---
title: "Southampton Safer Schools Project"
type: "pdf"
year: "2004"
canonical: "/projects/514"
---

# Goldstein Award 2004 

Project Title: Southampton Safer School Project
Category: Crime \& Disorder Reduction
Hampshire Constabulary, England
Endorsing Officer: ACC 'TO' Simon Cole
Signature:

Contact Details:
PC Steve Postlethwaite
Force PRIME Team
Twyford Police Station (Annexe)
Dolphin Hill
Twyford
Hants
SO21 1PU
England
Tel: (044) 01962814714
Fax: (044) 01962871430
Email: prime.team@hampshire.unn.police.uk

# Table of Contents

- [Goldstein Award 2004](#goldstein-award-2004)
- [The Project: Southampton Safer Schools Project](#the-project-southampton-safer-schools-project)
  - [Summary](#summary)
- [Description of Project](#description-of-project)
  - [INITIAL SCANNING](#initial-scanning)
  - [Why was Safer Schools needed?](#why-was-safer-schools-needed)
- [SCANNING TO RESEARCH 'GOOD PRACTICE'](#scanning-to-research-good-practice)
- [ANALYSIS](#analysis)
  - [Initial first stage analysis to identify 'overall' picture](#initial-first-stage-analysis-to-identify-overall-picture)
  - [Victim](#victim)
  - [Offender](#offender)
- [Location](#location)
  - [SCANNING - utilising safer schools process](#scanning-utilising-safer-schools-process)
- [RESPONSES](#responses)
- [Initial first stage response](#initial-first-stage-response)
- [Safe School Policy Statement](#safe-school-policy-statement)
- [Initial first stage assessment](#initial-first-stage-assessment)
- [FURTHER RESPONSES: post first stage review](#further-responses-post-first-stage-review)
  - [ASSESSMENT](#assessment)
  - [Assessment of objectives](#assessment-of-objectives)
- [Second Assessment](#second-assessment)
- [Assessment findings](#assessment-findings)
- [Cost savings](#cost-savings)
- [Recommendations for the future](#recommendations-for-the-future)
- [Conclusions](#conclusions)
- [Agency Information](#agency-information)
- [Appendix A](#appendix-a)
  - ['Safe Schools' and the natural links to 'Healthy Schools'](#safe-schools-and-the-natural-links-to-healthy-schools)
- [Appendix C](#appendix-c)
  - [DIRECTORATE OF LIFELONG LEARNING AND LEISURE](#directorate-of-lifelong-learning-and-leisure)
  - [SAFE SCHOOLS SECURITY PILOT  RED LODGE SCHOOL](#safe-schools-security-pilot-red-lodge-school)
  - [Notes of Meeting held on 18 December 2001](#notes-of-meeting-held-on-18-december-2001)
  - [ACTION](#action)
- [Appendix D](#appendix-d)
- [Appendix E](#appendix-e)
  - [Newlands Junior School](#newlands-junior-school)
  - [Action Plan - Safe Schools Initiative - December 1999](#action-plan-safe-schools-initiative-december-1999)
- [Appendix F](#appendix-f)

# The Project: Southampton Safer Schools Project 

## Summary

'Southampton Safer Schools' saved $£ 271,352$, it is an innovative project promoting partnership working to reduce incidents of damage, burglary and antisocial behaviour in schools by incorporating risk management and crime reduction linked to the national curriculum. Crime Reduction Officers (CRO) were regularly visiting schools subjected to targeted vandalism, burglary and antisocial behaviour. While schools were receptive to the advice given they rarely implemented the recommendations. This was mainly due to the lack of funding, ownership and a belief that the problem could not be solved long term.

The scanning was completed to define the nature of the problem more strategically, evidence was gathered from a number of sources, including:

9 Recorded crime figures for school sites (which were rising)
9 Spending on SCC repair and maintenance budgets e.g. $£ 242,000$ on vandalism repairs 1999/2000.

9 Consultation/dialogue with schools
Analysis of the evidence indicated an approach that was symptom based, rather than one aimed at treating the underlying causes. A steering group was convened to identify and implement a solution to the problem. The main findings were:

9 Develop a safer schools package with local schools building upon best practice identified elsewhere e.g. West Mercia

9 Secure capital programme funding to pump prime a pilot scheme
The response was to address the underlying causes to:

9 Promote an understanding of the safer school initiative with Head teachers and Governors. This was achieved by holding a series of conferences/workshops.

9 Initiate a pilot scheme targeting 6 school sites with high incidences of vandalism, burglary and anti social behaviour.

