--- title: "Improving the Effectiveness of Reducing and Detecting Criminal Damage" type: "pdf" year: "2008" canonical: "/projects/507" --- # Herman Goldstein Awards 2008- Application form # Table of Contents - [Herman Goldstein Awards 2008- Application form](#herman-goldstein-awards-2008-application-form) - [Improving the effectiveness of reducing and detecting criminal damage](#improving-the-effectiveness-of-reducing-and-detecting-criminal-damage) - [Section A: Application basics](#section-a-application-basics) - [Author contact details](#author-contact-details) - [Secondary project contact details](#secondary-project-contact-details) - [Garry White](#garry-white) - [Endorsing representative contact details](#endorsing-representative-contact-details) - [Section B: Summary of application](#section-b-summary-of-application) - [Scanning:](#scanning) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Other analysis:](#other-analysis) - [Response:](#response) - [The big winners in priority order identified as:](#the-big-winners-in-priority-order-identified-as) - [Assessment:](#assessment) - [Borough objectives achieved were:](#borough-objectives-achieved-were) - [Key selling points:](#key-selling-points) - [Section C: Description of project](#section-c-description-of-project) - [SCANNING](#scanning) - [INTRODUCTION](#introduction) - [The Problems](#the-problems) - [Designated Public Place Orders (DPPOs)](#designated-public-place-orders-dppos) - [Key objectives:](#key-objectives) - [ANALYSIS](#analysis) - [Victims](#victims) - [Locations](#locations) - [Offenders](#offenders) - [Other analysis:](#other-analysis) - [Alcohol confiscation power](#alcohol-confiscation-power) - [Damage investigations](#damage-investigations) - [Youth Activity Provision](#youth-activity-provision) - [RESPONSE](#response) - [Community Tasking \& Co-ordination Group](#community-tasking-co-ordination-group) - [Designated Public Place Order (DPPO)](#designated-public-place-order-dppo) - [Enforcement \& Investigation](#enforcement-investigation) - [Prevention and diversionary work](#prevention-and-diversionary-work) - [Intervention caution clinics](#intervention-caution-clinics) - [Detection analysis](#detection-analysis) - [DPPO evaluation](#dppo-evaluation) - [$67 \%$ aware of the DPPO.](#67-aware-of-the-dppo) - [$59 \%$ feel it makes their neighbourhood safer.](#59-feel-it-makes-their-neighbourhood-safer) - [Test purchase operations](#test-purchase-operations) - [Intervention clinic evaluations](#intervention-clinic-evaluations) - [Economic](#economic) - [Damage reductions](#damage-reductions) - [Arson](#arson) - [Displacement](#displacement) - [Demand reduction](#demand-reduction) - [Reassurance impact](#reassurance-impact) - [What did not work and what lessons learned?](#what-did-not-work-and-what-lessons-learned) - [Conclusions](#conclusions) - [The objectives were:](#the-objectives-were) - [All Borough crime down 13\%; force average 7.7\%.](#all-borough-crime-down-13-force-average-77) - [The big winners in priority order are:](#the-big-winners-in-priority-order-are) - [Key selling points:](#key-selling-points) - [Appendix 3 shows a clear general damage reduction over time](#appendix-3-shows-a-clear-general-damage-reduction-over-time) - [**Alcohol related Occurrences Fareham Borough**](#alcohol-related-occurrences-fareham-borough) - [REFERENCE GLOSSARY](#reference-glossary) ## Improving the effectiveness of reducing and detecting criminal damage ## Section A: Application basics 1. Title of the project: Improving the effectiveness of reducing and detecting criminal damage? 2. Key issue that the project is addressing: Poor performance in Fareham Borough particularly relating to criminal damage reduction and detection, and the link to alcohol misuse. ## Author contact details 3. Name of application author: Chief Inspector Steve Wallace- Fareham Borough Policing Commander 4. Organisation submitting the application: Fareham Borough Community Safety Partnership 5. Full postal address: Fareham Police Station Quay St FAREHAM HANTS ENGLAND PO16 0NA 6. Email address: steven.wallace@hampshire.pnn.police.uk 7. Telephone number: 02392891669 ## Secondary project contact details 8. Name of secondary contact involved in the project: ## Garry White Director of Regulatory Services Fareham Borough Council www.Fareham.gov.uk 01329824395 9. Secondary contact email address: gwhite@fareham.gov.uk 10. Secondary contact telephone number: 01329824395 # Endorsing representative contact details 11. Name of endorsing senior representative from lead organisation: Chief Superintendent Peter Goodall 12. Endorsing representative's email address: peter.goodall@hampshire.pnn.police.uk Tilley Letter.doc ## Section B: Summary of application ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-0.jpeg) ## Scanning: Fareham is a low crime area, but had long term problems particularly increasing damage. There was no broad control strategy or problem solving directly linked to damage reduction. Previous enforcement activities had failed to reduce the problem or improve detections. ## Analysis: A Borough problem profile was prepared for damage using the Police Records Management System (RMS). Most damage was to vehicles, fences and walls and clustered in areas with high alcohol seizures. Alcohol was clearly identified as the common thread for many damage offences. Most offenders were juvenile males. ## Other analysis: - $70 \%$ of local crime audits identified alcohol misuse as a public concern - Detection rates were poor - $28 \%$ surveyed perceived vandalism as a very big or big problem ## Response: An ambitious Borough wide problem solving approach with a clear damage control strategy. ## The big winners in priority order identified as: - The development of a Borough wide Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) ie a street drinking alcohol ban - Intervention caution clinic reducing reoffending and increasing detections - Community Tasking \& Coordinating Group problem solving with priority patrol area identification and relentless targeting - Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT's) with ownership for all damage investigations, reduction targets and customer service - Joint Agency Action Groups time bounded problem solving - Improved and targeted youth diversion # Assessment: 'Iquanta' data predictions show a continuing decline in Fareham's damage. No dispersal orders applied for in the last 15 months compared to 5 in the previous 18 months. ## Borough objectives achieved were: - SNTs reduced damage by $22.5 \%$; best in Hampshire. - To improve detection rate using an intervention clinic ; $7 \%$ improvement in detections - Reached PSA1 target with $19 \%$ reduction from 0\% 18 months ago; best in Hampshire. Damage reductions have surpassed all expectations for a low crime area, and the deployable incident analysis was good with a $10 \%$ reduction for all deployable calls. The DPPO clearly contributed and $\mathbf{5 9 \%}$ surveyed felt the DPPO made their neighbourhood safer. ## Key selling points: - Sustainable damage and incident reductions - Improvements in public perceptions - Intervention clinic benefits in reducing reoffending, improving detections and reducing bureaucracy - Most measures cost neutral, sustainable and replicable - DPPO gives SNTs and wider police family an area to focus on - Cost effectiveness ; for every $£ 1$ spent on DPPO enforcement $£ 23.44$ saved in damage costs - Nipping in bud by seizing alcohol early reduces crime State number of words: 400 # Section C: Description of project ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-1.jpeg) (Please note reference glossary on last page.) ## SCANNING ## INTRODUCTION Fareham is sandwiched between Portsmouth and Southampton cities and is a low crime area with a high fear of crime, and had some long term problems particularly rising damage. In April 2006 Hampshire Police aligned to Local Authority boundaries with Chief Inspectors as Borough Commanders, and in November 2006 Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) were introduced. 16 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) started in April 2007. In the 2006 Fareham Borough Survey 28\% perceived vandalism as a very big or big problem, the second highest concern. Compared to most similar Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs), Fareham has consistently suffered higher damage. In late 2006 Fareham was required by the Government Office South East (GOSE) to develop an improvement plan for the PSA1 crime reduction target. Fareham was 0\% towards the 15\% reduction target. Criminal damage presented the greatest crime risk. ## The Problems According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), over four-fifths of damage offences are committed on the spur of the moment and offenders are predominantly aged 21 or under and gave reasons for committing the crime that include alcohol, for the "buzz" or being bored. The Australian government estimates that $\mathbf{8 8 \%}$ of criminal damage cases are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. UK Department of Health statistics state 36\% of crimes by under 18s take place after drinking alcohol. Damage lacked ownership, and investigations were poor with a 9\% detection rate in October 2006. Several 'hotspots' remained, particularly Portchester (three dispersal periods over 18 months) and Stubbington (two dispersal periods over 18 months). Dispersal orders are