---
title: "Safe as Houses Domestic Burglary Project"
type: "pdf"
year: "2011"
canonical: "/projects/806"
---
# Reducing Domestic Burglary
# Table of Contents
- [Reducing Domestic Burglary](#reducing-domestic-burglary)
- [Project Name: "Safe As Houses"](#project-name-safe-as-houses)
- [Location: London Borough of Enfield, Greater London, United Kingdom](#location-london-borough-of-enfield-greater-london-united-kingdom)
- [Project Contact Person](#project-contact-person)
- [Key Project Team Members](#key-project-team-members)
- [Summary](#summary)
- [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Response](#response)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Place/Locations:](#placelocations)
- [Victims/Targets:](#victimstargets)
- [Offenders:](#offenders)
- [Response](#response)
- [Increased Effort:](#increased-effort)
- [Reduce the rewards:](#reduce-the-rewards)
- [Supplementary activity:](#supplementary-activity)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [Measuring Performance:](#measuring-performance)
- [Performance Figures:](#performance-figures)
- [Updated Performance Figures 2010-11:](#updated-performance-figures-2010-11)
- [Resident Feedback:](#resident-feedback)
- [Challenges Faced:](#challenges-faced)
- [Conclusion:](#conclusion)
- [References](#references)
- [Appendix Items](#appendix-items)
- [Beating the burglars](#beating-the-burglars)
- [SOAPROX](#soaprox)
- [DIEI CLINIC](#diei-clinic)
- [NEW RESTAURANT AND BAR](#new-restaurant-and-bar)
- [Sitting comfortably?](#sitting-comfortably)
- [Supporting Independent Lifestyles (SILs) Handyperson Service](#supporting-independent-lifestyles-sils-handyperson-service)
- [Safe as houses](#safe-as-houses)
- [Burglary among worst in London](#burglary-among-worst-in-london)
- [Shoppers to get free parking](#shoppers-to-get-free-parking)
- [The ENFIELD](#the-enfield)
- [Burglary level is capital's second-highest](#burglary-level-is-capitals-second-highest)
- [door-to-door home security](#door-to-door-home-security)
- [TELL US WHAT YOU THINK](#tell-us-what-you-think)
- [Everything we can do to make it harder for burglars is something. We have brilliant things... I wish more people would use them...](#everything-we-can-do-to-make-it-harder-for-burglars-is-something-we-have-brilliant-things-i-wish-more-people-would-use-them)
- [HAIFFRICE GARAGE DOORS MADE TO MEASURE FITTED FREE!!](#haiffrice-garage-doors-made-to-measure-fitted-free)
- [24 arrested in crime crackdown](#24-arrested-in-crime-crackdown)
- [KIRWANS SOLICITORS](#kirwans-solicitors)
- [FREE LEGAL ADVICE Community Care Debt Employment Family Housing Welfare Benefit](#free-legal-advice-community-care-debt-employment-family-housing-welfare-benefit)
## Project Name: "Safe As Houses"
## Location: London Borough of Enfield, Greater London, United Kingdom
### Project Contact Person
**Name:** Iain Agar
**Position:** Community Safety Partnership Analyst
**Address:** Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield Middlesex EN1 3XA, United Kingdom
**City/State:** Enfield, Greater London
**Phone:** 020 8379 2069
**Fax:** 020 8379 4005
**Email:** iain.agar@enfield.gov.uk
### Key Project Team Members
- Enfield Strategic Partnership (Local Government)
- London Borough of Enfield (Local Government)
- London Fire Brigade (Enfield Borough)
- Metropolitan Police (Enfield Borough)
- Safer & Stronger Communities Board (Local Community Safety Partnership)
# Summary
## Scanning
- Increase of $24 \%$ in burglary offending
- Identified as problem by $35 \%$ of residents
- Concern expressed by local MP (Member of Parliament)
- Local media highlighted rises
- Pressure from Government Office for London to reduce offending
- Enfield in 2008/09 had $2^{\text {nd }}$ highest rate in London and $8^{\text {th }}$ highest nationally
## Analysis
- Very pronounced seasonal spike in the winter months
- Same hotspot locations year on year for several years - almost 1 in 5 offences occur within $4.6 \%$ of Enfield's geographical area
- Chronic hotspots persisted due to a number of alley-way networks
- Low repeat victimisation (10\%) but very high incidence of near repeats
- Limited intelligence on offenders, very low sanctioned detection rates, furthermore arrests of notable offenders had no impact on overall levels of offending
- Strong intelligence regarding victims and locations
## Response
- Focused on addressing the weakness identified on the victims and locations sides of the problem analysis triangle
- Increase effort by offering locksmith services to properties in affected areas - target hardening
- Control access and reduce opportunity in areas of rear-entry offending by implementing alleygates
- Deflect offenders by giving away free security measures to residents in hot streets
- Supplementary activity to tackle 'broken windows' theory included graffiti removal, fly-tip clearance and altering design to increase natural surveillance (i.e. trimming vegetation)
# Assessment
- Over 3,000 households targeted for intervention in the most chronic burglary hot streets
- 88 alley-gate schemes implemented
- $46.7 \%$ reduction in targeted streets after first year compared to $7 \%$ decrease across borough
- Sustainable reduction in intervention areas which continue to decline into 2011 (reductions continue to be $8 x$ greater than the borough average
- $93 \%$ residents satisfied ( $73 \%$ response rate) with service
- One ward, Palmers Green, which was a top 3 burglary ward every year between 2001 and 2009 is now ranked $9^{\text {th }}$ in 2010-11
WORD COUNT: 307
# Scanning
Domestic burglary is a strategic priority of Enfield's Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and a significant contributor to Enfield's serious acquisitive crime (SAC) target.