The assessment of these responses were evaluated via reports from the police and SCC property services, together with structured feedback from each 'safer schools group' through the detailed logging and analysis of incidents and the effectiveness of their responses. The following was identified,

* A $90 \%$ reduction in reported burglary and damage over 18 months post implementation with no displacement
* A dramatic reduction in police attendance to school sites
* A 75\% reduction in damage repair expenditure by the Local Authority
* Improved safety and well being in and around the schools
* Improved ownership of schools by pupils
* The process is becoming mainstreamed within the schools
* Identified weaknesses in process

The initiative has provided a sustainable reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour over a 3 year period post implementation. The model is continually being evaluated and developed and now involves 17 local schools and is continuing to grow within Southampton and Hampshire.

# Description of Project 

The Safe Schools project was originally developed by West Mercia Constabulary. Our project adapted its systematic approach to school safety and updated it to provide additional levers required to introduce it locally. The result has provided an improved delivery process that is innovative in the way security funding is linked to risk management via the safe school process. The result is aimed to enhance support being provided to schools and young people by the Police, Southampton City Council (SCC) and its partners from other agencies. Based on research carried out with schools and the Police, Safer Schools develops and sustains community and pupil-led approaches aimed at tackling crime and safety issues identified by each safer school group.

## INITIAL SCANNING

## Why was Safer Schools needed?

In Southampton we were experiencing a rise over the previous 3 years in incidents of damage and burglary to the majority of the 86 school sites; resulting in significant costs in terms of repairs and demand on council and police resources. At the same time there was a lack of a co-ordinated response to these incidents. The problem was a lack of communication between all the parties involved and inadequate means or time to address the underlying causes only the symptoms. The result was that money was often spent in areas that had little impact on reducing the problem.

Southampton City Council identified that with vandalism to educational properties exceeding $£ 242,000$ in 1999/2000 there was a need to carry out a proactive rather than reactive policy. They identified "A fresh approach was required". A meeting

between the police and education policy officer was convened; a joint decision was made to address the problem as it was spiralling out of control in terms of resource and cost consumption. The adoption of a problem solving approach was identified as the 'Fresh Approach'.

# SCANNING TO RESEARCH 'GOOD PRACTICE' 

It became clear that many processes within the schools to record incidents and prioritise problems were absent, and those that were present were generally dictated by the staff and governors, although well intentioned they often failed to deliver long term. As part of the initial scanning process it was decided to look for some examples of 'Good Practice' from around the country of schemes that addressed some of our underlying causes. There were numerous examples of local crime reduction projects carried out as a result of being repeat victims; however there were very few that addressed the characteristics identified in our scanning. Research identified 2 examples with the potential to provide a framework with which to develop our project.

They were Kent Safe School Initiative and West Mercia Safe School Programme. After evaluation the West Mercia Programme was chosen, it provided a considerable amount of researched documentation addressing many of the identified causes. However, it was recognised that further work would be required to improve the programme. For this reason it was decided to pilot the project at 6 locations which combined where possible high crime locations local to the officers working area that covered junior, middle, secondary and special needs schools to evaluate it across as

broad a range of age and learning spectrum as possible before making it available to all the schools in Southampton.

# ANALYSIS 

## Initial first stage analysis to identify 'overall' picture

This was completed by police, schools and SCC, the following being found to be present in all the locations;

## Victim

* The schools were receiving inconsistent responses from the police (the control room often graded attendance as low on their list of priorities).
* Victims felt they weren't receiving the response they needed.
* Both staff and pupils were regularly disrupted as a result.
* Local residents were regular complainers of juvenile/noisy/criminal activity. In particular when burglar alarms were activated.
* Security expenditure was inconsistent and often targeted by schools at the 'symptoms' not the underlying causes.
* There was no standard means of collating/recording/prioritising or actioning incidents within schools.
* Schools tolerance levels of 'out of hours activity' was high and rarely challenged.


## Offender

* Often offenders were pupils or relatives of them and lived locally.
* There was some evidence that the main offenders were often the subject of developing or current Anti-social Behaviour Contracts (ABC).

* Perimeter fencing was in a poor state of repair and easily breached.
* Lighting was poor or inappropriately applied.
* Where CCTV was in place the picture quality was often poor.


# Location 

* There was no 'rule setting' and inconsistencies existed for users of the site.
* There was no defensible space or demarcation of access.
* Whilst damage was repaired little or no thought went into preventing further incidents. (persistent broken plate glass windows were not replaced with stronger alternatives i.e. toughened/laminated/polycarbonate etc.)
* The playing fields were seen as 'safe places' to play by local children.
* Security expenditure was inconsistent and often targeted at the 'symptoms' not the underlying causes.
* The schools (apart form Red Lodge special school) were consistently high on the council repairs list.
* School playing fields were seen as 'public open space'.
* There were inherent old design characteristics that enabled criminal activity to take place i.e. hidden recesses, lots of glass, easy access to roofs.