implemented when there is a need to break up groups of two or more persons in a defined area, but these are short term in effect and suffer from displacement. There was partnership unease about the underlying issues not being addressed. West Street in Fareham was the worst Operational Command Unit (OCU) street for damage. There was strong local feeling that tackling alcohol supply and use was essential. The data available was inconclusive, but collective professional judgment identified alcohol as the golden thread. Alcohol seizures were mapped by hand for a useful visual audit, and when overlaid with ASB and damage there was a clear correlation. See Appendix 1 photograph of alcohol seized from one group in one evening! Home Office (HO) crime reduction toolkits were reviewed and a control strategy drafted later adopted for the OCU. A Community Tasking and Co-ordination Group (CTCG) process was in its infancy chaired by the Fareham Borough Council (FBC) Community Safety Manager. All stakeholders including FBC, licensing department, fire service and youth service attend supported by an analyst. Community concern about damage was very real. In 2006 a partnership survey showed: How much of a problem are vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property? | Very big problem | Big | Small | None | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | $\mathbf{9 \%}$ | $\mathbf{1 9 \%}$ | $\mathbf{4 8 \%}$ | $\mathbf{2 4 \%}$ | # Designated Public Place Orders (DPPOs) DPPO's allow the police and Local Authorities to apply for an order that makes it illegal for anyone, regardless of age, to have alcohol in their possession in a public place as designated. In total 417 DPPOs are in use in 190 areas nationally. A DPPO had been in place in Fareham Town since 2004. It had been viewed as successful in terms of targeting hardcore street drinkers with simple enforcement, but after displacement issues was expanded in 2006. No evaluation data available but displacement effects were again an issue. Nationally there are many Metropolitan DPPOs, and others in similar geographical areas to Fareham namely Worthing, Aberytswyth and Newquay. Newquay best practice showed sufficient dedicated resources need to be available if confiscation is to be effective. If carried out in a firm but fair manner there is little friction caused. In Aberystwyth's evaluation crime was down 6\%. No broader control strategies were identified that were directly linked to damage reduction. Police felt a Borough DPPO would be a reasonable and proportionate response and result in broader and longer term crime reductions. There were partnership and political concerns about resourcing and the community impact, and detailed presentations were made arguing a coherent business case. In June 2007 the Borough DPPO was born. From analysis priority ward areas for damage reduction were identified as: - Fareham Town particularly West St (FF02) 7\% (209 offences) - Fareham South (FF07) 11\% (322) - Fareham North West (FF09) 11\% (326) - Portchester East (FF06) 9\% (254) - Titchfield (FP06) 8\% (246) - Stubbington (FP08) 5\% (144) Overall there was poor understanding of problem solving and the force Problem Resolution In Multi-agency Environment (PRIME) methodology. ## Key objectives: - To reduce damage in a sustained manner using a partnership control strategy - SNTs to reduce damage by 5\% - To improve damage investigations and detection rates - To reach PSA1 reduction target in the 18 month period before April 2008 # ANALYSIS On a Borough basis incident demand was analysed and Variable Shift Arrangements implemented for patrol officers, along with 'smart' minimum officer strengths which meant an extra officer each shift Thursday to Saturdays. Volunteer special constables were also aligned with patrol teams and the SNTs. A problem profile had been prepared by analysts using the police Records Management System (RMS). Most offences occurred in the evenings particularly on Friday and Saturday, and all year round at weekends with most identified offenders young males. Again there was a clear correlation with timings of alcohol seizures highlighting alcohol misuse. Peak months were not during the summer as might be expected, but in April and November. RMS data was more accurate than the previous system and National Crime Recording Standard compliance was 'good', indicating ethical reporting levels. In 2004 damage accounted for $25 \%$ of overall crime. In 2006/07 damage had risen to $28 \%$ of crime. According to the BCS vandalism increased by $10 \%$, and $32 \%$ goes unreported. One 'traditional' approach would be a dedicated team to investigate damage, but experience indicated this would be a short term fix and