In 2008/09 it accounted for 37\% of all SAC and 13\% of total crime in Enfield. In the four financial years preceding 2008/09 burglary had remained stable (consistently between 19-21 offences per 1,000 households). In 2008/09 burglary saw a significant increase of $+24 \%$ (from 2,460 to 3,051 ) prompting identification of the problem at a higher level including:
$>2008 / 09$ strategic assessment highlighted to the CSP Board that burglary should be a priority - December 2008
$>$ January 2009 'Face The Public' meetings with residents identified domestic burglary as their $6^{\text {th }}$ greatest concern ( $35 \%$ thought this was a problem of 100 respondents)
$>$ March 2009, the Community Safety Survey with over 2,000 respondents identified burglary as the $3^{\text {rd }}$ highest priority ( $30 \%$ of respondents)
$>$ March 2009, Local MP Joan Ryan used local newspapers to express her concern of burglary levels across the borough after speaking with residents and victims
$>$ Residents at local ward meetings highlighted concerns that burglary was rising - feedback from meeting chairs throughout 2008/09
$>$ Local media highly publicised the increase (see below image), including the London Paper which listed the worst 10 London boroughs on a rate per 1,000 household basis (Enfield had the $2^{\text {nd }}$ highest rate) - articles throughout 2008/09 (see Appendices)
$>$ Government Office for London raised concerns at the local CSP meeting and there was pressure on the police to address performance issues - throughout 2008/09
At the end of 2008/09 Enfield had the second highest rate of domestic burglary in London and the $8^{\text {th }}$ highest rate nationally.
(Source: Enfield Advertiser, distributed free to all households in Enfield, approximately 119,000)
There were an extra 152 offences in the first quarter of 2008/09 in comparison to the previous year. This was followed by an extra 183 offences in quarter two and an extra 199 in quarter three.
(Source: Metropolitan Police)
As well as public concern the partnership considered the financial and social costs borne by victims. Burglary can have a serious psychological impact on householders. Studies show, victims express considerable fear of repeat victimisation and become more anxious, hostile and depressed following a burglary (Beaton et al 2000; Maguire 1980). The average cost of a burglary according to the Home Office was $£ 2,300$ and had risen to $£ 3,268$ in 2003/04 (Home Office 2000; 2005). Not accounting for inflation, this puts the economic and social "cost" of burglary locally between $£ 7-10$ million in 2008/09.
There was no additional funding or resources available to police the problem. Resources were already strained owing to five high profile youth murders between January and July 2008 and the high intensity policing of subsequent low volume 'gang issues'. Burglary was addressed predominantly by patrols that reacted to fortnightly hotspots and targeting of known offenders. By the end of 2008/09 this response was exhausted and despite the arrest of some significant burglary nominals offences continued to increase.
Having met previous Local Area Agreement targets, some funding was made available through the Local Strategic Partnership for 2009/10. An updated problem profile for domestic burglary was devised with the intention that the evidence would be used to design an intelligence-led, problem solving response which could be evaluated. A well informed funding proposal to the strategic partnership was submitted.
The key stakeholders of this project, other than victims, were the Police, Community Safety Unit, Enfield Homes, Registered Social Landlords and the community.
# Analysis
The problem Enfield faced was a 24\% increase in domestic burglary in 2008/09 and a further increase of 10\% in April 2009. Initial objectives were to prevent further increases in 2009/10 and ideally achieve reductions. Before deciding objectives and responses the partnership and police analysts set about producing an updated in-depth profile of burglary. This was completed in the style of the problem analysis triangle (PAT), the partnership analyst concentrating on locations and victims/targets whilst the police analysts provided information on offenders.
An overview of several years' data provided some basic patterns that were consistent year-on-year:
$>$ Repeat victimisation accounted for less than 10\% of burglary.
$>$ Seasonal trends consistently showed much higher offending levels throughout October February, with an upward trend to this seasonality (Fig.1).
$>5$ wards with the highest number of offences had not changed for over 5 years. Burglaries in these wards were more likely to be rear entry owing to the large networks of alleyways. Almost 1 in 5 offences occurred within output areas surrounding the A10 labelled "A10-corridor" on map (Fig.2), this represents just 4.6\% of Enfield's geographical area).
$>$ Proportionately there was little change in the breakdown of burglary by type (i.e. aggravated, distraction...).
Fig 1: Cyclical upward seasonal trend; Source: Iquanta
Fig. 2 Count of burglary by ward and A10 corridor; Source: Metropolitan Police
Analysis was conducted considering all domestic burglary with the exception of distraction (relatively low volume, mechanistic measures already in place to remove excuses in hotspot areas e.g. No Cold Calling Zones) and aggravated burglaries (very low volume and difficult to prevent owing to their nature).
# Place/Locations:
> Repeat victimisation was relatively low but there were specific wards and sub-wards (particularly the "A10 corridor") where burglary was consistently the highest each financial year.
$>$ Further analysis was conducted by methods of entry
- Front Door: accounted for $34 \%$, hotspots tended to be on council and registered social landlord estates (RSL) composed of purpose built flats. Doors often had weak locks.
- Rear Door: accounted for 23\%, hotspots were overwhelmingly concentrated in the "A10 corridor". Properties are accessed via alleyways. UPVC and patio doors were targeted, offenders taking advantage of garden tools to aid with entry.
- Smashed Window entry: accounted for $24 \%$, were almost entirely rear entry whereby properties were accessed via alleyways, the most intense hotspots were in the "A10-corridor".
- Forced Window entry: accounted for 18\%, occurring equally between rear and front of properties. Rear offences were more predominant in the "A10corridor" whilst front/side forced window entry was prevalent in purpose built new build blocks of flats
> A list of streets with the highest number of burglaries was compiled with accompanying information e.g. number of offences, type of entry and any other features such as alleyways and dwelling types.
> Burglary clusters spanning multiple streets that may not be identified as significant by simple number counts were also identified. This was done using Local Indicator of Spatial Association statistical analysis which simply identifies the association between a single offence and its nearby offences up to a specified distance (this was set as 125m).
