STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT (DRAFT) 2012--1515 - LBHFdemocracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s20431/Appendix 1 - Community... · strategic assessment (draft) ,ppenjix8t. d r a f t contents 2 contents

D R A F T

2012201220122012----15151515

HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT (DRAFT)

APPENDIX 1

D R A F T

2 Contents

CONTENTS

SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Strategic Priorities for 2012-15

Key Findings

SECTION 2 - BOROUGH DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographic Factors Relating to High Crime Rates

Crime Enablers / Attractors / Generators

SECTION 3 - PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Introduction

Long Term Trends

2011-12 Performance Against 2010-11 Performance

Crime Proportions and Costs

Sanction Detections

Westfield Shopping Centre

Partnership Data

SECTION 4 - DETERMINING THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

PESTELO Analysis

Public Consultation

Strategic Assessment Prioritisation Matrix

Strategic Priorities for Control Strategy and Borough Crime Picture

SECTION 5 - ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Analysis of the Strategic Priorities

Pg 3

Pg 3

Pg 4

Pg 6

Pg 8

Pg 10

Pg 10

Pg 11

Pg 13

Pg 14

Pg 15

Pg 16

Pg 18

Pg 21

Pg 26

Pg 26

Pg 27

Protective Marking:

Publication Scheme:

Title and Version: Hammersmith & Fulham Community Safety Partnership Strategic Assessment v2.1

Purpose:

Relevant To:

Produced By: Performance & Information Team, Hammersmith & Fulham Council (Contact: Stephen

Tang - 0208 753 2650)

BIU, Hammersmith & Fulham Police (Contact: Sean Flynn - 0208 246 2470)

Business Unit:

Date Created: 12th of April 2012

Review Date:

D R A F T

3 Executive Summary

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 2012-15

1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The 2012-15 Strategic Assessment is a joint docu-ment between Community Safety Partners to deter-mine the crime and safety strategic priorities for the next three years. The assessment uses a range of data sources and methodologies to determine the strategic priorities in an evidence based approach. Sitting behind this document are a range of in-depth analytical profiles. Only the headline figures have been included in this Strategic Assessment, how-ever, the full profiles can be requested from either the P.I.T or B.I.U.

AVAILABLE PROFILES Performance Review Strategic Vehicle Crime Profile Strategic Street Crime Profile Strategic Burglary Profile ASB Profile Offender Profile (including IOM) Substance Misuse Needs Assessment Alcohol Needs Assessment Wormwood Scrubs Substance Misuse Needs Assessment Evaluation of Home Fire Safety Visits

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2012-15

Serious Acquisitive Crime Focus on: Residential Burglary;

Street Crime (Robbery and Snatch);

Motor Vehicle Crime

Violence including Domestic Violence

ASB

Drugs & Alcohol

Public Reassurance

Town Centres

Youths

Crime Type /

Theme

Offender Management

NATIONAL & LOCAL CONTEXT

PESTELO ANALYSIS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

DATA MATRIX

Figure 1 is a diagram showing how the LBHF strate-gic priorities for 2012-15 have been selected. As mentioned before, the priorities have been se-lected by using an evidence based approach. This has included analysis of local and national issues, trends and performance, and public consultations. The crime types that are recommend as priorities for 2012-15 are Residential Burglary, Street Crime, Mo-tor Vehicle Crime (grouped as Serious Acquisitive Crime, Violence (including Domestic Violence), and Anti-Social Behaviour.

In addition to these crime types, there are a range of ‘themes’ that have a significant impact on the behav-iour of crime in the borough. Drugs & Alcohol, Town Centres, Youths, and Offender Management have been chosen. Dealing with these issues themes will have an impact on crime, both in the short term, but also for long sustainable reductions. Whilst crime is falling, and the borough is a safer place to live, this isn’t always reflected in the public’s perception. The inclusion of Public Reassurance is to ensure that the residents of the borough feel safer, which will increase the quality of life for those that work and live Hammersmith & Fulham.

Figure 1: Considerations and methodologies for selecting the

LBHF Strategic Priorities for 2012-15.

D R A F T

4 Executive Summary

KEY FINDINGS

DEMOGRAPHICS

• There are a number of demographic factors that could possibly be linked to the crime behaviour in the bor-ough. Examples include a high index of multiple deprivation, high population density, high long term unem-ployment, and high geographical concentration of youths.

• Crime generators have the largest impact on the crime picture in LBHF in comparison to crime enablers, and crime attractors. Examples of crime generators in LBHF include the three town centres, a high business den-sity, three Premier League football clubs, and one of the largest shopping centres in Europe.

• Crime enablers include high level of pupils classed as persistent absentees, high level of single person house-holds, and low level of the population providing informal care.

• Crime attractors include void social housing, and unused / derelict land in the borough. Some licensed ven-ues with high crime rates can also be classified as a crime attractor.

PERFORMANCE

LONG TERM TRENDS

• The long term trend of Total Notifiable Offences (TNOs) between 2000-01 and 2011-12 continues to show a downward trend. There was however an increase in TNOs between 2009-10 to 2010-11, which was the first increase in 8 years.