## SCANNING - utilising safer schools process

A process had to be identified to keep police and council involvement to a minimum and place the ownership on providing a continual problem solving structure on the schools. The 'Safer School' project provided this. Each school developed their programme of collecting data from a wide range of sources. These included the police, education, local authority and most importantly the children and local communities, all of the data was logged and plotted on a plan/map of the school to

show 'hotspots' around their underlying causes as compared to the symptoms; initially this was with the support and guidance from the City Council and police, however as experience was gained they could easily complete this themselves. This was achieved in conjunction with the programme pack purchased from West Mercia.

This consisted of the following main headings

| IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS \& ESTABLISH MEMBERSHIP OF GROUP |  |
| :--: | :--: |
|  |  |
| CONVENE GROUP AND AGREE A PURPOSE |  |
|  |  |
| COLLECT APPROPRIATE DATA |  |
|  |  |
| ANALYSE DATA |  |
|  |  |
| REVIEW PROGRESS |  |
|  |  |
| IDENTIFY COURSE OF ACTION |  |
|  |  |
| IMPLEMENT ACTION |  |
|  |  |
| REVIEW IMPACT |  |

The schools were told it is likely that this process will be cyclical rather than linear: in practice it is possible to return to different points on the chart (as with this project) as and when appropriate. As a process meetings with the schools were arranged to discuss the implementation of safer schools and provide clear objectives for the pilot.

This clearly provided the schools with a problem solving approach that they could easily follow and then provide an action plan (see appendix E). This was seen as an

essential element of its effective delivery in Southampton. The first stage scanning confirmed the characteristics around the victim, offender and location and the following responses to the underlying causes were identified to be addressed at the pilot schools after the data had been analysed.

# RESPONSES 

It is the intention of this report to concentrate on the holistic nature of the project rather than the individual problems and responses which were aimed at the victim, offender and location characteristics of each of the pilot sites. Typical responses via a problem solving approach included:

- Victim and offender involvement in the 'safe school' consultation process
- Internal and external school activities aimed at raising awareness and risk assessment
- Environmental design improvements; defensible planting creating inner and outer boundaries
- Increasing formal, informal and natural surveillance via dog walking routes around perimeter of grounds
- CCTV
- Rule setting
- Boundary setting via psychological and visual barriers
- Identifying safe and unsafe areas and strategies to improve or reduce risk
- Improved consultation processes; school and community activities linked to homework
- Celebration and recognition (see Appendix D)

These combined activities provided the schools, police and City Council a means of improving communication and awareness of school safety and security and significant cost savings. This is clearly demonstrated and audited via the safer schools groups, an example can be seen in appendix C for Redlodge School.

Whilst the pack had all the essential elements in a 'ready made' format we identified that we could make some improvements to the process, in particular by:

* Providing an improved structure for funding work programmes.
* Developing additional school activities.

It was identified that in order to provide levers as well as to support the project a joined up approach to funding was needed. There was a need to provide additional funding to pump prime the project. The first years funding of $£ 107,600$ was obtained from the City Councils Education Capital Programme Maintenance Budget. As the project developed the schools themselves contributed from their delegated budgets.

# Initial first stage response 

Having analysed the initial information the pilot was implemented in an incremental way to spread the demand for resources and funds to an acceptable and achievable level. It was accepted that this project was fairly unique as it combined an overall problem that was subdivided to each school to develop. There was a desire to use each school as a constant monitoring point this provided additional information as part of an ongoing phased scanning aimed at providing depth to the process. In order to identify the links a policy statement was agreed.

# Safe School Policy Statement 

Crime and anti-social behaviour are problems which affect us all. The 'Safe School' initiative is important as it enables the whole community and our various organisations to work together to produce effective solutions. The initiative aims to

* Provide a safe environment for all users of a school site
* Promote the well being of children and young people in and around schools.
* Help children and young people to become caring and responsible citizens
* Reduce crime and anti-social behaviour within the school site
* Implement effective ongoing identification, monitoring and evaluation processes to provide cost effective solutions
* Encourage all sections of the community to participate in the processes through consultation
* Link the initiative objectives with the school curriculum
* Celebrate the benefits by achieving 'Safe School' certification

The Safe School Initiative was produced with the precise intention of achieving these aims and is an excellent example of partnership working to provide schools that are inclusive not exclusive within communities.