$>$ Hotspots of rear offending were created and compared against a GIS layer for alleyways in the borough to identify areas which provided opportunities for rear access (see map).
Rear Entry burglary hotspots in Enfield.
(Source: Local Authority Community Safety Unit and Metropolitan Police)
"A10 corridor"
# Victims/Targets:
Using ACORN/MOSAIC lifestyle data cross-referenced with addresses of burglary victims we established the type of groups most at-risk. It showed that population groups composed of working older families in terraces, suburban privately renting professionals and older families in prosperous suburbs endured most offences.
Based on these findings coupled with location analysis (including visiting hotspots and observing Google street view images) it was evident that there were 'good locations' for burglary offenders in Enfield particularly within the "A10-corridor". Suburban streets with a good network of pedestrian routes, alleyways and underpasses made accessible by main through roads accompanied by numerous bus routes and transport interchanges. Within these areas were older terraced, end-terrace and semi-detached largely owner-occupied properties with weak security and rear access, via alleyways for example, which allowed offenders to operate un-noticed particularly in the winter months when there are fewer daylight hours.
ACORN/MOSAIC characterised the main hotspot areas as working families and professionals suggesting a lack of occupancy during the day and the likelihood that there are goods worth stealing. The resident types found in these intense hotspots could explain why repeat victimisation levels are low. Findings from Bowers \& Johnson 2005 observe that repeat burglaries tended to occur in deprived areas whereas space-time clustering or near repeats were more likely in affluent areas, like "A10-corridor" and could explain why the same set of streets are consistently targeted throughout each financial year.
The most targeted items were cash/currency (27\%) and jewellery (19\%). Also, increasingly significant in both number and percentage terms, laptop computers and mobile phones. We were unable to establish where the markets for stolen property existed in Enfield as there is insufficient intelligence available, potentially because of relatively low detection rates and little recovery of items.
# Offenders:
Information on burglary offenders in Enfield is limited. The sanctioned detection rate during 2008/09 was just 9\%. A significant proportion of these were attributed to a team of offenders who had targeted expensive vehicles from driveways. According to drug tests of arrested burglars, only 15\% yielded positive results however we could not establish the number of offences they were contributing to in comparison to non-drug using offenders.
Whilst the analysis presented us with a good knowledge of where to target it did not offer an explanation for the dramatic rises. Police and crime officials were quoted in the media attributing nationwide rises to the economic downturn. In Enfield there were economic changes that could have contributed to increases:
$>$ Unemployment increased steadily from 7.4\% in late 2007 to 9.7\% by June 2009.
$>$ Gross weekly income did not increase for Enfield residents between 2007/08 and 2008/09 in contrast to overall increases London wide.
$>$ Proportion of people in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance increased from 2.9\% in 2007/08 to $4.5 \%$ in 2008/09 and was $5.1 \%$ in January 2010.
(Source: Department for Working Pensions)
Furthermore, London Probation provided an analysis of assessments for Enfield burglary offenders which showed significant increases in the number of burglars who cited 'finances or financial management' as a factor in their offending. In 2007/08 22\% of burglary offenders cited this as a factor, this doubled to $44 \%$ of burglary offenders throughout 2008/09.
There have been no previous specific responses to burglary in Enfield, largely because funding/resources have not been available. Hotspot patrols in reaction to shifting short-term patterns and targeting of known offenders were instigated through police tasking meetings;
however these methods had not resulted in any significant change to numbers of burglary offences.
Our strongest understanding of the burglary problem in Enfield was focussed around the location/place and victim/target side of the PAT therefore it made sense to focus our response to exploit this knowledge. A proposal was drawn up to provide target hardening measures and implement alleygates in strategic long term burglary hotspots, the aim being to increase the effort and reduce opportunity for offending. The main focus of this activity would be the "A10-corridor" and the streets displaying the highest burglary levels historically. The scheme would aim to reduce burglary by $7.5 \%$ in the streets visited by the end of 2009/10.
The two main potential adverse effects that we expected was an increase in attempted burglaries, which are still counted, although for the purpose of intervention would show success. Where access is reduced with alleygates we may expect to see displacement of offences to nearby streets with similar physical features.
The local strategic partnership awarded the CSP £231K to fund this response.
# Response
The areas of focus have consistently year-on-year suffered enduringly high burglary levels. Furthermore, evidence of near-repeat clustering and the dominance of particular streets within the main hotspot areas led us to consider employing target hardening methods to remove and reduce opportunities for offending (reducing accessibility, hardening targets). The project was not designed to target offenders because of our limited knowledge on this aspect of the PAT.
Safe as Houses (SAH) was devised as a partnership initiative designed to offer free crime prevention surveys, crime prevention tools and free lock and security upgrades (including installation) to all households within "hot-streets" and promoting other physical deterrents such as alley-gates. In addition, crime prevention officers and environmental teams are on hand to speak to residents and provide other improvements such as clearing of rubbish and graffiti.
A van was acquired and used for transporting the team and tools across the borough hotspots. Tasking and co-ordination of SAH was controlled and monitored from the fortnightly partnership tasking meeting (which includes and engages various partners including CSP members, local authority, council housing etc). Households in targeted areas were all leafleted in advance of the visits so they were aware of what to expect and what was on offer.
Funding allocated was $£ 231 \mathrm{~K}$, of which:
$>£ 96 \mathrm{~K}$ alley-gates
$>£ 96 \mathrm{~K}$ additional locks and bolts / time for locksmiths
$>£ 24 \mathrm{~K}$ burglary prevention products
$>£ 8 \mathrm{~K}$ advertising
$>£ 4 \mathrm{~K}$ van hire
$>£ 3 \mathrm{~K}$ miscellaneous activity (i.e. supporting tools and equipment for probation and youth offending clients used to clear flytips from alleyways)
Below is an overview of the activity carried out by SAH which aimed to tackle the locations/targets.