• Serious Acquisitive Crime which had seen a general downward trend between 2002-03 to 2009-10, has seen increases over the last 2 years.

• Violence Against the Person saw a decrease of 11.3% when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11. This fol-lowed a period of 6 years where the number of offences remained relatively constant.

• In 2008-09, Theft and Handling reported the first increase for the first time in 5 years due to the opening of the Westfield Shopping Centre. Since then, there has been year on year increases, however, the rate of increase in 2011-12 was the lowest in 4 years.

2011-12 PERFORMANCE AGAINST 2010-11 PERFORMANCE

• LBHF reported a decrease of 750 (-3.1%) in TNOs, equating to the 12th highest reduction in London.

• Excluding Murder, all forms of Violence Against the Person has seen significant decreases. The change of –11.3% is the 7th highest reduction when compared to the rest of London. This reduction has moved LBHF from having the 4th highest rates in 2010-11 to now the 5th highest rates per 100,000 population in London.

• Residential Burglary saw a reduction of 13%, equating to the 2nd highest reduction in London (behind Bex-ley). As a rate per 100,000 population, LBHF has the 8th highest rate in London. Although this is in the worst quartile, this is a significant improvement on the previous year where LBHF ranked as the 3rd highest. This positive picture should be communicated to residents as burglary ranks as the biggest concern when looking at different crime and ASB types taken from the Annual Residents Survey.

• Sexual Offences reported a 19% decrease compared to the previous year. With 203 reported offences in 2011-12, this was one of the lowest number of offences in the last 12 years.

• Theft and Handling experienced an increase of 5% in 2011-12, with Theft from MV, Theft Person, and Other Theft reporting large increases. Theft from MV in particular has high increases (5th) and high rates (1st) when compared to the rest of London.

CRIME PROPORTIONS

• At 14.7%, Other Theft accounted for the highest percentage of TNOs when looking at crime types by minor category. This rate of 14.7% is an increase on the 13.3% in 2010-11, and is now comparable to the rest of London.

• After experiencing a large increase on the previous year, Theft from MV accounted for 11.1% of TNOs in 2011-12 compared to 9.3% in 2010-11. In London, Theft from MV accounted for 9.0% of the TNOs.

D R A F T

5 Executive Summary

SANCTION DETECTIONS

• LBHF reported a sanction detection rate of 25% for all crimes in 2011-12. This rate is slightly higher than the 22% for London.

• The rate for Victim Based crimes for LBHF was 15%. This is comparable to London.

• Victim Based crimes where LBFH performs better than London include Rape, Acquisitive Crime, Business Robbery, Vehicle Crime, and Theft of a Cycle.

• Crime types that LBHF report lower rates than London include Other Sexual Offences, Domestic Burglary, and Personal Robbery.

WESTFIELD SHOPPING CENTRE

• In 2011-12, there were 1406 reported crimes within the Westfield Shopping Centre boundary, equating to 6% of the TNOs in LBHF.

• Crime types where Westfield accounted for approximately 10% or more of the LBHF total include Theft from Shops (28%), Other Fraud & Forgery (17%), Other Theft (13%), and Theft Person (9%).

• The impact on crime rates per 100,000 population by excluding the Westfield offences varies by crime type.

• By excluding Westfield, LBHF moves from having the 4th highest rate to the 6th highest rate.

• Crime types that change ranking by more than 2 places when excluding Westfield offences include Common Assault, Theft Person, Other Theft, Other Fraud or Forgery, and Criminal Damage.

• Removing Theft from Shop offences that occurred in Westfield does not have an impact on the ranking of LBHF. This is due to the high number of offences occurring outside of Westfield, as there are a high number of shops and businesses in the borough.

DETERMINING THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

PESTELO ANALYSIS / HORIZON SCANNING

• Current and emerging issues, risks, threats, and change include Financial Settlements from Central Govern-ment, Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, Troubled Families, Integrated Offender Management, Commu-nity Budgets, Integrated Offender Management, Olympics, and Major Regeneration in LBHF.

• A full list can be found on page 19, with an expansion on selected topics.


• A range of sources were used, including the Annual Residents Survey (ARS), an online consultation launched specifically for this Strategic Assessment, Police Public Attitude Survey (PAS), and the Community Relations Group (CRG).

• From the ARS, satisfaction with the Police has increased, feeling of safety during the day has increased slightly, and residents agreeing that the Police and Local Public Services seek people’s views has increased.

• Feeling of safety after dark has decreased, so has the percentage of residents agreeing that the Police and Local Public Services are successfully dealing with crime issues.

• Analysis of actual crime rates against residents’ perception of crime has raised some initial findings as to which wards have the largest reassurance gaps. The wards with the largest reassurance gaps differ from crime type to crime type.

• Using statistical tools, correlations between feelings of safety and crime types can be determined. The analy-sis show that Violence / Assault, and Robbery both have substantial to very strong link with feelings of safety at night. Crime and ASB types that have a moderate to substantial link include Drugs, and Teenagers.

• Unique to the online consultation is a question asking what would make residents feel safer. Of the 219 re-spondents that live in the borough, 63% felt that more police patrols on foot would make the area safer. 37% felt that more activities for young people, and 32% felt that more CCTV would make the area safer.

ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

• For each of the strategic priorities, there is a 2-4 page summary of the key findings, recommendations, intelli-gence gaps, and strategic information which can be found in section 5.

D R A F T

6 Borough Demographics

2 - BOROUGH DEMOGRAPHICS

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS RELATING TO HIGH CRIME RATES

GENERATOR ENABLER

ATTRACTOR

Parents Taking

Responsibility of

Their Children

Lack of Respect

for Each Other

High Level of Pupils

Classed as Persistent

Absentees

High Levels of Single

Person Households

Low Level of Dependent

Children with Married

Parents

Low Level of the

Population Pro-

viding Informal

Care

Easily Accessible

Large Number of Visitors

for Study, Entertain-

ment, Retail, and Cul-

tural Opportunities.

Three Town Centres

Westfield Shopping

Centre

High Business Density

Chelsea FC

Fulham FC

QPR FC

High Crime Venues /

Licensed Premises

Void Social Housing

Unused / Derelict Land

The diagram below is an illustration of how the de-mography, enablers, attractors and generators of crime and disorder might be working in the borough. Comparatively speaking there are few known attrac-tors with the exception of a high prevalence of li-censed premises and a relatively high void rate in social housing stock. However, residents’ perception of issues such as litter, noise nuisance and drug dealing do suggest that unless these issues are carefully managed then the borough could attract more crime.

The possible enablers in the borough include a high absence rate from schools, high levels of people liv-ing alone, high rates of family disruption and rela-tively poor perception of “people treating each other with respect”. However, it is suggested that it is the generators of crime that have the greatest weight in terms of contributing to crime and disorder in the bor-ough – with a significantly higher workplace popula-tion than resident population, and high visitor num-bers. It is recommended that further work is carried out to better understand what underpins the crime level in the borough in terms of attractors, generators, and enablers.

Figure 2: Possible demographics, enablers, generators, and attrac-

tors impacting upon crime in LBHF.

BOROUGH DEMOGRAPHICS

Comparatively Young Population High Polarisation of Income High Rates of Child Poverty

Geographical Concentration of Youths High Number of Household Financially Vulnerable High JSA Claimant Rate

High Residential Mobility Rates High Population Density Highly Skewed Employment Base

High Rates of Short Term Migrants Ethnically Diverse Population Low Overall Employment Rate

High Levels of NI Registrations High Index of Multiple Deprivation High Long Term Unemployment Rate

D R A F T


There are a number of demographic, social, eco-nomic and geographical factors that are often cited in research and criminology literature as helping ex-plain why an area might have a high crime rate. These demographic characteristics, with “crime at-tractors”, “crime generators” and “crime enablers”, comprise the main factors which are used to explain why an area might or might not have a high crime rate.

The Jill Dando Institute have used a number of demographic variables to identify neighbourhoods that might be vulnerable to crime. Pratt and Cullen’s article (“Assessing macro-level predictors and theo-ries”) identified further demographic and social fac-tors which indicate that an area might have a high crime rate. These factors are highlighted below :

• The borough has a relatively young population compared to London and England as a whole, and very high localised, concentrations of children and youths in specific areas of the borough. 53% of the general popula-tion is aged under 35 compared to 50% for London as a whole and 44% for England.

• According to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010, Hammersmith & Fulham is within the top 50 most deprived in England (ranked 31st from 326 local authorities and 13th out of the 33 London boroughs in terms of the average rank).

• Highly polarised borough in terms of income, with some of the wealthiest areas of the country next to some of the most deprived areas. 27.6% of households in the borough are in the least financially vulnerable groups but the borough also has 31.6% in the three most vulnerable groups. Nearly a third of all children live in poverty, compared to 28% for London and 21% for England.

• One of the highest population densities in the country – significant as crime often occurs in close proximity to the offenders home address. Hammersmith & Fulham is the country’s eighth most densely populated area, with density of 10,348 people per square kilometre. It is more than twice densely populated as both West Lon-don and London. In general, the boroughs’ central and south sub areas are more densely populated than the north sub area.

• The borough has an ethnically diverse population, but has a lower percentage of its population from BME groups than London as a whole. The ethnic minority population is lower than West London (38%) or Greater London (30%). 24% of Borough residents are from non-white groups and the main ethnic minorities identified are Black Caribbean (4.5%), Indian (4.1%), Black African (3.7%), and Mixed ethnic group (3.7%).

• Has one of the highest residential mobility rates in the country, with high levels of short term migration and new National Insurance registrations. The Census shows that in year 2001, one in five residents in the Bor-ough moved address. The ONS report on short-term migration from 2009 shows that H&F has the 7th largest estimates of short-term migration as a proportion of its population (some 15,200 in total or 9% of population).

• The borough has a highly skewed employment base – with high percentages of residents who are senior managers and professionals and very few residents who work in elementary occupations. At the same time, the borough has a comparatively low overall employment rate.

• The borough has a comparatively high Job Seekers Allowance claimant rate (at 4.3% of the working age population). This ranks the borough 15th compared to all London boroughs, and 96th out of all local authori-ties in England.