In order to measure the success of the pilot it was essential to provide baseline data against which we would be able to measure how successful we would be against our objectives. There were some complications around data collection, however we could provide the following,

- Recorded crime data (police) back dated to 1/4/1999 when the new computerised crime recording started.

- Cost repairs to the schools (SCC)
- A calculation of cost savings in person hours
- A calculated aggregate cost per burglary / damage for items stolen / repaired etc.
- Expenditure on security by SCC against comparisons of savings

We were unable to establish any baseline data on non crime complaints made to the police as they had ceased to be electronically recorded and previous data had been removed from the system.

# Initial first stage assessment 

As with many projects there were emerging problems that were being identified. It quickly became apparent that the identified processes facilitated effective and efficient monitoring, analysis and resolution of problems. The process was inhibited by the conflict of prioritising the numerous statutory recording requirements that already existed within each school. The identification of clear links to the impending 'Healthy Schools' programme, a new area of the national curriculum produced by the then Department For Education and Employment (DFEE) was thought to be an essential requirement in providing joint process with the safe school project aimed at improving delivery and reducing bureaucracy to aide future development.

It was also identified that there were clear weaknesses in police response around the activation of intruder alarms within the schools, linked to the often long or lack of attendance by nominated 'Key holders' as many live a considerable distance from the school. We also identified as part of the monitoring process that there was a need to develop clear guidance in respect of police response criteria for people entering the school site illegally and / or any commission of offences by them.

# FURTHER RESPONSES: post first stage review 

In order to address the issues identified above the following was completed,

- With clear objectives set within the policy we were in a position to identify the links with the Healthy Schools programme. These are shown in appendix A against the 8 activities within Healthy Schools. It was anticipated that the benefit of linking the two programmes would provide a positive platform; this provided a lever as the benefits could be clearly identified and linked to the mandatory programme of healthy schools.
- The council employed a local security firm to act as key holders to reduce the time the police waited for school staff key holders to attend.
- A letter was sent to the council and copied to the police command and control for their information.
- A flow diagram combined recording form was produced and circulated to the schools to clearly define when, what and who had entered the school site. (see appendix B).
- An additional $£ 70,000$ of council funding was obtained for year 2 as a result of safer school processes.


## ASSESSMENT

## Assessment of objectives

The objectives for the initiative were set against the features of the problem taking into account what information / data could be obtained to measure the outcomes.

1. Reduce reported crime against burglary and criminal damage over a 5 year period by $60 \%$. The method of defining our target figure was based on what the steering group thought was a realistic and achievable figure. The reduction was planned to be incremental. The first milestone was set at 28/2/2002 with a 20\% reduction

target, followed by a $10 \%$ reduction per year to the target of $60 \%$. See Tables 1 and 2 for results.

| Table. 1 |  |  |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
|  | DAMAGE |  |
|  | 1/4/99 To 31/7/00 | 1/8/00 To 28/2/02 |
| St George | 7 | 3 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 1/7/01 | 1/7/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Newlands | 14 | 1 |
|  | 1/4/99 to 28/2/01 | 1/3/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Fairisle | 3 | 0 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 28/2/01 | 1/3/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Sinclair | 3 | 1 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 31/6/01 | 1/7/01 to 28/2/02 |
| Millbrook | 18 | 3 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 31/3/01 | 1/4/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Red Lodge | 2 | 2 |
| TOTAL | 47 | 10 |


| Table. 2 |  |  |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
|  | BURGLARY |  |
|  | 1/4/99 To 31/7/00 | 1/8/00 To 28/2/02 |
| St George | 27 | 1 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 1/7/01 | 1/7/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Newlands | 16 | 0 |
|  | 1/4/99 to 28/2/01 | 1/3/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Fairisle | 13 | 1 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 28/2/01 | 1/3/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Sinclair | 15 | 1 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 31/6/01 | 1/7/01 to 28/2/02 |
| Millbrook | 9 | 0 |
|  | 1/4/99 To 31/3/01 | 1/4/01 To 28/2/02 |
| Red Lodge | 3 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 83 | 3 |

Reduction Sought by first year milestone $=20 \%$

Achieved $=78.7 \%$

Reduction Sought by first year milestone $=20 \%$

Achieved $=96.4 \%$

A cost benefit analysis was undertaken to examine expenditure against incidents and break ins. An example of the cost benefit matrix produced by the council as part of

the initiative is shown in table 5. It must be noted that the crimes/incidents they have on their records differ from the 'recorded crime' on police systems.