unsustainable. ## Victims Non- domestic offences are generally opportunistic and annoying! Car wing mirrors, fences, and walls being favourites for malicious damage. It is difficult to confirm, but police also feel minor crime reporting is higher in Fareham an affluent area. Other than individuals the victims are: - $27 \%$ (789) Business - $4 \%$ (107) Schools - $4 \%$ (117 Local Authority - $1 \%$ (30) Churches In an 18 month period damage types were: - $37 \%$ Vehicle related (nationally $41 \%$ ) - $29 \%$ Damage other - walls, fences etc - $16 \%$ Non-dwellings - $13 \%$ Dwellings - $3 \%$ Domestic - $1 \%$ Racial Particular areas for repeat victims were vulnerable schools, churches, and car parks, generally with poor prevention measures. Again there was a strong correlation with alcohol misuse indicated by debris. Most business damage was broken windows. As with other crimes a gold silver and bronze repeat victimisation response adopted. ## Locations The map Appendix 2 shows damage for April 2006 - March 2007 which correlated strongly with alcohol seizures. The bar chart Appendix 3 shows a clear general damage reduction, and the 2006 data helped identify priority ward areas on P5. # Offenders Offenders are predominantly male ( $90 \%$ - 364 crime detections) and female ( $10 \%$ - 39 crime detections). Analysis showed: - $55 \%$ (223 offenders) aged 10-17 - $13 \%$ (52) aged 16 as most prominent age; one offender accounted for 5\% (19 offences) - $74 \% 21$ and under confirmed by BCS - 92 offences domestic offence related. - $75 \%$ of offenders had criminal convictions already There was clearly a hardcore of repeat juvenile offenders often acting in groups, with alcohol a common theme. Domestic offences were generally secondary offences. It was clear that an intervention caution clinic dealing with rarely caught juvenile offenders could have maximum impact. ## Other analysis: - $70 \%$ of local crime audits identified alcohol misuse of concern - Street cleansing teams identified alcohol hotspots - Fire service and 'Iquanta' data showed increasing arson as well - Schools did not specifically teach about damage and community responsibility - Repeat victims particularly schools were not being problem solved ## Alcohol confiscation power Police already had alcohol confiscation powers for under 18s and those over 18s supplying it. However problems identified with this power : - Relatively confusing power for staff particularly with mixed age groups - Practically difficult to police and 'encounter friction' with an often confused public - No punishment possible for repeat offenders - Displacement effect and short term as a stand alone tactic From 01/08/05 - 31/07/06, there were 568 crimes associated with alcohol related damage and violence, and over $15 \%$ of all Single Non Emergency '101' calls were alcohol related. 515 alcohol seizures were recorded against individuals, although there was wide belief that seizures were under recorded. It was felt that a 'patchwork quilt' DPPO would be ineffective. Alcohol supply was also identified as crucial. Systematic intelligence led test purchasing operations were planned using trading standards departments and juvenile purchasers. ## Damage investigations These were generally poor with limited evidence gathering and use of forensics. Ownership and analysis was often lacking even for identified crime series, inevitably resulting in poor detection rates. Emphasis was recording driven rather than investigation led. We introduced routine use of forensics for damage offences. # Youth Activity Provision Significant gaps in 'static' youth services were recognised and services did not complement enforcement activities; this lesson had been learned from repeated dispersal order operations. Friday and Saturday evenings were identified as key periods for diversion due to temporal analysis, although it was clear from practitioners that the "we want to get drunk" lure was strong, reinforcing the alcohol theme. Analysis had indicated boredom as a reason for offending. ## RESPONSE An ambitious Borough problem solving approach was adopted with a clear complementary control strategy. All SNTs were trained in problem solving methodology. ## Community Tasking \& Co-ordination Group In September 2006 the CTCG was still in its infancy. The CTCG operates within the National Intelligence Model with good partner representation and now with critical analytical support. The meetings are bi-weekly chaired by the Community Safety Manager with the Chief Inspector of police and Deputy Council Leader standing members. This has proved crucial in ensuring fast decisions and resource allocation. The CTCG focused hard on damage. The preventive effect of PCSOs was identified and