• The residents of the borough are particularly prone to long term unemployment once they begin to claim Job Seekers Allowance. The borough has a high proportion of claimants that have been claiming for 6 months or more (47%) and a high proportion of claimants claiming for 12 months or more (28%).

• Educational attainment is often cited as an indicator of crime. Attainment from school is very good in the bor-ough. 91.5% of pupils in H&F achieved GCSE 5+ A*-C (71.3% achieved GCSE 5+ A*-C including English and Maths). Strong performance can be seen in Palace Riverside, Fulham Reach, Ravenscourt Park and Avon-more & Brook Green wards which rank in the top quartile. Four wards, College Park & Old Oak, Munster, Town and North End fall in the bottom quartile of performance.

• 66% of working age population in H&F have NVQ3+ qualification compared to 56% in London as a whole; the borough rate is the 6th highest in London.

DEMOGRAPHICS

D R A F T


The Centre for Problem Orientated Policing states crime enablers “...occur when there is little regulation of behaviour at places: rules of conduct are absent or are not enforced. The removal of a parking lot at-tendant, for example, allows people to loiter in the parking area. This results in an increase in thefts from vehicles. This is an example of an abrupt change in place management. Sometimes place management erodes slowly over time, leading to problem growth.

Crime enablers also occur with the erosion of guardi-anship and handling. For example, if parents attend a play area with their children they simultaneously protect the children (guardianship) and keep their children from misbehaving (handling). If parenting styles slowly change so that the children are increas-ingly left to themselves, their risk of victimization and of becoming offenders can increase.”

From the Annual Residents Survey (2011) : • There has been an increase in the proportion of respondents who stated that they either “Tend to disagree” or

“Definitely disagree” with the statement that parents take enough responsibility for the behaviour of their chil-dren (from 38% in the 2010 ARS to 41% in the 2011 Survey).

• At the same time the Survey showed that there has been an increase in the proportion of respondents who believe that there is a problem with people not treating each other with respect and consideration from 32% in 2010 to 36% in 2011.

• There continues to be an upward trend in the percentage of people who believe people from different back-grounds get on well together.

Other possible enablers in the borough : • The latest comparative pupil absence figures from the Department of Education (covering Autumn term 2010

and Spring 2011) shows the borough to have the second highest percentage of pupils in state funded primary schools that are classed as persistent absentees. In these terms, 6.6% of pupils in the state run primary schools were classed as persistent absentees compared to 5.3% for London as a whole and 5.2% for England as a whole.

• For state run secondary schools in the borough, 8.4% of pupils were persistent absentees, which compares well to the London average of 8.2% and national average of 9.5%.

• Of all households in the borough with dependent children, 44.4% of households consist of a married couple with dependent children. This is the 12th lowest percentage across all English local authorities at the time of the 2001 Census.

• At the same time though, the borough has one of the highest proportions of all households that consist of one person (at just over 40%), and one of the lowest percentages of the population that provide any level of infor-mal care suggesting that some of the informal support mechanisms that exist elsewhere in the country are not present in the borough.

The Centre for Problem Orientated Policing defines Crime Attractors as “...places affording many criminal opportunities that are well known to offenders. Peo-ple with criminal motivation are drawn to such lo-cales. In the short run, offenders may come from out-side the area, but over longer time periods, and un-der some circumstances, offenders may relocate to these areas. Prostitution and drug areas are exam-ples. Some entertainment spots are also well known for allowing deviant activity. Such places might start off being known only to locals, but as their reputation spreads increasing numbers of offenders are drawn in, thus increasing the number of crime and disorder events.”

Figure x shows the responses to a number of differ-ent possible attractors in terms of how big a problem they are viewed. All but two areas have seen an in-crease between 2010 and 2011, with abandoned / burnt out cars viewed as a problem by only 3% of respondents and vandalism / graffiti and deliberate damage falling from 34% to 29% in 2011. Whilst there is very little unused, derelict land in the borough, the current void rate in social housing is increasing and the highest it has been for some time. Whilst not necessarily directly linked to crime and ASB, this void rate should be carefully monitored to ensure vacant properties are not misused.

CRIME ENABLERS IN THE BOROUGH

CRIME ATTRACTORS IN THE BOROUGH

D R A F T


Considered a problem in the area

ARS 2011 (%)

ARS 2010 (%)

ARS 2009 (%)

PS 2008 (%)

% point change (ARS '11 & ARS '10)

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 36 24 22 24 +12

Teenagers hanging around on the streets

47 36 41 50 +11

Rubbish/litter lying around 42 39 47 54 +3

Vandalism/graffiti/deliberate damage 29 34 32 42 -5

People using/dealing drugs 42 32 32 36 +10

People being drunk/rowdy in public places

41 34 38 41 +7

Abandoned/burnt out cars 3 6 5 5 -3

Anti-Social Behaviour

Figure 3: Public perception of ASB taken from the ARS.

