A SAFE AND SECURE LUTON.doc€¦ · Web viewSource: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton, January 2006. The number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population

A SAFE AND SECURE LUTON

In 2012, Luton is to be a town where there is a low risk of crime, people feel safe to lead their lives, and residents have a lower fear of crime than residents of three quarters of similar urban areas in England.

Priorities for Action

Priority 1 – Environment and quality of life

1.1 Ensure there is less violence against the person

QoL 16 Crimes committed:BVPI * domestic burglaries (per 1,000 households)

* violent offences (per 1,000 population)* vehicle crimes (per 1,000 population)

ComP 8 Reduced overall levels of violent crime (including violence againstperson, sexual offences, and robbery)

Table 2.1 Incidence of Violent Crime 2003/04 2004/05

Ward Count Rate/1000 Count Rate/1000Barnfield 50 7.11 49 6.97Biscot 334 25.78 324 25.01Bramingham 63 8.31 69 9.10Challney 185 15.65 233 19.71Crawley 92 12.93 97 13.64Dallow 270 20.53 393 29.88Farley 214 19.48 295 26.85High Town 229 32.43 291 41.21Icknield 119 15.75 130 17.20Leagrave 214 19.12 261 23.32Lewsey 221 17.46 286 22.60Limbury 143 18.63 150 19.54Northwell 197 23.86 216 26016Round Green 154 14.17 168 15.46Saints 158 13.48 205 17.49South 1,191 114.92 1,256 121.19Stopsley 76 10.70 102 14.36Sundon Park 182 23.99 164 21.62Wigmore 174 14.90 257 22.00Luton 4,266 23.14 4,946 26.83

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2004 and 2005

In 2004/05, 25% of all violent crime occurred within South ward.

1

Table 2.2 Revised violent Crime 03/04 Area Number

South 882South (excl. town centre) 309

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2004

The town centre accounts for 74% of violent crime in South ward, most likely a result of the concentration of pubs and clubs in the area.

2

Table 2.3 Violent crime – CDRP Family GroupCDRP Name Violence against the

person, offences per 1,000

population 04/05

Violence against the person change

03/04 - 04/05 (%)

Sexual offencesper 1,000

population04/05

Sexual offenceschange

03/04 - 04/05 (%)

Robbery offencesper 1,000

population 04/05

Robbery offenceschange

03/04 - 04/05 (%)Barnet 22.1 23 1.2 42 3.7 12Croydon 25.6 8 1.2 7 4.4 -16Enfield 18.5 1 0.9 -21 4.1 -6Hammersmith and Fulham 26.5 8 1.3 -16 8.0 21Harrow 14.4 6 0.9 40 3.3 12Hillingdon 23.9 13 1.1 0 2.4 16Hounslow 31.8 -3 1.4 2 3.3 -13Kensington and Chelsea 18.8 -3 1.8 20 4.5 0Kingston upon Thames 23.4 2 1.2 12 1.7 -12Luton 23.8 15 1.5 15 3.5 11Merton 19.9 5 1.1 37 2.4 -21Reading 31.6 22 1.9 33 2.4 -20Redbridge 19.1 0 1.1 20 5.1 4Richmond upon Thames 14.3 3 1.0 72 2.1 46Waltham Forest 28.2 4 1.1 -11 8.1 9Wandsworth 21.5 11 1.2 -3 5.4 -6Watford 28.3 31 1.3 28 1.6 -16CDRP Average 22.3 - 1.2 - 3.7 -

Source: Home Office, CDRP Tables 2005

Violence against the person: Luton 15% increase in offences in 2004/05 compared to previous year; ranked 10th lowest incidence rate.

Sexual offences: Luton 15% increase in 2004/05 compared to previous year (dealing with small numbers, actual increase of 37 offences); ranked 3rd highest incidence rate.

Robbery offences: Luton 11% increase in offences in 2004/05 compared to previous year; ranked 9th lowest incidence rate.