they were introduced in November 2006 (12 months earlier than scheduled) after lobbying from FBC and the new Chief Inspector. After further lobbying Hampshire County Accredited Community Safety Officers (ACSOs) were also introduced. Priority Patrol Areas (PPAs) are identified in areas where short term action is required, and electronic logs record visits and intelligence. This has been a key area for reducing damage. For medium and long term action, time limited Joint Agency Action Groups (JAAGs) convene which include the elected local Councillors. A graffiti database is held by FBC and dedicated funding in place for prompt removal. Individuals and addresses of concern are passed to the separate ASB Group or the intervention clinic. In this way locations, offenders and longer term issues are prioritised and progressed. All damages are allocated to SNTs for investigation. The minimum service level is a reassurance visit or call. Juvenile street drinkers have hand delivered letters, and more recently parents are contacted 'live' from the street if appropriate. Strong emphasis on visible bike and foot patrol at key times, with bikes and kit sponsored by private sector and match funding for about $£ 10000$ secured. ## Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) In June 2007 a Borough DPPO was introduced. This prohibited alcohol consumption in all public places with officer discretion. Operation Dorothy involved all staff and partners focusing on intelligence led proactive patrols. All staff were trained on using the powers and the discretion allowed. About $£ 15000$ from existing budgets has been spent directly on enforcement. ## Enforcement \& Investigation Operation Equinox was planned for the seasonal damage peak in October and November. Shops were visited selling eggs and flour and PCSO 'Roadshows' educated on responsible behaviour. "Give Respect Get Respect" wristbands softened the enforcement work, supplemented with popular joint fire service patrols. Operation Innings was for the night time economy hotpots. Pubwatch was rejuvenated and banned over 40 persons (one ban previously) including for damage offences. Both of these operations are now permanently planned activity. SNT and patrol teams were equipped with digital cameras to improve investigations, and eventually with body worn video cameras. 'Mosquitoes' (emit a frequency that annoys juveniles only ) were used at vulnerable damage locations when all other methods had failed. These were so effective they were readily bought by the users, and replacement units bought for the next deployment. Schools particularly benefited as evaluated in nearby Havant district. # Prevention and diversionary work - Monthly police and education welfare truancy patrols with proactive 'door stepping' of possible truants who were possibly offending - Extra weekend youth provision eg 'Odyssey' centre in the priority Portchester area which now has over 50 attendees from zero, and a new evening youth café 'Darcy's' a partnership and private sector initiative - Education sessions introduced into schools for graffiti, criminal damage, and community perceptions. The CSP paid for anti-social behaviour theatre sessions for all schools in 2006 - A specific damage prevention leaflet designed to assist target hardening hotspots and repeat victims as not available locally or nationally ; to be evaluated - Repeat school locations have joint visits by crime prevention officer and property services education linked to mosquitoes and longer term measures - Environmental Visual Audit patrols by Fire service ## Intervention caution clinics In April 2007 intervention caution clinics were started to provide an innovative to juvenile offenders. The clinics are bi-weekly with a dedicated Police Inspector and the partnership's ASB officer. Background checks such as school truancy and with child services assess risks of re-offending and identify underlying causes and parenting issues. The clinics have produced very effective interventions with individuals, but also improved crime detections. Individuals have regularly admitted multiple offences under caution at home then attended the clinic later. They are also 'debriefed' by an intelligence officer. Between March 2007 to October 200798 juveniles attended the clinic, with $\mathbf{2 6 \%}$ attending for damage. The clinics have also saved officer time, bureaucracy and custody delays with direct bailing to the clinic via a user friendly online appointment system. It was clear from analysis it was paramount to target rarely caught juveniles who were highly likely to reoffend, and this would be a 'triple win' in terms of detections, challenging behaviour and addressing underlying factors. The Fire Service ran