The Centre for Problem Orientated Policing defines Crime Generators as “... places to which large num-bers of people are attracted for reasons unrelated to criminal motivation. Providing large numbers of op-portunities for offenders and targets to come to-gether in time and place produces crime or disorder. Examples of generators include shopping areas, transportation hubs, festivals, and sporting events. The large number of crime or disorder events is due principally to the large number of place users and targets.” The borough is an easily accessible, cosmopolitan area which attracts large numbers of visitors for study, entertainment, retail, cultural and sporting op-portunities. Some of the major attractions in the bor-ough should be considered as potential generators of crime and disorder. The borough has three town centres : Hammersmith, Shepherds Bush, Fulham and one of the largest shipping centres in Europe (Westfield). Westfield in the north of the borough opened in October 2008 and represents a significant attractor as potential offenders and victims congregate in the same area at the same time.

The borough has a high business density compared to most other local authorities. This is the number of businesses (registered for VAT / PAYE) per thou-sand population. As at March 2011, the borough had almost 57 businesses for every thousand population, compared to 43 for London as a whole and just 34 for England. This represents a significant number of opportunities to bring offender and victim into contact with each other across the existing business areas in the borough, most notably the town centres. The borough is also unique in the sense that it has three Premier League football clubs within the boundaries (Chelsea, Fulham and Queens Park Rangers) with average attendances of 41,435 for Chelsea, and 24,953 for Fulham. Queens Park Rangers were promoted to the Premier League in 2011/12 and no data is available as yet. This repre-sents significant opportunities for crime and disorder as large numbers of people enter the borough on a regular basis for football matches. Policing around football matches remains a significant draw on exist-ing resources.

CRIME GENERATORS IN THE BOROUGH

D R A F T

10 Performance Summary

DATA SOURCES Police CAD British Transport Police H&F StreetScene H&F ReAct ASB London Ambulance Service London Fire Brigade Transport For London H&F Neighbourhood Wardens H&F Parks Constabulary

3 - PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This chapter looks at a range of performance data relating to crime and disorder in Hammersmith & Ful-ham. Only the key findings have been included in this document, however the full performance profile is available on request (see page 3).

CRIME DATA

2823629487 30003

2865027139

25861 2533423219 22937 22866

24176 23426

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Offences Poly. (Offences)

The long term trend of total notifiable offences (TNOs) between 2000-1 and 2011-12 continues to show a downward trend. There was an increase in crime between 2009-10 and 2010-11 with 2010-11 being the first increase in 8 years.

With the opening of the Westfield Shopping Centre in October 2008, this has had a significant impact on TNOs (see page 13 for further Westfield analysis). Despite this, the number of crimes in 2011-12 is still comparable to those in 2007-08.

LONG TERM CRIME TRENDS

Figure 4: The number of TNOs in H&F by

financial year. A red bar indicates an

increase on the previous year; a green bar indicates a decrease on the previous year.

D R A F T


Violent Cr ime

Other Cr ime

Ser ious Acquisit ive Cr ime

Thef t and Handling

Drugs

TNO

-50.00%

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

By setting 2000-01 as a base, and calculating the percentage change of the subsequent years, figure 5 shows the long term trends of different crime types. Drug offences report the highest long term increases at 123% more offences in 2011-12

compared to 2000-01. However, this offence is gen-erated from Police activity, so an increase would in-dicate more arrests. Theft and Handling has seen year on year increases since 2007-08, due to the opening of the Westfield Shopping Centre.

Figure 5: The long term trends of differ-

ent crime categories.

2011-12 PERFORMANCE AGAINST 2010-11 PERFORMACE

Figure 6 shows LBHF performance in 2011-12 com-pared to performance in 2010-11 in terms of actual change, and percentage change. In addition, the last two columns on the right compares performance and rates against the rest of London when catego-rised by quartiles. LBHF reported a decrease of 750 (-3.1%), which is the 12th highest reduction in London. Despite this reduction, LBHF reported high rates of TNOs when compared to the rest of London. Excluding Murder, all forms of Violence Against the Person has seen large decreases, and ranks LBHF in the best improvement quartile. In addition, Gun Crime, and Knife Crime also reported high reduc-tions.

Residential Burglary reported a reduction of 13%, which is the second highest reduction behind Bexley. As a rate per 100,000 population, LBHF reports the eighth highest in London. Although this is still in the worst quartile, this is a significant improvement on the previous year where LBHF ranked as the third highest. Sexual Offences reported a 19% decrease on the previous year. With 203 reported offences in 2011-12, this was one of the lowest numbers in the last 12 years. Theft and Handling saw an increase of 5% in 2011-12, with Theft from M/V, Theft Person, and Other Theft reporting large increases. Theft from M/V in particular, had high increases (5th) and high rates (1st) when compared to the rest of London.