Table 2.4 All Recorded Crime (4 year period)2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Ward Count Rate/1000 Count Rate/1000 Count Rate/1000 Count Rate/1000Barnfield 323 45.93 348 49.49 419 59.58 354 50.34Biscot 1,245 96.09 1,360 104.96 1,459 112.60 1,438 110.98Bramingham 651 85.84 641 84.52 610 80.43 514 67.77Challney 1,056 89.35 1,240 104.92 1,214 102.72 1,151 97.39Crawley 608 85.48 768 107.97 645 90.68 581 81.68Dallow 1,380 104.91 1,468 111.60 1,487 113.05 1,644 124.98Farley 1,047 95.30 1,295 117.88 1,284 116.88 1,196 108.87High Town 1,163 164.68 1,362 192.86 1,257 177.99 1,080 152.93Icknield 589 77.95 725 95.95 690 91.32 656 86.82Leagrave 1,045 93.35 1,221 109.08 1,284 114.70 1,184 105.77Lewsey 1,251 98.86 1,260 99.57 1,252 98.94 1,243 98.23Limbury 726 94.59 792 103.19 952 124.04 732 95.37Northwell 1,234 149.43 1,292 156.45 1,223 148.10 1,025 124.12Round Green 1,096 100.85 1,080 99.37 1,047 96.34 939 86.40Saints 855 72.93 948 80.86 944 80.52 965 82.31South 6,945 670.11 7,962 768.24 7,369 711.02 6,206 598.80Stopsley 714 100.49 692 97.40 684 96.27 616 86.70Sundon Park 932 122.87 829 109.29 926 122.08 809 106.66Wigmore 1,947 166.68 2,079 177.98 2,386 204.26 1,702 145.71Luton 24,807 134.55 27,362 148.41 27,132 147.16 24,035 130.36


Over the 4 year period South, Wigmore, & High Town significantly above Luton average. South ward due to location of town centre.

Table 2.5 Revised All Crime Year Number

All Crime 01/02 South (excl. town centre) 1,997




Table 2.6 Percentage Change in Overall Crime Levels

Ward% Change

2001/02- 2002/03% Change

2002/03- 2003/04% Change

2003/04- 2004/05Barnfield 7.74 20.40 -15.51Biscot 9.24 7.28 -1.44Bramingham -1.54 -4.84 -15.74Challney 17.42 -2.10 -5.19Crawley 26.32 -16.02 -9.92Dallow 6.38 1.29 10.56Farley 23.69 -0.85 -6.85High Town 17.11 -7.71 -14.08Icknield 23.09 -4.83 -4.93Leagrave 16.84 5.16 -7.79Lewsey 0.72 -0.63 -0.72Limbury 9.09 20.20 -23.11Northwell 4.70 -5.34 -16.19Round Green -1.46 -3.06 -10.32Saints 10.88 -0.42 2.22South 14.64 -7.45 -15.78Stopsley -3.08 -1.16 -9.94Sundon Park -11.05 11.70 -12.63Wigmore 6.78 14.77 -28.67Luton 10.30 -0.84 -11.41

Source: Bedfordshire Police

11.4% decrease in overall crime levels in Luton between 2003/04 and 2004/5, with significant decreases in Wigmore and Limbury wards. Dallow and Saints were the only wards to record increases in overall crime during this period.

1.2 Fear of crime on the street1.3 Ensure parks and play areas are safe1.4 Increase Visibility of Police Presence1.5 Faster removal of abandoned vehicles

BV number of abandoned vehicles.ComP21 Reduce levels of abandoned and unlicensed vehicles and ‘fly-

tipping’ on streets

Table 2.7 Number of abandoned vehicles within Luton Borough area 2003/04 and 2004/05

MONTH REPORTED SCRAPPED OWNER’S REQUESTApr-03 913 460 157May-03 1,022 495 178Jun-03 984 504 220Jul-03 906 363 86Aug-03 651 282 122Sep-03 939 338 100Oct-03 584 319 80Nov-03 593 246 76Dec-03 533 229 64Jan-04 596 241 58Feb-04 466 288 127Mar-04 427 280 132Apr-04 317 175 86May-04 400 214 87Jun-04 377 197 81Jul-04 366 202 83Aug-04 294 164 61Sep-04 355 156 39Oct-04 303 163 55Nov-04 312 179 62Dec-04 211 117 45Jan-05 350 146 50Feb-05 380 219 83Mar-05 336 165 59

Total 2003/04 8,614 4,045 1,400Total 2004/05 4,001 2,097 791

Source: Street Services, Luton Borough Council

Of total number of abandoned vehicles reported 52% were scrapped in 2004/05 (47% in 2003/04).