two Local Intervention Fire Education (LIFE) diversion courses, where 'priority' young people were selected often linked to the intervention clinic forging a strong partnership approach. This exciting initiative could eventually mesh to the conditional cautioning scheme for juveniles, as well as restorative justice processes. The control strategy approach inevitably overlaps with other policing developments. It is likely that the results below are from cumulative activity particularly the SNTs, with some bigger contributors identified. The Force Performance Review Group and GOSE noted the sustained and fast damage reductions. # Detection analysis Detections for Criminal damage : - April -30 Sep 07 - Oct -31 March 07 - April -30 Sep 06 154 (18\%) offences detected. $135(14 \%)$ offences detected. $114(11 \%)$ offences were detected. Fareham has detected $14.5 \%$ of damage ytd compared with force average $12 \%$. Detections have increased $7 \%$ in the periods above with the intervention clinic largely responsible, with several offenders admitting crime series. ## DPPO evaluation As the year progressed the benefits from the DPPO became clearer. Not one complaint about the ban received to date. Compliance is now judged as "good" and the effect of the DPPO surprised many as the benefits diffused. A comparison between June 2006 and 2007 when the DPPO came into force shows the effect of the initial operation. June 2006 Criminal Damage 131 Assaults 78 Public Order 28 June 2007 Criminal Damage 61 Down 53\% Assaults 34 Down 56\% Public Order 9 Down 68\% The extra staffing clearly contributed but there was a scary scale of alcohol seizures from 89 individuals mainly juveniles totalling over 500 units of alcohol. As a part of the evaluation, extra questions were added to phone surveys for priority areas Fareham South and Fareham North West. So far from 251 responses : Q In June 2007 a Borough street drinking ban started. Were you aware of this? ## $67 \%$ aware of the DPPO. Q Do you feel that your neighbourhood is safer as a result? ## $59 \%$ feel it makes their neighbourhood safer. These figures were regarded as unusually impressive by the survey managers, particularly as the initial samples were skewed by an 'older' age profile who are generally more fearful; sampling now amended. A further attempt to evaluate the real impact of the DPPO was collected on all incidents and crimes with a documented alcohol aggravation. This mainly included damage, drunkenness and assaults. This data in Appendix 4 is accurate as collated 'manually'. The impact is best shown comparing Sep-06 to Jan-07 with Sep-07 to Jan-08. Regional alcohol data shows Fareham has significantly lower alcohol related hospital admissions for under 18s and for all alcohol related crimes. The seized alcohol is legally raffled by local Lions' Charities and to date has raised over $£ 1000$. The latest school half- term operation saw seizures plummet, despite plain clothes intelligence led patrols. Few repeat offenders were identified, but a database is collated to prosecute if necessary. About 8 arrests have resulted from seizure incidents and only several fixed penalty notices issued despite zero tolerance. It was clear after each operation that seizing alcohol early on prevented incidents and damage later on. # Test purchase operations Off licences and pubs suspected of supplying alcohol to juveniles were targeted repeatedly. During 2006 the failure rates were high at $40-80 \%$, but are now $8-20 \%$. Over 87 premises have been checked since May 2006 with 21 failures. One off licence failed 3 test purchases (only one of 8 nationally) and went to a licensing review with stringent conditions imposed, as did one public house. Police were however disappointed their licences were not removed. ## Intervention clinic evaluations In the year prior to the clinic starting (i.e. 31/03/06 - 28/03/07 ) 214 young people received a formal reprimand. Of these $70(33 \%)$ went on to re-offend. So far only 2 of the 98 young people reprimanded at the clinic have re-offended; believed none for damage. This appears a significant improvement, although obviously the pre-clinic offenders have had longer to re-offend. GOSE recognised the clinic as best practice. ## Economic The HO estimate damage costs $£ 866$ per crime with additional victim costs of $£ 690$. Based on HO figures the total cost of damage for Fareham in 2006/07 was $£ 2,824,140$. | Estimates of Criminal damage | Total cost per crime | $01 / 04 / 06-$ $30 / 09 / 06$ | $01 / 10 / 06-$ $31 / 03 / 07$ | $01 / 04 / 07-$ $30 / 09 / 07$ | | :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Criminal Damage | $£ 866$ | 935,280 | 832,226 | 739,564 | | Cost to victims | $£ 690$ | 745,200 | 663,090 | 589,260 | | Total Costs | $£ 1,556$ | $1,680,480$ | $1,495,316$ | $1,328,824$ | Therefore $£ 351,656$ has been saved or perhaps more accurately not incurred. Also considerable time saved by police recording and investigating is considerable with 422 less offences this year. ## Damage reductions Criminal damage has continually shown a downward trend from 2006: - Apr-Sep 07 (current) - 854 - Oct 06-Mar 07 (previous) - 961 - Apr-Sep 06(last year) - 1080 Borough damage for the year is down $22.5 \%$. The 'Iquanta' chart Appendix 5 shows the progressive and sustained damage reductions since October 2006, following a sustained increase since July 2005. The reductions are projected to continue and the Most Similar Group comparison is powerful. ## Arson It is also interesting to look below at the marked arson impact in Appendix 6, particularly from a partnership perspective. The table Appendix 7 shows the stages of ward reductions, and some increases. Priority areas shown in red. NB Stubbington has been a juvenile drinking hotspot for many years, and it was noted all crime is now down 20\% and assaults down $26 \%$. # Displacement Some offence displacement is suspected and will be reviewed. On a Borough basis no evidence of displacement, although surrounding areas provided with early assessment results are introducing alcohol bans providing diffused benefits. ## Demand reduction Fareham has had a good reduction of $\mathbf{1 0 \%}$ in all deployable calls and a $\mathbf{2 0 \%}$ reduction in attendance required at lower graded calls. It is believed this is strong evidence of problem solving. Further research needed to distil the DPPO effect, but we are convinced it is a major factor. Single Non Emergency '101' data shows a static 19 alcohol related calls per calendar month, and damage calls average 26 per calendar month in 2007 compared to 17 in 2006. It is believed this is due to increased confidence in reporting minor damages. ## Reassurance impact The annual FBC survey rates issues within 15 minutes of residents' homes and is shown in Appendix 7 with 2006 figures in brackets. The figures show significant improvements for damage and drunken behaviour. It is clear all the achievements now need strong and consistent marketing to 'harvest' the full reassurance effect, and a marketing strategy is being developed. In 2007 21\% feel Fareham Borough is a safer place to live compared to 2006. In the last 6 months anti-social behaviour calls are down $27 \%$ in the Borough. ## What did not work and what lessons learned? - Initially the DPPO patrols were effective with vans of uniformed staff, but over time smaller intelligence led localized patrols were more needed using 'spotters' - A few wards showed upward damage trends. Warsash and Locks Heath have the largest proportion of 5-15 year olds. This correlates with offender profiles and is a new problem solving initiative - Some data sharing issues between agencies and specifically with the intervention clinic now addressed - Diversion activities and street based youth work needed to complement enforcement - Intelligence on damage poor initially so school links improved by tasking PCSOs - Initially all adult and juvenile cautions were mixed together in one clinic but this was inefficient ; separate clinics were put in place ## Conclusions ## The objectives were: To reduce damage offences in a sustained manner, using a partnership control strategy - Achieved SNTs to reduce damage by $5 \%$ - $22.5 \%$ Borough reduction best in Hampshire and nearly twice force average. To improve investigations and detections - 7\% improvement in detections To reach PSA1 reduction target in the 18 month period left before April 2008 - Currently 19\% reduction from 0\% 18 months ago. Only Hampshire CSP to meet PSA1 In the 2007 residents' survey 20\% perceived vandalism as a very big or big problem down from 28\%. 'Iquanta' predictions show a continuing decline in Fareham's damage. No dispersal orders applied for in 15 months compared to 5 in the previous 18 months. Damage reductions have surpassed expectations for a low crime area, and the significant 10\% deployable incident reduction. # All Borough crime down 13\%; force average 7.7\%. ## The big winners in priority order are: - The Borough alcohol ban - Innovative intervention caution clinic reducing reoffending and detecting crimes - CTCG problem solving with priority patrol area identification and relentless tracked targeting - SNTs with ownership for all damage investigations, reduction targets and customer service - Joint Agency Action Groups action-oriented problem solving groups - Improved and targeted youth diversion It is strongly felt that with the current focus on youth alcohol issues