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

95% 179% 208% 164% 159% 123%

Year

Drugs

Crime Type 2010-11 2011-12 Actual Change % Change Change Quartile Rate Quartile

Murder 3 4 1 33.3% 4 4

GBH 179 157 -22 -12.3% 2 2

ABH 1500 1275 -225 -15.0% 1 3

Common Assault 1318 1195 -123 -9.3% 1 4

Offensive Weapon 159 126 -33 -20.8% 2 4

Harassment 1515 1383 -132 -8.7% 2 4

Other Violence 226 205 -21 -9.3% 2 4

Violence Against the Person Total 4900 4345 -555 -11.3% 1 4

Rape 86 62 -24 -27.9% 1 2

Other Sexual 164 141 -23 -14.0% 2 3

Sexual Offences Total 250 203 -47 -18.8% 1 2

Personal Property 767 751 -16 -2.1% 1 3

Business Property 72 37 -35 -48.6% 1 1

Robbery Total 839 788 -51 -6.1% 1 3

Burglary in a Dwelling 1880 1630 -250 -13.3% 1 4

Burglary in Other Buildings 639 693 54 8.5% 3 3

Burglary Total 2519 2323 -196 -7.8% 1 3

Theft/Taking of M/V 651 702 51 7.8% 4 4

Theft From M/V 2244 2600 356 15.9% 4 4

M/V Interference & Tampering 172 144 -28 -16.3% 2 4

Theft From Shops 1844 1789 -55 -3.0% 3 4

Theft Person 1126 1226 100 8.9% 3 4

Theft/Taking of Pedal Cycles 1335 1222 -113 -8.5% 1 4

Other Theft 3210 3441 231 7.2% 4 4

Handling Stolen Goods 127 122 -5 -3.9% 1 4

Theft and Handling Total 10709 11246 537 5.0% 3 4

Counted per Victim 484 528 44 9.1% 3 2

Other Fraud & Forgery 281 280 -1 -0.4% 3 3

Fraud or Forgery Total 765 808 43 5.6% 3 3

Criminal Damage To a Dwelling 549 474 -75 -13.7% 2 3

Criminal Damage To Other Bldg 238 208 -30 -12.6% 2 4

Criminal Damage To M/V 782 730 -52 -6.6% 3 3

Other Criminal Damage 398 334 -64 -16.1% 1 2

Criminal Damage Total 1967 1746 -221 -11.2% 2 3

Drug Trafficking 114 95 -19 -16.7% 2 3

Possession Of Drugs 1713 1461 -252 -14.7% 1 4

Other Drug Offences 18 30 12 66.7% 3 4

Drugs Total 1845 1586 -259 -14.0% 2 4

Going Equipped 66 83 17 25.8% 3 4

Other Notifiable 316 298 -18 -5.7% 3 4

Other Notifiable Offences Total 382 381 -1 -0.3% 3 4

Grand Total 24176 23426 -750 -3.1% 2 4

Gun Crime 85 38 -47 -55.3% 1 2

Knife Crime 307 286 -21 -6.8% 1 3

Racist & Religious Crime 263 270 7 2.7% 3 4

Homophobic Crime 30 46 16 53.3% 4 4

Domestic Violence 1157 972 -185 -16% 1 2

Shows the quartile H&F falls within when compared against the rest of London. This column is specific to the number of crimes as a rate per 100,00 population.

Shows the quartile H&F falls within when compared against the rest of London. This column is specific to the % change in crimes when comparing 2011-12

vs 2010-11..

Figure 6: Performance summary of

LBHF when comparing 2011-12 against

2010-11.

D R A F T


CRIME PROPORTIONS AND COSTS

Other theft accounted for the highest percentage of any of the crime types in 2011-12, at 14.7%. This is up from 13.3% in 2010-11. Theft from M/V after experiencing a 15.9% increase in offences, now accounts for 11.1% of the total crime in 2011-12. Figure 8 is an illustration of how different crime types accounts for different economical and social costs1. Violence Against the Person cost approximately £45m in 2011-12. Sexual offences, with only a quar-ter of the number of offences compared to robbery, has an estimated economic and social cost that is 11% higher than the total for robbery. With Payments by Results being introduced to strands of work such as Integrated Offender Man-agement (IOM), it is important to assess the financial implications of any actions implemented to tackle crime and disorder and determine how possible out-come payment mechanisms might work.

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

0.5%

0.6%

0.6%

0.7%

0.9%

0.9%

1.2%

1.3%

1.4%

2.0%

2.3%

3.0%

3.0%

3.1%

3.2%

5.1%

5.2%

5.2%

5.4%

5.9%

6.2%

7.0%

7.6%

11.1%

14.7%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%

M urder

Other Drug Offences

Business Property

Rape

Going Equipped

Drug Traf ficking

Handling Stolen Goods

Offensive Weapon

Other Sexual

M /V Interference & Tampering

GBH

Other Violence

Criminal Damage To Other Bldg

Other Fraud & Forgery

Other Notif iable

Other Criminal Damage

Criminal Damage To a Dwelling

Counted per Vict im

Burglary in Other Buildings

Theft /Taking of M /V

Criminal Damage To M /V

Personal Property

Common Assault

Theft /Taking of Pedal Cycles

Theft Person

ABH

Harassment

Possession Of Drugs

Burglary in a Dwelling

Theft From Shops

Theft From M /V

Other Theft

2011-12% 2010-11% 2011-12 London%

Figure 7: Proportion of TNOs in LBHF

by minor crime category.

Figure 8: Number of crimes and

estimation of social and economical

costs in 2011-12.

1: “This Home Office Research Study provides estimates for the full range on impacts on society of different

types of crime, including costs incurred in anticipation of crime such as defensive expenditure, costs as a

consequence of crime such as physical and emotional costs, and costs incurred in the response to crime such as costs to the Criminal Justice System. Offence categories covered are victimisation, fraud and for-

gery, and motoring.” http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/green_book_guidance_crime.htm

D R A F T


SANCTION DETECTIONS • Data was taken from the iQuanta Policing

and Community Safety Data Analysis por-tal.