# Increased Effort:
> Harden Targets: locks on windows and doors - following the completion of crime prevention surveys (carried out at every household in hot streets unless refused) properties which had insufficient security had visits from our locksmiths scheduled who installed improved security measures (i.e. London Bar, Window Locks) free of charge.
> Control Access: alley-gating - In areas of high rear entry offences, officers attempted to obtain signatures from each homeowner in support of a gating scheme. Alleygates had previously been implemented in flytipping hotspots, however, analysis of old schemes showed that $76 \%$ had not suffered a single rear burglary since implementation. These positive results of previous schemes made us confident that gates would have a significant impact when used to deter rear entry burglary. Few residents objected. The consents are forwarded to the alley-gating team at the council who order the gates and arrange installation.
Deflect Offenders: a range of security measures were given free to residents, for example timer switches and low watt bulbs to increase occupancy indicators in the winter months, window shock alarms particularly targeted to ground floor purpose built flats (council and RSL estates) and door chains (targeted to elderly residents).
# Reduce the rewards:
> Deny Benefits: selector DNA/SmartWater Kits were made available to residents to mark property. Advice was given on the types of property most likely to be stolen. Residents were advised to display signage provided with the kits.
## Supplementary activity:
> Crime prevention literature and advice was supplied to every household.
$>$ SAH and burglary awareness was highly publicised by local newspapers, council magazines, council housing and RSL newsletters. Prevention messages released quarterly specifically tailored to the types of burglary occurring at those points in time (i.e. warning of insecure breaks prior to the summer).
> Any residents requiring free smoke alarms were notified to the local fire brigade who arranged to visit residents and complete free home fire and safety visits.
> Environmental Visual Audits were carried out.If required subsequent visits were made to improve the physical surroundings (based on Broken Windows Theory):
- Graffiti Action Team
- Operation Payback (Probation Clients used to remove rubbish)
- Youth Reparation (Youth Offending Clients used to remove rubbish, paint railings and walls etc)
- Abandoned vehicles team
All partners mentioned above are active members of the fortnightly partnership tasking meeting which monitors and controls the SAH. Areas of activity including council and RSL owned properties involved representatives of those agencies to ensure tenants knew they could allow repairs and upgrades to their homes.
There were no additional demands on staff to deliver these interventions as it fell under their daily duties the only difference being that this was intelligence led tasking of services.
SAH is seen as a long-term investment to burglary prevention. Prior responses to burglary which involved expensive hotspot patrols by police were not sustainable and had little impact on burglary figures over long periods. SAH is expected to reduce the opportunity for burglary to persist into the long term. Work on the first street began on the $4^{\text {th }}$ May 2009.
# Assessment
For each property visited a crime prevention survey was completed. Any crime prevention items provided to the householder were noted down. The survey sheets were returned to the partnership analyst who recorded and monitored information on a database. Following this any returns received whereby the resident required a visit to complete additional security upgrades were passed on to our locksmiths to complete.
## Measuring Performance:
A basic overview of the work completed between 04/05/2009 and 31/12/2009:
$>3,135$ households received crime prevention surveys
$>1,800$ households received burglary packs (window shock alarms, timer switches, low watt bulbs, crime prevention advice and literature)
$>900$ properties had additional locks fitted (London bars, mortice deadlocks etc)
$>88$ alley-gating schemes were signed up implemented
To measure the change in offending requires a comparative period to be observed for each individual street. This was initially set as the date of the initial visit to the end of the financial year. This was agreed as the most accurate test. Therefore the first visit made to Wigston Close on the $4^{\text {th }}$ May would measure the number of burglaries between 04/05/2009 and 31/03/2010 compared with the same period the previous year.
At Wigston Close the activity was as follows:
$>193$ of 204 properties received a crime prevention survey
$>140$ properties received burglary packs (all ground floor residents of the new build blocks were supplied with window alarms)
$>48$ properties received additional upgrades from locksmith
The number of burglaries on Wigston Close during the period 04/05/09 to 31/03/2010 was 2 (one insecure break) compared to 15 in the same period of the previous year.
Each property required different intervention products depending on its current state of security therefore measures deployed varied. This makes it difficult to explicitly identify the effectiveness of each mechanism.
# Performance Figures:
Overall based on the change in offending across streets visited, there was a $46.7 \%$ reduction; considerably greater than streets not receiving intervention ( $-1.8 \%$ ) and contributed to more significant reductions borough-wide ( $-7.2 \%$ ).
| Change in overall offending on streets visited | | | | |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Area | FY- 31/03/09 n burglaries | FY- 31/03/10 n burglaries | Change n burglaries | Change \% |
| SAH Streets | 227 | 121 | -106 | -46.7 |
| Non-SAH Streets | 2,824 | 2,771 | -53 | -1.8 |
| Borough Total | 3,051 | 2,832 | -219 | -7.2 |
Based on the properties which received intervention rather than the entire streets that were visited the impact of SAH is even greater with a $78.7 \%$ reduction. In properties that received no intervention but may have been subject to targeted hotspot patrols there was a change of 60 fewer burglaries or $-2.1 \%$.