Figure 2.3 Abandoned vehicles in Luton, 2004/05, numbers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05

REPORTED

SCRAPPED

OWNERS REQUESTS

Fly-tipping on streets1: The average time taken to remove fly-tips (in days) (Local ER28):

2002/03 2.32 days 2003/04 1.53 days2004/05 2.54 days

1.6 Arson Reduction

BV number of arson incidents recorded.ComP19 Reduce the number of deliberate fires

Table 2.8 Number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Building - Commercial 32 45 25 22Building - Community 15 22 16 6Building - Derelict 9 13 29 14Building - Dwelling 69 103 81 98Building - Other 1 0 13 4Outdoor - Furniture 42 65 73 37Outdoor - Grass 102 156 325 110Outdoor - Rubbish 536 520 565 446Unspecified - - - 1Vehicle 466 410 282 173Vehicle - Derelict 196 153 122 26Total 1,468 1,487 1,531 937

Source: Bedfordshire Fire Service

Table 2.9 Total number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Building TOTAL 126 183 164 144Outdoor TOTAL 680 741 963 593Vehicle TOTAL 662 563 404 199Deliberate Fires TOTAL 1,468 1,487 1,531 937

Source: Bedfordshire Fire Service 2004

1 Best Value Performance Review 2004/05

Figure 2.4 Number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

2001-022002-032003-042004-05

Figure 2.5 Total number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire

126

680 662

1,468

183

741

563

1,487

164

963

404

1,531

144

593

199

937

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Building TOTAL Outdoor TOTAL Vehicle TOTAL Deliberate Fires TOTAL

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

2001-022002-032003-042004-05

Table 2.10 Breakdown of all deliberate fires by ward 2003/04 and 2004/05 – incidence rate per 1000 residents

2003/04 2004/05Ward Number Rate/1000 Number Rate/1000

Barnfield 28 3.98 5 0.71Biscot 72 5.56 46 3.55Bramingham 31 4.09 19 2.51Challney 63 5.33 56 4.74Crawley 58 8.15 35 4.92Dallow 143 10.87 57 4.33Farley 122 11.11 72 6.55High Town 53 7.50 30 4.25Icknield 52 6.88 23 3.04Leagrave 103 9.20 74 6.61Lewsey 121 9.56 59 4.66Limbury 37 4.82 31 4.04Northwell 153 18.53 99 11.99Round Green 79 7.27 46 4.23Saints 76 6.48 60 5.12South 104 10.03 76 7.33Stopsley 51 7.18 38 5.35Sundon Park 86 11.34 59 7.78Wigmore 86 7.36 45 3.85Luton 1,518 8.23 930 5.04


Wards significantly above the Luton average are: Northwell (more than twice Luton average), Sundon Park, and Farley.

Table 2.11 Breakdown of vehicle fires by ward 2003/04 and 2004/05 – Incidence rate per 1,000 residents

2003/04 2004/05

Ward Number Rate Number RateBarnfield 9 1.28 1 0.14Biscot 31 2.39 17 1.31Bramingham 11 1.45 5 0.66Challney 22 1.86 17 1.44Crawley 19 2.67 14 1.97Dallow 30 2.28 12 0.91Farley 26 2.37 18 1.64High Town 10 1.42 10 1.42Icknield 12 1.59 2 0.26Leagrave 22 1.97 8 0.71Lewsey 39 3.08 14 1.11Limbury 15 1.95 5 0.65Northwell 34 4.12 22 2.66Round Green 15 1.38 7 0.64Saints 27 2.30 10 0.85South 19 1.83 16 1.54Stopsley 12 1.69 3 0.42Sundon Park 26 3.43 7 0.92Wigmore 21 1.80 9 0.77Luton 400 2.17 197 1.07


Wards significantly above the Luton average: Northwell, Sundon Park and Lewsey.

Priority 2 – Youth Safety and Youth Justice

2.1 Activities for young people2.2 Reduce School Truancy2.3 Use measures available to deter re-offending and nuisance behaviour2.4 Provide advise/support to young people to prevent them becoming involved in

crime or being the victims of crime

ComP12 Reduce numbers of young people committing offencesBV Young offenders.

Extract from ‘Luton Youth Offending Team: Youth Justice Plan 2002 – 2005’:

The YOT monitor young people aged 10 to 17 years old. During 2001, 910 young people were responsible for 1,402 offences (ratio 1.5 offences per young offender), compared with 788 young people during 2000 who were responsible for 1215 offences (ratio 1.5 offences per young offender).