|  Table. 5 | Newlands Infant anc |  | Junior Schools |  |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Financial Year | Vanda | Costs | Number of | Number of | Total  |
|   | LEA | SCHOOLS | INCIDENTS | BREAK-INS | COSTS  |
|  1999/2000 | £19,048 | £14,200 | 46 | 6 | £33,248  |
|  2000/2001 |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Pre security measures | £6,364 | £4,000 | 21 | 1 |   |
|  Post security measures | £2,535 | £0 | 14 | 0 |   |
|  Total | £13,157 |  | 35 |  | £13,157  |
|  2001/2002 | £8,856 | £350 | 18 | 1 | £9,306  |
|  2002/2003 | £27,336 | £3,000 | 84 | 1 |   |
|  Scheme costs |  |  |  |  | £27,743  |
|  Initial Potential |  |  |  |  | 1.25 years  |
|  Payback Period |  |  |  |  |   |

The council have provided the following costing analysis dated 17/4/03 this does not take into account items stolen as this is rarely listed with police crime reports or school records.

![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/04-16/img-0.jpeg)

In a report by Luke Pearson Electrical Engineering Services Manager, SCC he highlighted initial financial savings of $60 \%$ and a payback period of 1.25 years at Newlands school alone see table 5 ante. Feedback from the 'Safer School Group' indicated a significant increase in staff morale from the reduction of vandalism.
2. Reduce police officers time attending nuisance calls to an acceptable level. Acceptable level is defined as 'legitimate calls for service'. This could be achieved by awareness raising activity by the schools to the local community.
3. Reduce time spent by school staff in dealing with incidents of vandalism and burglary.
4. Engage the stakeholders in the safe school process e.g. school staff, pupils and governors, police, Local Authority, local residents and community representatives etc.
5. Heighten pupil awareness around safety and security and links to the national curriculum via safer schools and Healthy schools compatibility.

# Second Assessment 

This assessment was completed in order to monitor the sustainability of the project beyond the initial reductions. It is accepted that early reductions could have been achieved as a result of media coverage, the high profile of the project and the initial location oriented changes. The process had to be transparent and assess the project long term in order to confidently claim success. Table 3 below indicates recorded crime for damage, table 4 for burglary between $21 / 2$ and 3 years post implementation. The second period is from the implementation date to $28^{\text {th }}$ February the next year, then for a whole year thereafter. All the other schools in Southampton continued the same levels/trend of recorded crime activity as that obtained pre the project in sharp contrast to the reductions at the pilot schools. There was no apparent displacement.

Goldstein Award submission 2004
![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/04-16/img-1.jpeg)

The assessment process identified key areas of strengths at four schools and weaknesses at the two other schools; St George and Newlands school required a cyclical process of problem solving to be applied to identify the weaknesses. Further simple scanning was completed and the analysis identified a series of problems together with the underlying causes. These will be discussed in the next section together with the strengths.

After the initial large reduction in burglary, the reduction has been sustained for ALL locations for between $21 / 2$ to 3 years post implementation.

# Assessment findings 

This process identified several problems at the two schools of St. George and Newlands together with the underlying causes. The problems were,

- Early identification of developing problems were not being recorded or actioned in accordance with the procedures of the safe school project.
> 344 St. George School, during period 10/1/03 to 28/2/03 there was building work on site which resulted in large amount of stones rubble etc. being left on site. This resulted in a high proportion of damage, 6 crimes in total plus one personal vendetta where a vehicle parked on site was attacked.
> 345 George School weren't completing the safe school process and due to the confusion in the police/council roles and responsibilities early intervention and responses aimed at getting the initiative 'back on track' were not completed.
> 346 Newlands school there was a blind spot on the online monitored CCTV coverage and a broken camera that was being exploited. This was responsible for not maintaining the substantial reductions achieved upto the first milestone and explains the huge increase in damage.
> 347 Newlands school suffered a change in head teacher in 2002, they were not conversant with the safe school process.
- Communication links with the local police appeared to have failed.

- Safe school did not appear to be mainstreamed in these two schools.

The underlying causes were,

- The temporary loss of the key drivers from within both the police and the council education department.
- The requirement of form completion by the various local and national bodies which was producing a bureaucratic process of duplication and conflict.
- The replacement of the lead police officer was not effectively achieved, for the following reasons
> There was uncertainty on how long the officer would be absent and there was a reluctance to pass the initiative onto another officers workload.
$>$ No defined roles or responsibilities.
$>$ The reluctance of the initiating officer to 'give the project up' in case he returned.
$>$ Insufficient time spent on 'handover' explanation/time etc.
- The City Council has had difficulties in resourcing Safe School due to considerable demands on officers time. A change of lead officer resulted in the following problems:
$>$ Insufficient time spent on 'hangover' explanation/time etc.
$>$ No defined roles and responsibilities.
$>$ Am expectation that the new person would be able to deliver immediately
$>$ No defined point of contact within police until approx 6 months later when a new lead police officer was identified.