The majority of properties burgled on SAH streets since the introduction of the intervention had declined any intervention, research has yet to explore why this is.
| Change in overall offending in properties that received intervention | | | | |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Area | $\begin{gathered} \text { FY- } \\ 14 / 03 / 09 \\ \text { n burglaries } \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} \text { FY- } \\ 14 / 03 / 10 \\ \text { n burglaries } \end{gathered}$ | Change n burglaries | Change \% |
| SAH households receiving intervention | 202 | 43 (33 rear entry, this highlights importance of gating in rear entry hotspots) | $-159$ | $-78.7$ |
| All other households | 2,849 | 2,789 | $-60$ | $-2.1$ |
| Borough Total | 3,051 | 2,832 | $-219$ | $-7.2$ |
The impact of alleygates has been considerable in both SAH streets (-36.8\%) - based on changes in rear entry offending levels. We have however experienced rear entry, with access aided by alleyways, increase in neighbouring areas with alleyways in 2010-11. Further funding has been made available to extend this part of the scheme.
| Area | Rear Entry \% reduction (number change) | Front Entry \% reduction (number change) |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| SAH Street | $-36.8 \%(-46)$ | $-57.9 \%(-51)$ |
| Borough-wide | $-5.6 \%(-72)$ | $-3.5 \%(-50)$ |
Diffusion of benefits, displacement, unintended benefits:
A considerable amount of activity was carried out in the A10-corridor. In this area there was a noteworthy reduction in SAH streets. There were also greater than average decreases in non SAH streets in the A10-corridor.
| Area | FY- 31/03/09 n burglaries | FY- 31/03/10 n burglaries | Change No Burglaries | Change \% |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| A10 Corridor (SAH Streets) | 123 | 50 | -73 | -59.3 |
| A10 Corridor (Non SAH Streets) | 454 | 410 | -44 | -9.7 |
| A10 Corridor Total | 559 | 442 | -117 | -20.9 |
The table above suggests that there may have been some diffusion of benefits across the wider A10 corridor, to streets that did not receive the SAH intervention. This may be down to the increased eyes on the street in the area from the SAH services or could possibly be linked to us publicising intended areas of activity in advance.
It is possible some burglary offenders may have been geographically displaced. In the north east wards of Enfield burglary increased by $22 \%$, in contrast to borough wide reductions. In this area residential areas with networks of alleyways have begun to appear as hotspots and overall rear entry offending in this part of Enfield has increased 70\% (types of areas targeted have many similarities with the south of the borough in terms of dwelling type and layout). Furthermore, information on prison release locations of burglars in Enfield shows that almost half have been located in this part of the borough. Further analysis is needed to explore this possible displacement.
| Unintended Benefits? (Based on FYTD Change**) | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Crime Type | Change in SAH
Streets | Change Borough
Wide | Difference
(percentage
points) |
| Criminal Damage | $\begin{gathered} -6.7 \%(165> \ 154) \end{gathered}$ | $-2.0 \%$ | 4.7 |
| Damage to Dwelling | $-6.7 \%(60>56)$ | $+3.9 \%$ | 10.6 |
| Motor Vehicle Crime (exc. Interference) | $\begin{gathered} -23.0 \%(226> \ 174) \end{gathered}$ | $-12.5 \%$ | 10.5 |
| Robbery | $+29.3 \%(41>53)$ | $+15.8 \%$ | 13.5 |
| Violence Against the Person | $\begin{gathered} -1.4 \%(207> \ 204) \end{gathered}$ | $+9.7 \%$ | 11.1 |
| *This is a guide based on FYTD change across streets visited rather than comparative periods of activity from each street for each crime type | | | |
In terms of measuring for functional displacement, increases in other crime types have generally been less prominent in streets visited by SAH in comparison to the borough average. The exception to this is robbery, which has seen a larger increase in the intervention area than the wider borough.
# Updated Performance Figures 2010-11:
SAH areas continue to account for the greatest reductions approaching the end of the 2010/11 financial period ( $8 x$ greater reduction than non-intervention areas).
| Updated Results | | | | |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Period Covered | Rear Entry Change | Safe as Houses Intervention Area Change | Non- Intervention Area Change | London Borough of Enfield Change |
| May 09 - Dec 09 (intervention period) | $+0.8 \%$ | $-5.4 \%$ | $-0.8 \%$ | $-1.6 \%$ |
| May10 - Dec 10 | $-10.1 \%$ | $-21.0 \%$ | $-7.7 \%$ | $-9.5 \%$ |
| May-Feb 09/10 vs. May- Feb 10/11 | $-8.1 \%$ | $-24.8 \%$ | $-3.1 \%$ | $-6.1 \%$ |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| Calendar Year Change 2009 vs. 2010 | $-16.7 \%$ | $-29.0 \%$ | $-7.6 \%$ | $-12.4 \%$ |
As can be seen (red line), SAH has proved to be sustainable and has continued to see reductions even during seasonal peaks which have affected non-intervention areas in the final period of 2010/11 (blue circle). Monthly offending levels in areas that received SAH intervention are at their lowest levels in over five years.
# Resident Feedback:
In areas where alleygates were implemented satisfaction surveys were supplied to all households with a $73 \%$ response rate, information was provided by the council alleygate team:
$>93 \%$ were satisfied that gates had been installed
$>$ Just $3 \%$ of respondents said they felt unsafe at home since installation
$>$ The percent of residents satisfied with the state of the alley increased from $30 \%$ to $97 \%$ (largely because alleygating eliminated flytipping and dumped rubbish)
$>$ General comments from residents have been supportive and expressed appreciation of the schemes.
## Challenges Faced:
Owing to the differing shift patterns of each team or partner it was not possible that they could all be working on the streets at the same time. This proved beneficial as it meant there
were often 'eyes on the street' for long periods of the day. A week was usually assigned to each street however this varied depending on the number of properties. The teams would re-visit addresses up to three times in attempts to speak to all properties and left calling cards for residents to arrange visits if they missed SAH. Initially the police worked on conducting crime prevention surveys during the day to tie in with peak crime times. However owing to a lower response rate this was changed to evenings when more residents were likely to be home.
There were some early issues with the tasking of this resource with a number of ward sergeants expressing frustration that they were unable to take advantage of SAH in reaction to fortnightly hotspot analysis in localised areas away from long-term hotspots. SAH was devised to tackle long-term strategic hotspots, not reactions to sporadic short-term spates of burglary. Although we would have liked to provide the resources to everyone, we had to maintain a stance that the scheme was intended for long-term chronic hotspots where need was greatest.