The peak age of male juvenile offending remains at 17 years with 39% of offences committed by this age group compared with 37% during 2000. The peak age for female offenders however appears to have dropped to 13 years from 15 years with 21% of offences committed by this age group. The overall percentage of offences

committed by females has increased to 20% of the juvenile total, from 15% the previous year. There is no way of monitoring unique offenders.

Date Number of offences

committed

Number of offenders

Prevalence Ratio (number of offences

per offender)1 Jan 2001 – 31 Dec 2002 4,884 1,293 3.781 Jan 2003 – 31 Dec 2004 3,584 1,134 3.16

Date Number of offences

committed

Number of offences committed by

young …

Number of offences committed by offenders who

were…2

Mean age of

offenders

Males Females White Non-white

1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001

2,623 2,200 (83.9%)

423 (16.7%)

1,784 (68%)

748 (28%) 15.9 years

1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002

2,261 1,838 (81.3%)

423 (18.7%)

1,520 (67%)

657 (29%) 15.8 years

1 Jan 2003 - 31 Dec 2003

1,687 1,344 (79.7%)

343 (20.3%)

1,054 (62%)

632 (37%) 15.7 years

1 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 20043

1,897 1,552 (81.9%)

344 (18.1%)

1,166 (61%)

728 (38%) 15.8 years

Priority 3 – Alcohol and drug misuse

3.1 Drug and alcohol-related crime3.2 Reduce access to drugs3.3 Reduce abuse of alcohol on licensed premises3.4 Increase outreach advise service to young people

Priority 4 – Violence and Harassment

4.1 Robbery / Mugging4.2 Domestic Violence4.3 Hate Crime4.4 Home Burglary

NR14 Reduce Robbery by 14% from 1999/00 to 2005.ComP 9 Reduce levels of robberies.

Table 2.12 Robbery offences (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/051999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

All NRF 88 LAs 3.2 3.6 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.1England 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8Luton 2.2 2.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.5

Source: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton January 2006Luton’s rate of robbery offences per 1,000 population shows a significant upward trend between 1999/00 and 2004/05, from 2.2 to 3.5. This contrasts with the average

2 Number of cases in which ethnicity was not recorded for each of the four years was, respectively: 91, 84, 1, and 3.3 One case where gender was not recorded

for all 88 NRF areas, which has been declining since 2001/02 and currently stands below Luton’s figure, at 3.1 offences per 1,000 population. The same trend is true of the England average, which is significantly below the rate for Luton, and for the 88 NRF areas, at 1.8 per 1,000 population.

Figure 2.8 Robbery offences (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/05

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Num

ber p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion

All NRF 88 LAsEnglandLuton

BV1744 The number of racial incidents recorded by the authority per100,000 population.

2002/03 75.39 incidents per 100,000 residents.2003/04 181.52 incidents per 100,000 residents.2004/05 202.48 incidents per 100,000 residents.

The increase in the number of incidents in 2003/04 compared to 2002/03 is partly explained by the inclusion of schools in the 2003/04 figures. It is also partly attributed to the increased promotion of reporting and reporting points, for example, Hate Crime Policy.

Table 2.13 Domestic violence – number of incidents reported


* year runs January to December.+ repeat incidents are defined as those which involve the same victim and occur within the same month

QoL 16 Crimes committed:

BVPI * domestic burglaries (per 1,000 households)* violent offences (per 1,000 population)* vehicle crimes (per 1,000 population)

BV126 Domestic burglaries per 1,000 households.

ComP10 Reduce levels of domestic burglaries.

NR13 Reduce domestic burglary by 25% from 1998/99 to 2005.

4 Best Value Performance Plan 2004/05, Luton Borough Council

Year* Total Incidents Repeat Incidents+

2001 3,263 1,8352002 3,356 1,9872003 3,521 1,6662004 3,597 1,940

Table 2.14 Domestic burglaries per 1000 households, 2003/04 and 2004/052003/04 2004/05

Ward Count Rate/1000 Count Rate/1000Barnfield 65 24.85 48 18.35Biscot 128 30.20 108 25.48Bramingham 74 24.44 70 23.12Challney 99 22.06 125 27.85Crawley 110 39.23 80 28.53Dallow 120 28.99 109 26.33Farley 172 39.64 110 25.35High Town 197 58.11 99 29.20Icknield 70 23.16 49 16.21Leagrave 198 45.77 132 30.51Lewsey 128 26.02 159 32.32Limbury 92 31.15 48 16.25Northwell 140 45.21 82 26.48Round Green 225 51.81 112 25.79Saints 105 27.45 44 11.50South 318 65.76 226 46.73Stopsley 90 31.41 62 21.64Sundon Park 99 33.45 84 28.38Wigmore 203 44.52 158 34.65Luton 2,633 37.22 1,905 29.63


The incidence of domestic burglaries in the South ward in 2004/05 is 1.6 times greater than the Luton average.