The strengths of the project were very evident at the schools that had fully embraced it. Millbrook Community School in particular were innovative and applied to its Board of Governors for the funding to employ a 'Safe School Officer' of their own to administer and apply the processes. The result has by far exceeded the schools expectations. They have not only achieved and maintained a dramatic reduction in burglary and damage but also to internal damage caused by students combined with a safer and more controlled educational environment.

The Safe School process identified the need for a 'Pass Out' system to allow pupils out of class, this is now being operated successfully, reducing dramatically the incidents of internal damage caused by pupils.

# Cost savings 

In calculating the cost savings to the police we applied a formula provided by the force finance department dated 7/5/03 based on our activity analysis combined with cost analysis, providing a aggregated cost per burglary and criminal damage.

| Police Opportunity Costs |  |  |  |  |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Offence |  | Hours | Cost per hour | Total |
| Burglary |  | 1.8 | $£ 13-53$ | $£ 24-35$ |
| Criminal Damage |  | 3.1 | $£ 13-53$ | $£ 41-94$ |
| Offence |  | Hours | Cost per hour | Total |
| Vandalism/Burglary/Incident request for repair |  | 2 | $£ 40-00$ | $£ 80-00$ |
| Vandalism/Burglary/Incident activity by school to rectify |  | 2 | $£ 40-00$ | $£ 80-00$ |
| TOTAL PER INCIDENT |  | 4 |  | $£ 160-00$ |
| Total Cost Savings Per Milestone/Year in person hours saved |  |  |  |  |
| Organisation/incident | Period | No. Reduced incidents |  | Total Saving |
| Police- Burglary | up to 28/2/02 | 80 |  | $£ 1,948$ |
| Police- Criminal Damage | up to 28/2/02 | 37 |  | $£ 1,552$ |
| SCC | up to 28/2/02 | 117 |  | $£ 18,720$ |
| TOTAL |  |  |  | $£ 22,220$ |

| Police- Burglary | Up to 28/2/03 | 80 | $£ 1,948$ |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Police- Criminal Damage | Up to 28/2/03 | 18 | $£ \quad 754$ |
| SCC | Up to 28/2/03 | 98 | $£ 15,680$ |
| TOTAL |  |  | $£ 18,382$ |
| TOTAL COST SAVING POST IMPLEMENTATION |  |  | $£ 40,602$ |
| Cost per burglary (aggregated) of property stolen $=£ 307-82$ |  |  |  |
| Timescale |  | Number of Burglaries | Cost |
| 1999 - implementation (Baseline) |  | 83 | $£ 25,549$ |
|  |  |  | Cost Savings |
| Implementation to 28/2/02 |  | 3 | $£ 24,625$ |
| 28/02/02 to 28/2/03 |  | 3 | $£ 24,625$ |
| TOTAL SAVINGS |  |  | $£ 49,250$ |
| Total cost savings of project (excluding SCC capital expendi |  |  | costs) |
| SCC/Police | Opportunity costs |  | $£ 40,602$ |
| SCC | $75 \%$ saving of repair/maintenance |  | $£ 181,500$ |
| School | Cost to replace stolen property |  | $£ 49,250$ |
|  |  |  | $£ 271,352$ |

This does not take into account the cost of attendance and evidence gathering by Scenes of Crime officers of which anecdotal evidence indicated it to be about 2 hrs per incident.

# Recommendations for the future 

The assessment of the paper based process produced by West Mercia has identified the following actions to improve the delivery of 'safer schools' and provide a framework for the future,

* To immediately formulate and record clear roles and responsibilities for the members of the steering group. This will enable the replacement of project members to be more effectively managed in the future.
* Produce new forms that are multi purpose for both safe schools, healthy schools and local and regional procedures to reduce bureaucracy by providing one document, which will further promote its use.
* To integrate the forms into an electronic format that improves the audit

process and aides dissemination.

* There should be a period of joint working where there is an effective 'handover' of responsibilities where possible
* To align the allocation of security budgets by the council and schools with safer school procedures; by the accurate identification of a response that addresses the underlying causes $\boldsymbol{N O T}$ the symptoms.
* Update the existing 'safe school' logo (see appendix F)
* The continued use of a security firm to attend alarm activation (we are still unable to collect data, however anecdotal evidence indicates this saves time and is cost effective)
* To monitor Safer Schools processes at schools through annual Asset Management Partnership Meetings.