There were additional demands on the partnership analyst to collate the information/crime prevention surveys and input the information onto an electronic database that was linked to MapInfo so activity completed at each household could be mapped accurately.
There were challenges with regards to alleygates. Initially, 100\% of residents were required to sign up to the gates before implementation. However, there were difficulties whereby properties were privately rented for example. The council altered the consent form rate to $98 \%$ and proceeded if there were no objections. This reduced the complications in locating letting agents and private landlords to sign forms and enabled us to progress with the schemes quicker.
# Conclusion:
SAH is viewed as a successful scheme as evidenced by the reductions achieved in its first year - there was a $7.2 \%$ reduction in domestic burglary in Enfield. It has been followed by a second yearly decrease of $10 \%$, both reductions spearheaded by the overall declines in SAH areas.
The change in level of offending in the intervention area, which contains just $2.5 \%$ of the boroughs housing stock, contributed to over $40 \%$ of the boroughs overall reduction in 200910 (106 of 219 offences) and over 70\% in 2010-11 (180 of 243 offences). The total funding allocated for the scheme was $£ 231 \mathrm{k}$ whilst the money saved (in terms of economic and social costs of burglary) from reduced burglary so far equates to $£ 934 \mathrm{k}$.
Whilst certain benefits are un-quantifiable there is a general feeling amongst contributors to the scheme that partnership work has strengthened further during SAH. Interaction with residents and publicity of the scheme highlighting our services is likely to have benefits with regard to public confidence and satisfaction.
WORD COUNT: 3,999
# References
Beaton, A., Cook, M., Kavanagh, M. \& Herrington, C. 2000. The psychological impact of burglary. Journal of Psychology, Crime \& Law, Vol. 6 1, 33-43.
Bowers, K.J and Johnson, S.D 2005. Domestic Burglary Repeats and Space-Time Clusters. European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 2 1, 67-92.
Brand, S. and Price, R. 2000 The economic and social costs of crime, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics. Available at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors217.pdf [Accessed 1 ${ }^{\text {st }}$ March 2010]
Home Office: Research, Development and Statistics. 2005 The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/04. Available at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr3005.pdf [Accessed 1 ${ }^{\text {st }}$ March 2010]
Income, job seekers and unemployment information, online available at:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ [Accessed 1 ${ }^{\text {st }}$ March 2010]
Maguire, M. 1980. The impact of burglary upon victims. British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 20 3, 261-275.
# Appendix Items
# Beating the burglars
## SOAPROX
Enfield North MP JOAN
RYAN urges residents to join forces to keep their homes secure
I WAS out and about talking to residents in Brims down on Saturday morning and the number of people who told me that they'd been broken into recently was shocking.
Burglaries aren't just about stolen TVs and jewellery. They're about invasion, violation, and not feeling safe in your own home.
The criminals who do it are beyond contempt. But they need to know that we won't take this lying down - because, working with the police, there's a lot we can do to prevent it from happening in the first place.
So one of the first things I'm doing is organising with the police a series of meetings in your area where you can find out exactly what you can do to stop the burglars.
At the meetings your Safer Neighbourhood teams
and the borough's specialist burglary team will be on hand to give residents advice on how to keep our homes secure.
According to the statistics, you are ten times more likely to be burgled if you haven't taken simple steps to deter the burglars.
So these meetings will help you to be better prepared to prevent burglaries. But the police are also keen to listen to residents to find out what's happening in your street.
You can find out when and where the meetings will take place by calling my office in Enfield on 020 88658212 or emailing me at ryanj@parliament.uk
You can also pick up a free guide at my constituency office at 605 Hertford Road, Enfield, E5G 6UP between 10am and 4 pm .
In the meantime, I will contact the Ministry of
Streetwise: crime prevention officers can give home security advice to help residents feel safe in their homes
Justice to find out whether current sentencing at magistrates and other courts reflect the seriousness of this crime and the upset it causes to individuals and families.
To advertise your restaurant in the Independent Series, call 02083621431
## DIEI CLINIC
## NEW RESTAURANT AND BAR
AT WEST LODGE PARK
Spring is in the air and a new beginning at West Lodge Park with the opening on the 4th March of the new Mary Beale Restaurant and Terrace Bar. We have undertaken an extensive refurbishment of the restaurant and bar to a very high standard incorporating contemporary style set off by stunning original artwork.
The Mary Beale Restaurant is named after Britain's first professional woman painter. Many of her oil paintings adorn the walls.
Our Executive Chef Wayne Turner and his team, together with the restaurant brigade can now offer you a memorable dining experience with award winning lunch and dinner menus and light meals in the bar.
Or why not enjoy an afternoon tea with scones and clotted cream followed by a walk around the 35 acres of beautiful grounds? And take advantage of the unlimited free parking too!
To book please phone 02082163900 or email wlpreception@bealeshotels.co.uk
West Lodge Park Hotel, Cockfosters Road, Hadley Wood, Herts EN4 0PY www.bealeshotels.co.uk
HYPNOTHERAPY IN ENFIELD
- Stress Management $\cdot$ Confidence Building
- Eliminate Unwanted Habits - Driving Problems
- Overcome Panic Attacks and Anxiety
- Emotional Problems $\cdot$ Pain Management
- Past and Present Life Regression
- Discover Your Spirituality
Other problems not listed may also be helped
Helen Wozniak 50, 200, 900, 9600, 1600
02083643778
www.landonhypnotherapypractice.com
## Sitting comfortably?
Book your adverts online from the comfort of your home independent-series.co.uk/bookonline
## Supporting Independent Lifestyles (SILs) Handyperson Service
If you are aged 18 or over, vulnerable or disabled and a resident in the Borough of Enfield then our Handyperson service may be of help to you. Our experienced Handymen carry out a range of tasks to support and encourage independent living, which includes:
- Moving furniture
- Fitting secondary locks, spy holes, security chains
- Installing and adapting outside steps
- Fixing external and internal handrails
- Installing keysafes
- Grass cutting
- Decorating
An eligibility criteria applies, call 02083754115 NOW for details. Prices start from $£ 15.00$. We also carry out small plumbing and electrical works.