Table 2.15 Domestic burglary – CDRP Family GroupCDRP Name Burglary dwelling

offencesper 1,000

households 04/05

Burglary dwellingchange

03/04 - 04/05 (%)

Barnet 19.9 4Croydon 15.1 -9Enfield 19.4 -14Hammersmith and Fulham 25.7 7Harrow 17.3 -21Hillingdon 20.2 0Hounslow 21.2 -11Kensington and Chelsea 18.5 -5Kingston upon Thames 7.1 -15Luton 25.7 -30Merton 11.6 -11Reading 25.8 -30Redbridge 18.3 -4Richmond upon Thames 13.8 -1Waltham Forest 19.1 -9Wandsworth 20.6 4Watford 13.9 -7CDRP Average 8.4 -15


45% increase (increase of 860 offences on the previous year 2002/03) & 2nd highest incidence rate within Audit group.

Table 2.16 Domestic burglaries (rate per 1,000 households), 1999/00 to 2004/051999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05


Source: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton January 2006

Luton has a higher incidence of domestic burglaries per 1,000 households, at 25.7, a figure five points above the average for all 88 NRf areas, and eleven points above that for England. However, it is a marked reduction on the 36.6 incidents per 1,000 households recorded in 2003/04.

Figure 2.10 Domestic Burglary (rate per 1,000 households), 1999/00 to 2004/05

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Num

ber p

er 1

,000

hou

seho

lds


BV128 Vehicle crimes per 1,000 population.

ComP11 Reduce levels of vehicle related crime (includes theft of motorvehicle and theft from motor vehicle)

NR12 Reduce vehicle crime by 30% from 1998/99 to 2004.

Table 2.17 Incidence Vehicle related crime per 1,000 residents, 2003/04 and 2004/05

2003/04 2004/05Ward Count Rate/1000 Count Rate/1000

Barnfield 117 16.64 84 11.95Biscot 232 17.91 243 18.75Bramingham 142 18.72 114 15.03Challney 294 24.88 270 22.84Crawley 149 20.95 90 12.65Dallow 279 21.21 232 17.64Farley 251 22.85 157 14.29High Town 233 32.99 183 25.91Icknield 99 13.10 104 13.76Leagrave 208 18.58 195 17.42Lewsey 215 16.99 150 11.85Limbury 161 20.98 141 18.37Northwell 213 25.79 196 23.73Round Green 175 16.10 133 12.24Saints 193 16.46 223 19.02South 991 95.62 605 58.38Stopsley 116 16.33 64 9.01Sundon Park 166 21.89 155 20.44Wigmore 289 24.74 228 19.52Luton 4,523 24.53 3,567 19.35England and Wales - 17.00


Wards significantly above the Luton average: South & High Town. The risk of vehicle related crime is 1.4 times higher than nationally.

17% of all vehicle related crime occurs within the South ward.

Table 2.18 Revised vehicle related crime – South ward excluding the town centreArea No.Town Centre count 496

Vehicle Crime 0304 South (exc. TC) 495

The town centre accounts for 50% of all vehicle related crime in South ward.

Table 2.19 Vehicle Crime – CDRP Family GroupCDRP Name Theft of

a motorvehicle offences

per 1,000population

Theft ofa motorvehiclechange

03/04 - 04/05(%)

Theftfrom a vehicle

offences per1,000

population

Theftfrom avehicle change

03/04 - 04/05 (%)

Barnet 6.5 22 10.8 2Croydon 5.6 -17 7.9 4Enfield 7.1 1 10.2 -7Hammersmith and Fulham 5.3 -16 20.7 7Harrow 3.5 -1 10.3 8Hillingdon 6.3 -3 13.1 -16Hounslow 7.2 4 13.4 -16Kensington and Chelsea 5.0 -19 14.0 -14Kingston upon Thames 2.6 -17 5.3 -12Luton 4.5 -35 15.1 -16Merton 4.5 -10 6.4 -7Reading 7.5 -4 21.1 -14Redbridge 7.4 -6 12.5 -14Richmond upon Thames 2.5 -13 7.1 -3Waltham Forest 7.2 -19 14.0 -8Wandsworth 4.6 -11 10.5 -17Watford 4.5 -19 12.1 -20CDRP Average 2.1 5 5.8 -14


Table 2.20 Vehicle related crime (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/051999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2005/06


Source: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton, January 2006

The number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population has fallen in all three areas noted over the 199/00 to 2004/05 period, with Luton having recorded the most significant drop, from 36.4 offences per 1,000 population in 1999/00 to 19.6 in 2005/06. However, this rate remains above the averages for both England, and the 88 NRF areas.