# Conclusions 

The project has the potential to deliver a wide range of saving in terms of both actual and opportunity costs in the problematic area around crime reduction and safety in and around educational premises, this is enhanced by the structured way funding is administered. When the initiative is updated into an amalgamated computer based programme it will enhance its usability and transferability. The project has demonstrated that by utilising a problem solving approach that co-ordinates activity around the victim, offender and location substantial improvements can be achieved not only in terms of crime, but also around the overall feeling of safety and improved environments in and around schools.

# Agency Information 

The project initiator is a Crime Reduction Officer and fully conversant with problem solving methodology, as part of the development of the project 3 one day problem solving courses were completed for 68 out of the 86 schools in Southampton prior to the start of the pilot; this was aimed at not only providing an insight into the processes but in addition to increase the desire to participate in the scheme in the future after the pilot period. This combined with the schools involved with the pilot using a problem solving methodology resulted in an improvement in safety and security and the continued growth of schools wanting to adopt the 'Safer Schools' programme. The incentive to participate was; if you applied the process you were assisted with funding your responses. Project costs were quickly recovered and eventually became self sufficient as investment returned cost savings in repairs etc.

|  | APPENDICES |
| :-- | :-- |
| Appendix A | Links between Safe School \& Healthy School |
| Appendix B | Flow diagram/recording form |
| Appendix C | Example of School Activity at Redlodge school |
| Appendix D | Press Release |
| Appendix E | Early Action Plan update from Newlands school |
| Appendix F | Safe School Logo |

# Appendix A 

## 'Safe Schools' and the natural links to 'Healthy Schools'

![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/04-16/img-2.jpeg)

Appendix B
NAME \& ADDRESS
![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/04-16/img-3.jpeg)

# Appendix C 

## DIRECTORATE OF LIFELONG LEARNING AND LEISURE

## SAFE SCHOOLS SECURITY PILOT  RED LODGE SCHOOL

## Notes of Meeting held on 18 December 2001

| Present: | Sue Mackie |  | - | Headteacher |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
|  | Glen Floyd |  | - | Chair of Governors |
|  | Samantha White | - | School Council |  |
|  | Luke Winkworth |  | - | School Council |
|  | Alex Wilson |  | - | Community Beat Officer |
|  | John Fulford | - | Assistant Manager, BDS |  |
|  | Dave Kitson |  | - | Policy Officer (Sites \& Buildings) |

1. Apologies

Steve Postlethwaite.
2. Notes of Meeting held on 17 October 2001
2.1 Speed ramps installed. Successful but complaints from escorts.
2.2 Bollards installed on two of the ramps to be painted.
2.3 Railings on order. To be installed mid-January 2002. Silver and green in colour.
2.4 All handrails installed.
2.5 Inclusive support room still not completed.
3. Feedback from School Council
3.1 The chemical store should be removed as it is a means of escape for some pupils. $£ 750$ to remove - on contingency reserve list for funding in 2001-02. Confirm early February 2002.

## ACTION

3.2 Consider installation of seat to quiet area or in area currently occupied by chemical store.
3.3 Boys changing room can be a problem in terms of "guerrilla combat" activity and colourful language. Consider installation of microphone. Human Rights

Act permits monitoring but not recording.
GF to provide a price.
3.4 Cars parking across the entrance to the swimming pool is also a problem as this is the emergency access.
4. Judging of Signs
4.1 There were a number of very good entries making it difficult to pick out the winners. After due consideration the following winners were chosen:

Yasmin Abraham
Sam Gibson
Book tokens to be awarded.
4.2 JF to investigate whether proper signs can be made up to these designs.
5. Safe Schools Initiative
5.1 Links with PSHE have been identified.
5.2 School is continuing to monitor incidents and behaviour.
5.3 Inclusion of Neighbourhood Warden in stakeholder group has not been successful yet ongoing.
5.4 DK/JF/SP to assess school for Safe Schools accreditation in February/March 2002.

AW will put SP in touch with DK.
Certificates to be tied in with erection of signs ceremony. Consider opening by Saints player or Police Superintendent.
6. Date of Next Meeting
6.1 5 February 2002 at 9:00 a.m.