• A sanction detection is ‘one in which a person was charged, reported for sum-mons, cautioned or issued with a fixed penalty notice, or the offence was taken into consideration by a court. Formal street warnings for cannabis possession are also counted as sanction detections’.

• It is not possible to link individual detec-tions to individual crimes, therefore the sanction detection rate is the number of sanctions divided by the number of crimes.

SANCTION DETECTIONS

25%

15%

29%31%

28%

18%21%

17%

13%

8%6%

13%

9%

14%12%

59%

2%

7% 6%

10%

5%

56%

4%

14%

81%

54%

98%

78%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Crim

es

Vic

tim B

ased

Vio

lence A

gain

st th

e P

ers

on

Vio

lence w

ith Inju

ry

Vio

lence w

ithout In

jury

Sexual O

ffences

Rape

Oth

er

Sexual O

ffences

Acquis

itive

Burg

lary

Dom

estic

Burg

lary

Non D

om

estic

Burg

lary

Dis

tractio

n B

urg

lary

Robbery

Pers

onal R

obbery

Busin

ess R

obbery

Theft fro

m the P

ers

on

Vehic

le C

rim

e

Theft fro

m a

Vehic

le

Theft o

f a V

ehic

le

Theft o

f a C

ycle

Shoplif

ting

Oth

er

Acquis

itive

Crim

inal D

am

age &

Ars

on

Non V

ictim

Based

Public

Dis

ord

er

Dru

g O

ffences

Oth

er

Sta

te B

ased

Fru

ad &

Forg

ery

London Total Hammersmith & Fulham

Green / Red Bar Plots H&F Performance

Grey Bar Plots Met Performance

Length of bar illustrates difference in performance

LBHF has a sanction detection rate of 25% for all crimes in 2011-12, which is slightly higher than the 22% for London. When looking specifically at victim based crimes, the rate drops to 15% which is comparable to London. Victim based crimes which LBHF performs better than London include rape, acquisitive crime, busi-ness robbery, vehicle crime, and theft of a cycle. Crime types which LBHF report lower rates than London include other sexual offences, domestic bur-glary, and personal robbery. For non victim based crimes, LBHF report higher rates than London across all the different crime types. Although current performance in relation to sanction detections is mixed and dependent on crime type, it is a powerful data set and one that could be used effectively in communication strategies to address the reassurance gap.

Figure 9 aims to show two things: 1 - How the LBHF sanction detection rates for each crime type compares to one another. 2 - How the sanction detection rates for each crime in LBHF compares to that of London.

D R A F T


WESTFIELD SHOPPING CENTRE

In 2011-12, there were 1406 reported crimes that were within the Westfield Shopping Centre bound-ary. This accounted for 6% of the 23426 total crimes in LBHF. The table on the right shows the crimes where West-field accounts for approximately 10% or more of the total crime in LBHF (see performance profile for full table). As the crimes are specific to those within the West-field boundary, a high number of crimes are related to Theft, and to Fraud or Forgery. The actual number of crimes generated by Westfield could possibly be higher, however, it is not possible to estimate the actual numbers. For example, only 13 Theft from M/V crimes were attributable to West-field. This doesn’t take into account shoppers that park outside of the shopping centre boundary but walk to Westfield who have something stolen from their M/V.

