advice and prioritised by where the fires are currently prevalent.

3.243 The challenge for the targeting will be stripping out the rubbish fires from the more serious and analysing these. This is something to be done in the near future with assistance of a Brigade Analyst. Map 1 shows the main hotspot areas to be non-commercial.

84


Map 1

Upminster

Gooshays

Havering Park

Cranham


PettitsHarold Wood

Heaton

Elm Park

South Hornchurch

Brooklands

Hylands

Emerson Park

Hacton

Mawneys

St Andrews

Romford Town

Squirrels Heath

Fire Brigade Data

0 690 1,380 2,070 2,760345Metres


85


Appendix 1

Assessment of 2008/9 Strategic Assessment (by theme)

Theme One - Violence Provision of drama productions in schools to raise awareness of DV, Violent

Crime and ASB. Provision of support group for victims of DV Provision of DV awareness training for education staff Provision of domestic violence drop in children’s centres Roll out of yellow / red card scheme to support families 24 hour ‘stop hate’ helpline DV Support – Getting people back into work Screening using arches at transport hubs Providing free target hardening for victims of burglary, hate crime and dv.

Theme Two - Acquisitive Crime Provision of security advice including target hardening In December a campaign was delivered over a twelve day period from the 6 th of

December advertised as the “Twelve Safer Days of Christmas”. A series of community road shows were organised which involved key agencies

going out into the wider community to deliver a range of key crime prevention messages to reduce domestic burglary.

10,000 property marking kits have been distributed via Safer Neighbourhood Teams and council staff to encourage local residents to property mark new Christmas purchases as well as existing valuables

The provision of 3000 + timer switches to remind local residents not to encourage burglars by leaving their homes in darkness

Property marking kits were provided to electrical stores in the area to be given free of charge to any one making a purchase over Christmas and New Year.

The delivery of an eight week media campaign reminding residents to secure their homes which included Three radio advertisements in December and January Cinema advertisement Borough wide poster campaign Production of a flyer on ‘How to lock your UPVC door’ Full page advert in Councils’ Living Magazine

Havering Borough police have established a Public Confidence team. Part of the work of this group is to ensure that every victim of burglary receives a visit from both a police officer and a SOCO.

Three small hotspot areas were identified over the Christmas period. These areas have been targeted for a crime prevention pilot scheme.All houses in the defined area ( between 50 -100 properties) have been visited by the local SNT . The householder has been given a property marking kit , a door wedge alarm and a door handle alarm. A follow up visit will take place after 4 weeks to see if the materials have been used and if have been effective. This will include an analysis of the incidence or burglary and the repeat incidence of burglary in the hot spot area during this time.

Theme Three - Anti Social Behaviour 86


Provision of reporting channel for ASB and casework co-ordination of partners response Funding provided to libraries to have a ‘teen zone’. Training of key staff to deal with anti social behaviour Provision of targeted youth diversionary activities in ’hot spot’ areas Work with schools to raise awareness of the consequences of ASB Working with schools to raise awareness of consequences of ASB Working with Street Care to reduce the incidence of ‘envirocrime’ in the area Installation of alley gating schemes to prevent opportunities for fly tipping Purchase of covert CCTV for use by Street Care in the prevention of fly tipping Work with probation to promote operation payback (offenders remove graffiti) Work with YOT to promote reparation work with young offenders Provide funding for parks for purchase of equipment to remove graffiti ASB helpline

Theme 4 – Fear of Crime

Leading on partnership work to develop prevention, early intervention protection, justice and support for victims

Neighbourhood based teams (Safer Neighbourhood teams) tackling crime and disorder Mobile patrols in parks to ensure personal safety of residents Safer transport teams on buses Provided community safety action zone in Harold Hill Alert boxes in shopping centres

87

Documents

Strategic Assessment 2009 - 2011 (Word document).doc