# Appendix D 

AN INITIATIVE aimed at improving safety and security at six schools in Southampton has resulted in a massive fall in the number of reported crimes.
The results are shown in figures collated by PC Steve Postlethwaite, who instigated the scheme working hand-in-hand with Southampton City Council, in his role as Crime Reduction Officer.
Launched in Southampton just over two years ago, the project aims to link safety and security issues with the national curriculum and get pupils involved in taking responsibility for their schools through classroom discussion and student activities.
This month, Red Lodge School becomes the second in the city to be officially accredited with Safe School status - awarded once the school has clearly demonstrated that it has successfully met all the standards set by the multi-agency organising group.
"The important thing about the scheme is that it teaches kids in an early education environment the issues and importance of crime prevention and personal safety," said PC Steve Postlethwaite. "It is about developing the youngsters' awareness, making them ask basic security and safety questions, understanding what you can and cannot do from a very early age.
"The Safe Schools scheme is an excellent example of what can be achieved by the police working together with the local authority, schools, governors and members of the community to make Hampshire a safer place to live in."
The scheme has been so successful that the city council now has a permanent Safe Schools Officer to provide support and advice to participating schools.
The initiative aims to provide a safe environment for all users of the school site and the neighbouring communities, encourage youngsters to become caring and responsible citizens, reduce crime and anti-social behaviour within the school site, and link all this work with the newly-introduced Citizenship section including 8 out of 10 of the key objectives of 'Healthy Schools' which is in the process of being introduced into the National Cirriculum.
So far in the six schools participating in the pilot project, all of them have seen a dramatic fall in the number of reported incidents of criminal damage and burglary.
For example, Newlands School had 14 reported burglary incidents in a 15 month period between 1999 and 2001, and during the time it has taken part in the scheme, that number has dropped to just one.
There has also been a significant decrease in the number of incidents to which the police are called, providing a great saving to the Constabulary and the tax-payer. PC
Steve Postlethwaite thinks that getting the kids involved is a major factor in the success of the scheme. "This scheme is successful because it addresses the perceived problem in the school and the underlying causes of the problem," he said. "At every stage the kids are consulted. We ask them where the problems are - where do the fights take place? Where are people bullied? The data is then analysed to get to the root of the problem.
"The solutions are then discussed with them. That way the pupils feel ownership - they feel responsible for the solution and in that way feel empowered."
Dave Kitson, Southampton City Council's Policy Officer Sites and Buildings, said:
"The scheme encourages schools to look at measures to make their environments safer and involves pupils in coming up with these security improvements. "I hope that Red Lodge's achievement will encourage other schools to seek a safer school environment."
PC Steve Postlethwaite hopes that the success of the scheme to-date will lead to its expansion. "My ultimate aim is to see it implemented at schools throughout Southampton. It is such a good product that it is something I feel should be offered to schools throughout Hampshire." -ends-

# Appendix E

![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/04-16/img-4.jpeg)

## Newlands Junior School

**Villaverse Road** Millbrook SC677HAMPTON SC663 9HA Telephone: 023 2077 3363 Fax: 023 2077 3363 E-mail: info@newlands-jun.com/therapsm.gov.uk

## Action Plan - Safe Schools Initiative - December 1999

|  Area Identified for Improvement | Detail | Year planned | Current Status  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  **DISABILITY ACCESS** |  |  |   |
|  All Entrances | Provide sample to facilitate disabled access | 1999 - 2000 | Completed  |
|  Billing Roll | Provide lumped entrance locks | 1999 - 2000 | Completed  |
|  Library | Provide sample to facilitate disabled access | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Outside Classrooms | Locate on single floor area | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|   | Ratage are not feasible to these buildings - storage classes to ensure disabled pupils shall use extra area | N/A | Completed  |
|  **SECURITY MEASURES** |  |  |   |
|  Classrooms | Install panic alarms to teaching staff | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Install multiple CCTV camera's | Install and locate warning cameras to cover whole site, monitor to see an evidence with aim of reducing conditions | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Outside Lighting | Install / Upgrade an accessory to improve quality of CCTV images | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Trees / Shrubbery | This out / Remove an accessory to offend view to all CCTV cameras | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Tighten up Visitor Security | Request ID | 1999 - 2000 | Completed  |
|  Entrance 2 | Install extra doors - giving access to toilets / utensils | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Entrance 3 | Access (floor) | Restrict to toilets and drinks to ensure all playrooms and during lunch break | Completed  |
|  Entrance 2/3 and annex buildings | Enclose or fence area to reduce unauthorized access and prevent children running out of school | 2001 - 2002 | Completed  |
|  Reception | Provide enclosed reception area outside of room buildings | 2001 - 2002 | Completed  |
|   | Install security locks from main corridor to restore / prevent unauthorized access to all offices as temporary restricts until step 111 is completed | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  Staff | Improve each building by ensuring that cash is secured out of sight of reception desk | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|   | Issue designs / invoice signs in & out system | 2000 - 2001 | Completed  |
|  **TEACHING FACILITIES** |  |  |   |
|  ICT units | Relocate to larger area and enlarge system | 2001 - 2002 | Completed  |

# Appendix F 

![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/04-16/img-5.jpeg)