that a county and even a national DPPO is seriously considered. More coherent DPPO based strategies linked to the other measures, offer the benefits not seen with 'patchwork quilt' DPPO approaches. Youth provision is clearly still a key priority seemingly under permanent threat in every policing area. ## Key selling points: - Sustained damage and incident reductions - Improvements in public perceptions - Intervention clinic benefits in reducing reoffending and improving detections - Most measures cost neutral, sustainable and replicable - DPPO gives SNTs and wider police family an area to focus on - Cost effectiveness ; for every $£ 1$ spent on DPPO enforcement $£ 23.44$ saved in damage costs - Clear that 'nipping offences in the bud' by seizing alcohol early works - SNT damage ownership improves investigations, reductions and customer service State number of words used: 4000 Appendix 1 - Alcohol seized from one small group, on four occasions in one evening! ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-2.jpeg) ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-3.jpeg) # Appendix 3 shows a clear general damage reduction over time Fig 5.3: Fareham Criminal Damage by Police Beats 01/04/0630/09/07 ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-4.jpeg) # **Alcohol related Occurrences Fareham Borough** ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-5.jpeg) **Appendix 5 - Criminal damage offences 2005-2007** ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-6.jpeg) Appendix 6 - Arson (damage by fire) offences 2005-2007 ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/08-12/img-7.jpeg) Appendix 7 table shows the stages of ward reductions, and some increases; priority areas in red | Damage by Police Beat areas | $01 / 04 / 06-$ $30 / 09 / 06$ (a) | $01 / 10 / 06-$ $31 / 03 / 07$ (b) | $\%$ Change a - b | $01 / 04 / 07-$ $30 / 09 / 0$ (c) | $\%$ Change a - c | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Town Centre West (FF01) | 16 | 15 | $-6 \%$ | 11 | $-31 \%$ | | Town Centre East (FF02) | 88 | 65 | $-22 \%$ | 52 | $-41 \%$ | | Fareham North (FF03) | 34 | 27 | $-21 \%$ | 19 | $-44 \%$ | | Fareham East (FF04) | 63 | 42 | $-33 \%$ | 71 | $+13 \%$ | | Portchester West (FF05) | 43 | 39 | $-9 \%$ | 27 | $-37 \%$ | | Portchester East (FF06) | 85 | 95 | $+11 \%$ | 74 | $-13 \%$ | | Fareham South (FF07) | 139 | 102 | $-24 \%$ | 89 | $-37 \%$ | | Fareham West (FF08) | 69 | 37 | $-46 \%$ | 32 | $-54 \%$ | | Fareham N West (FF09) | 118 | 104 | $-12 \%$ | 104 | $-12 \%$ | | Not Known | 8 | 8 | 0 | 12 | $+50 \%$ | | Park Gate (FP01) | 58 | 73 | $+26 \%$ | 52 | $-10 \%$ | | Locks Heath (FP02) | 45 | 67 | $+49 \%$ | 52 | $+16 \%$ | | Sarisbury (FP03) | 36 | 25 | $-31 \%$ | 38 | $+6 \%$ | | Titchfield Common (FP04) | 39 | 25 | $-36 \%$ | 30 | $-23 \%$ | | Warsash (FP05) | 35 | 65 | $+86 \%$ | 53 | $+51 \%$ | | Titchfield (FP06) | 38 | 82 | $-16 \%$ | 56 | $-33 \%$ | | Hill Head (FP07) | 55 | 42 | $-24 \%$ | 31 | $-44 \%$ | | "Stutibington (FP08) | 55 | 44 | $-20 \%$ | 45 | $-18 \%$ | | Total | 1080 | 961 | $-11 \%$ | 854 | $-21 \%$ | Appendix 8 - The annual FBC survey rates issues within 15 minutes of residents' homes | Questions in Residents Survey | Very big Problem | Big Problem | Small Problem | No Problem | \%change from 2006 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | How much are vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property | $\begin{gathered} 5.5 \% \ (9 \%) \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 15.4 \% \ (19 \%) \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 50.2 \% \ (48 \%) \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 28.9 \% \ (24 \%) \end{gathered}$ | Very big problem $-3.5 \%$ | | How much of a problem are drunken/rowdy behaviour in public places | $\begin{gathered} 4.8 \% \ (7.8 \%) \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 15.6 \% \ (13.6 \%) \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 44.7 \% \ (44.4 \%) \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 35.0 \% \ (34.4 \%) \end{gathered}$ | Very big problem $-3 \%$ | # REFERENCE GLOSSARY | ASB | Anti-social behaviour | | --- | --- | | BCS | British Crime Survey | | Caution | Recorded admission of an offence | | CSP | Community Safety Partnership | | CTCG | Community Tasking and Co-ordination Group | | DPPO | Designated Public Place Order ie a street drinking alcohol ban | | FBC | Fareham Borough Council | | GOSE | Government Office South East | | HO | Home Office | | OCU | Operational Command Unit - one of six force command areas | | PCSOs | Police Community Support Officers - non warranted staff | | RMS | Record Management System - crime and intelligence database | | SNTs | Safer Neighbourhood Teams |