MyTime Members of Age Concern Enfield's MyTime Membership Scheme benefit immediately from 10\% discount so don't delay; join today and book up for the Handyperson service and claim your discount!
Supporting Independent Lifestyles (SILs) is affiliated to Age Concern Enfield.
# Safe as houses
The "Safe as houses" scheme is a local partnership initiative between the Police, Enfield Council, London Fire Brigade and other agencies. These organisations will be providing residents with locks, smoke alarms and promoting other physical deterrents to crime such as alley gates, as well as offering practical guidance on security and environmental issues.
At the heart of the initiative is a specially equipped vehicle that will bring locks and security devices to selected areas of the borough where they will be offered to householders and professionally installed free of charge. In addition, crime prevention officers and environmental teams will be on hand to speak with residents to find out how we can improve the general look of the area and help local residents feel safe in their own homes. Safer Neighbourhood
officers will also work with residents to encourage them to join Neighbourhood Watch schemes and thus further secure their streets.
"Safe as houses" is an additional service and complements the regular operations conducted by Enfield Police and their partners to reduce crimes such as burglary and antisocial behaviour.
Chief Superintendent Adrian Hanstock, Borough Commander said "This is a great idea that once again demonstrates how we're working together to tackle crime and keep people safe. By concentrating our activities in specific areas we hope to show that we can really make a difference in how parts of
the borough look and how safe the people living in those areas feel.
"This service is about Enfield Police and Enfield Council offering practical solutions to residents to help them feel secure."
# Burglary among worst in London
By SARAH COSGROVE
scosgrove@london.newsquest.co.uk
THE borough's high levels of burglary are a reflection of national crime rates, according to Enfield's top police officer.
Chief Superintendent David Tucker, Enfield borough commander, said police had been seeing an increase in burglary since October.
He said: "The current increase we are experiencing reflects a national trend.
"We are working closely with colleagues at Enfield Council and other agencies to reduce burglary, for example Our Safe as Houses programme which visits targeted areas providing door-to-door home security information and security devices was launched in April."
Enfield is the second worst London borough for burglaries according to annual crime statistics released this week.
Only Haringey, with 30 burglaries per thousand households topped Enfield, which suffered 26.
The figure is much higher than the average across London, which stands at 18
Assurance: Chief Superintendent David Tucker
burglaries per thousand households a year.
The Conservative Party, which uncovered the figures, said the rise was "a big problem".
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "It's not just down to the recession.
"The jump in drug taking announced last week is also a big factor - since a large proportion of burglaries result from people trying to get money to feed a drug addiction."
Southgate's Conservative MP David Burrowes said he
thought the rise was a result of police resources being focused on knife crime and other kinds of violent crime.
"We've got an appalling rate," he said. "Recently there has been an opportunity for these burglars to get out and about."
Mr Burrowes said the Safer Neighbourhood teams covering Palmers Green and Bowes Green had done a lot of useful work on burglary recently and had cleared up some prolific offenders.
But he said there was a need for a quick police response to burglaries.
"The response vehicles come from Ponders End so they only stand half a chance of getting to Hadley Wood and that's if there's an aggravating factor such as a burglar in the house.
"If it's a standard burglary it won't get that level of response."
Mr Tucker assured residents that officers were doing as much as possible to combat the problem.
He said: "We are absolutely committed to reducing burglary as we know how this crime affects people in Enfield."
## Shoppers to get free parking
Shoppers in Enfield Town will get two hours' free parking this summer in a bid to boost trade during the temporary closure of Palace Gardens car park.
Starting on Monday, Palace Gardens car park is to undergo a $£ 1.7$ million refurbishment but shoppers will be allowed to park in other car parks for free.
The free parking in the town will cover the first three weeks of refurbishment work, when Palace Gardens car park will be completely closed.
The Council will also be providing additional parking at the Enfield Grammar School playground in Little Park Gardens to compensate for the reduction of spaces.
And to assist shoppers, a bag carrying service will be provided to carry shopping to shoppers' cars during the full closure period
Councillor Terry Neville, cabinet member for environment and street scene, said: "We took the decision to give two hours' free car parking in all town car parks owned by the council as we want to help traders as much as we can in Enfield Town while Palace Gardens' car park undergoes its revamp."
Save up to $80 \%$ off the cost of life assurance and collect $£ 30$ worth of 'M\&S' vouchers into the bargain.
With most banks, building societies and estate agents tied to one life assurer many policy holders are paying up to $\mathbf{6 0 \%}$ MORE than the cheapest alternative.
Policy holders who were smokers when they took out life assurance could save even more - up to $80 \%$ off the cost of the premium if they have not smoked for 12 months or more.
A couple aged 40, smokers, could pay as much as $£ 107.60$ per calendar month for a 25 year life assurance policy with a sum assured of $£ 180,000$.
The same cover for a non smoking couple could cost as little as $£ 23.11$ per calendar month. A saving of $80 \%$ of the premium - $£ 25,347$ over the term of the policy.
Anyone taking out life assurance from Archers up until 1st December 2009 will also benefit from $£ 30$ worth of 'M\&S' vouchers
For more information on the above or any other financial matter contact Archers Financial Services. Archers has been trading as Independent Financial Advisors in Enfield since 1991.
Archers financial services
1 Windmill Hill, Enfield,
Middlesex EN2 6SE 02083645445
www.archersonline.co.uk
# The ENFIELD
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 52009
www.enfield-today
## Burglary level is capital's second-highest
By Mary McConnell
RESIDENTS are being warned to secure their homes after shocking new figures revealed Enfield has the second-highest rate of burglary in the capital.