Figure 2.12 Vehicle related crime (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/05

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2005/06

Num

ber p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion


Community Cohesion – Cross Cutting Theme

The points below describe how community cohesion issues are being addressed by the Crime Theme Group:

Strong links between LBC / Bedfordshire Police to ensure crime prevention news gets through

Stakeholder representation on CDRP CNN being introduced to create a more cohesive community Representation of the Police on Statutory Agencies, Police Authority Crime & Disorder Strategy document on website Encourage multi-agency solutions to racist incidents & Hate Crimes and

better support for victims Ensure that all community groups are consulted on the Crime & Disorder

reduction strategies Work with community groups to strengthen the sense of belonging and

cohesion Ensure that no one is to be seriously disadvantaged by where they live

Improved resourcing and performance of multi-agency partnership working in respect of crime and disorder reduction.

Key partners: Luton Borough Council, Police, Fire Service, Safer Luton Partnership, NACRO, Luton Multi-Agency Domestic Violence Forum, Schools.

Indicator Earliest data

Latest data Change Performance

Priority 1 – Environment and quality of lifeQoL 16Crimes committed

(per 1,000 population)

134.552001/02

130.362004/05

↓ by 4.19 offences per

1,000 population√

BVPI→ domestic

burglaries (per 1,000 households)

2,6332003/04

1,9052004/05

↓ by 728(27.7%) √

→ violent offences (per 1,000

population)

23.142003/04

26.832004/05

↑ by 3.69 offences per

1,000 populationX

→ vehicle crimes (per 1,000

population)

4,5232003/04

3,5672004/05

↓ by 956(21.1%) √

ComP 8Reduced overall levels of violent crime (including violence against

person, sexual offences, and

robbery)

23.142003/04

26.832004/05

↑ by 3.69 offences per

1,000 populationX

BVNumber of

abandoned vehicles

8,6142003/04

4,0012004/05 ↓ by 4,613 √

Local ER28The average time

taken to remove fly-tips (in days)

2.322002/03

2.542004/05 ↑ by 0.22 days X

BVNumber of arson

incidents recorded.

1,4682001/02

9372004/05 ↓ by 531 (36.2%) √

ComP19Reduce the

number of deliberate fires.

1,4682001/02

9372004/05 ↓ by 531 (36.2%) √

Priority 2 – Youth Safety and Youth JusticeComP12

Reduce numbers of young people

committing offences.

2,6232001

1,8972004

↓ by 726 offences (27.7%)

√

Priority 4 – Violence and HarassmentNR14Reduce robbery by 14% from 1999/00

to 2005 (number of offences per 1,000

2.21999/00

3.52004/05

↑ 1.3 incidents per

100,000 residents

X

population)ComP 9

Reduce levels of robberies.

- -↑ 11%

2003/04-2004/05

X

BV174The number of racial incidents

recorded by the authority per

100,000 population.

181.525

2003/04202.482004/05

↑ 20.96 incidents per

100,000 residents

X

BV126Domestic

burglaries per 1,000 households.

2,6332003/04

1,9052004/05

↓ by 728(27.7%) √

ComP10Reduce levels of

domestic burglaries.

2,6332003/04

1,9052004/05

↓ by 728(27.7%) √

NR13Reduce domestic burglary by 25% from 1998/99 to

2005 (number per 1,000 households)

22.81999/00

25.72004/05

↑ by 2.9 incidents per

1,000 households

X

NR12/ComP11Reduce vehicle

crime by 30% from 1998/99 to 2004

(number per 1,000 population)

36.41999/00

19.62004/05

↓ by 16.8incidents per

1,000 households

√

5 The 2003/04 figure is used as a base rather than the 2002/03 figure, because from 2003/04 schools were included in this measure.

Documents

A SAFE AND SECURE LUTON.doc€¦ · Web viewSource: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton, January 2006. The number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population