Despite a massive clampdown by police, the rate of burglaries in the borough remains higher than
ever, with numbers rocketing by nearly a quarter compared to last year.
New figures obtained from the Home Office reveal there were 3,049 burglaries in Enfield between April 2008 and March this year - a rate of 26.3 per 1,000 households.
Only neighbouring borough Haringey has a higher rate in London and, on a table of burglary hotspots across England and Wales, Enfield comes in at number eight.
In March the Advertiser ran a special report highlighting the growing problem and revealed the faces of Enfield's ten most wanted burglary suspects. Since then, three of the suspects have been caught by police, although the other seven remain at large. Borough Commander David Tucker said: "The current increase we are experiencing reflects a national trend but we are working to reduce burglary. "For example, Our Safe As Houses programme, which visits targeted areas providing
Burglary can have a major impact on people.
## door-to-door home security
information and security devices, was launched in April." Rasheed Sadegh-Zadeh, borough manager of the Enfield branch of Victim Support, said: "Burglary can have a major impact on people. Having someone go through your bedroom is a massive invasion of privacy. I know people who have moved house because of it. "But to help prevent it people can participate in forums such as the Community Action Partnership for Enfield, where they can take their concerns to their Safet Neighbourhood teams. "Burglars are opportunists they look out for doors and windows that have been left open. We offer a home security check for free. If a resident
asks us, we will call a police officer who will go to their home and check out their doors and windows and let them know how secure they are." Lisa Seagroatt, from Age Concern Enfield, said that burglary has gone up in line with the recession. She added: "Older people are particularly vulnerable to distraction burglary because they come from a generation that would trust people on their doorstep, but you don't have to be elderly to be vulnerable to this type of crime."
mary.mcconnell@nthnews.co.uk
## TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
[0]
[0]: T Write to Letters to the Editor, The Enfield Advertiser, 4th floor, Refuge House, 9-10 River Front, Enfield, EN1 352
Email letters.enfield@ nthnews.co.uk
# Everything we can do to make it harder for burglars is something. We have brilliant things... I wish more people would use them...
As burglary rates soar, we spend a day with the police teams trying to keep our homes secure
OLICE officers armed with window alarms, SmartWater and smoke detectors have been out in force - knocking on doors as part of a borough-wide drive to combat rocketing burglary rates.
The borough's Safer Neighbourhood teams have been joined by other officers as they speak to residents in burglary hotspots, after the Met revealed that there are more burglaries in Enfield than in all but one other London borough - nearly three in every 100 households were burgled in the 12 months to March.
The Safe As Houses initiative represents a significant outlay for the borough's police, with teams taking it in turn to use a dedicated van to
## HAIFFRICE GARAGE DOORS MADE TO MEASURE FITTED FREE!!
Latest modern radar abutter type electric remote controlled, insulated \& maintenance free PHONE FOR A FREE SITE SURVEY 01277355377
WE GIVE CASH LOANS ON YOUR FAVOURITE GOODS WHICH YOU BUY BACK
WE CASH CHEQUES FROM 3\%
WE CASH SALARY ADVANCE CHEQUES
9-10 SAVOY PARADE SOUTHBURY ROAD ENFIELD TOWN TEL: 02083665520 OPENING HOURS MON-FRI 9.30AM-6.30PM SATURDAY 9.30AM-5PM
seek out unsecured homes. These are then visited by officers on foot, who give advice and hand out free devices which help prevent crooks getting into homes.
Sergeant Sid Reed, who heads up the Palmers Green Safer Neighbourhood team, explained that burglaries have become a big problem in the Hedge Lane triangle - the area of land between Hedge Lane, the North Circular Road and Green Lanes. There have been ten burglaries in the past four weeks in Palmers Green and two foiled burglaries in the same area.
But he says there are simple steps residents can take to make their home far less attractive to thieves.
"First, window alarms - a lot of burglars will smash the window, which would set it off," he said. "Everyone seems to like these because they are free and easy to use. One of the problems is flat roofs - we get an awful lot of people who break into houses via flat roofs at the back of houses because people have built extensions.
"The graffiti teams also come out with us, ready to tackle any graffiti that they spy while out visiting people's homes."
During the week prior to the visit, leaflets are dropped through residents' letter-boxes to let them know officers will be in their area.
Anti-burglary devices on offer include alarms and SmartWater, which helps police officers
Pane truth: Sgt Reed talks about window security
## 24 arrested in crime crackdown
POLICE are targeting burglary hotspots during a two-week operation to crack doors on offenders.
Operation Lesina, which is in its final week, has already seen 24 people arrested, six for crimes revolving around break-ins. The operation targets individuals suspected of being involved in burglary and the number of plain clothes patrols in hotspots across the borough has been stepped up.
Last Thursday two men in their theatres were stopped in Wood Green by Enfield police. Checks revealed they were travelling in a stolen vehicle and four imitation guns
visited 160 houses and of those only four or five people weren't interested. People will generally be quite willing as it is all free.
"Every little bit that you can do to make it harder for criminals is something. It can be very easy to get into someone's house if they have left a window open or if they have an extension with a flat roof. We have brilliant things such as SmartWater, I just wish that more people would use it. If they don't fill in the form and send it off, then it is useless."
Contact PC Berry on 02087212835 to find out about the Message In A Bottle scheme and contact your local SNT for information on anti-burglary devices at www.met.police.uk/teams/enfield
## KIRWANS SOLICITORS
Are able to offer the following:
## FREE LEGAL ADVICE Community Care Debt Employment Family Housing Welfare Benefit
Phone or email for an appointment 02083673376
email
anne@kirwanssolicitors.org.uk
52E Southbury Road, Enfield EN1 1YB
subject to eligibility