Crime LBHF Westfield % of LBHF

Theft From Shops 1789 509 28%

Other Fraud & Forgery 280 48 17%

Going Equipped 83 13 16%

Other Theft 3441 443 13%

Theft and Handling Total 11246 1146 10%

Theft Person 1226 110 9%

Fraud or Forgery Total 808 70 9%

3

20

14

7

5

3

65

20

1617

15

25

16

8

14

9

6

1

7

3

7

3

6

1

4

17

9

16

9

5

9

19

11

13

8

1

8

1

4

2

4

3

20

15

9

5

3

7

5

20

16

18

16

25

16

8

16

9

7

1

7

3

10

4

9

1

5

17 17

19

9

5

9

20

13 13

8

1

8

1

6

2

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Murd

er

GB

H

AB

H

Com

mo

n A

ssa

ult

Offe

nsiv

e W

ea

pon

Hara

ss

me

nt

Oth

er

Vio

lence

Vio

lenc

e A

gain

st th

e P

ers

on T

ota

l

Rap

e

Oth

er

Sexu

al

Sex

ual O

ffenc

es T

ota

l

Pers

on

al P

rop

ert

y

Bus

ines

s P

rop

ert

y

Rob

bery

Tota

l

Burg

lary

in a

Dw

elling

Burg

lary

in O

ther

Build

ing

s

Burg

lary

Tota

l

The

ft/T

akin

g o

f M

/V

The

ft F

rom

M/V

M/V

Inte

rfe

ren

ce &

Ta

mp

erin

g

The

ft F

rom

Sh

ops

The

ft P

ers

on

The

ft/T

akin

g o

f P

edal C

ycle

s

Oth

er

Theft

Han

dlin

g S

tole

n G

ood

s

The

ft a

nd H

an

dlin

g T

ota

l

Cou

nte

d p

er

Vic

tim

Oth

er

Fra

ud &

Fo

rgery

Fra

ud o

r F

org

ery

Tota

l

Crim

ina

l Da

ma

ge T

o a

Dw

elli

ng

Crim

ina

l Da

ma

ge T

o O

ther

Bld

g

Crim

ina

l Da

ma

ge T

o M

/V

Oth

er

Crim

ina

l Da

mag

e

Crim

ina

l Da

ma

ge T

ota

l

Dru

g T

raffic

kin

g

Pos

ses

sio

n O

f D

rugs

Oth

er

Dru

g O

ffenc

es

Dru

gs T

ota

l

Goin

g E

qu

ippe

d

Oth

er

Notif

iable

Oth

er

Notif

iable

Offen

ces

To

tal

Gra

nd T

ota

l

LBHF LBHF Excluding Westfield

Below illustrates how Westfield impacts upon crime rates in LBHF when compared to other London bor-oughs. For example, LBHF has the 4th highest rates per 100,000 population when compared against the rest of London. By removing the crimes directly at-tributable to Westfield, LBHF moves two places to the 6th highest rate. Crime types that change ranking by more than 2 places include Common Assault, Theft Person, Other Theft, Other Fraud or Forgery, and Criminal Damage.

Figure 11: LBHF including Westfield, and LVHF excluding Westfield ranked

against the other 31 London Boroughs as a rate per 100,000 population.

Figure 10: Crime types that Westfield account for approximately 10% or more of

LBHF total. Full table can be found in the Performance Profile.

LBHF ranked against London.

LBHF excluding Westfield ranked against London.

D R A F T

16

Category 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Burglary 7 6 (-14.3%) 7 (16.7%)

Criminal Damage 155 118 (-23.9%) 55 (-53.4%)

Disorder 241 170 (-29.5%) 107 (-37.1%)

Drugs Offences 153 61 (-60.1%) 58 (-4.9%)

Fraud 332 146 (-56.0%) 78 (-46.6%)

Robbery 5 5 (0.0%) 5 (0.0%)

Sexual Offences 12 15 (25.0%) 8 (-46.7%)

Theft 204 236 (15.7%) 183 (-22.5%)

Violence 196 172 (-12.2%) 117 (-32.0%)

Total 1305 929 (-28.8%) 618 (-33.5%)

PARTNERSHIP DATA

BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE

The 618 offences recorded in 2011-12 is a 33.5% reduction on the previous year. Apart from burglary, all offence types have reported good reductions on the previous year. In terms of location, Shepherd’s Bush (Central Line), and Hammersmith (Picadilly Line) have the highest numbers. The other town centre of Fulham Broad-way have comparatively low numbers.

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

Category 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Criminal Damage 42 46 (9.5%) 55 (19.6%)

Disturbance 535 577 (7.9%) 571 (-1.0%)

Fraud Or Forgery 212 229 (8.0%) 255 (11.4%)

Robbery 2 4 (100.0%) 3 (-25.0%)

Theft And Handling 11 10 (-9.1%) 7 (-30.0%)

Violence Against The Person

47 32 (-31.9%) 47 (46.9%)

Total 849 898 (5.8%) 938 (4.5%)

The number of TFL incidents have seen year on year increases between 2009-10 to 2011-12. Disturbance incidents which accounts for around 60% of the total has remained constant on the previ-ous year. Criminal Damage, and Fraud or Forgery has seen large increases when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

Figure 12: The total number of BTP incidents recoded in 2011-12 by London Underground

Station.

Figure 13: Density of TFL incidents recorded in 2011-12.

D R A F T


Category 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Primary Fire 328 323 (-1.5%) 296 (-8.4%)

Secondary Fire 210 204 (-2.9%) 203 (-0.5%)

Deliberate Fires 82 86 (4.9%) 90 (4.7%)

LFB

The number of primary and secondary fires have both seen year on year decreases since 2009-10. The number of deliberate fires has seen annual in-creases of 5%. A high proportion of deliberate fires occur in Wormwood Scrubs Prison.

REDUCING FIRES IN DWELLINGS AND INJURIES The 2007/08 CDRP Strategic Assessment highlighted the priorities to reduce fires in dwellings and injuries resulting from such fires. The original analysis of fires in the borough showed a high percentage of people injured in fires were known to adult social care, or dwellings with fires contained vulnerable people. An in-formation sharing agreement was implemented between the department and the London Fire Brigade which sees vulnerable people referred for Home Fire Safety Visits. Social Work staff now routinely identify hoarding in their assessments as potential fire risks and refer to LFB as appropriate. Over the last three years the numbers of people injured in fires has fallen by almost 60% and this work should be seen as an excellent example of what can be achieved through information sharing and joint work.

ASB

A range of other partnership data which relates to ASB can be found in section 5.

Figure 14: Density of primary and secondary recorded in 2011-12.

D R A F T

18 Determining the Strategic Priorities

4 - STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL

Building Work / Development Student Flats

Westfield and Surrounding Area Shepherds Bush Redevelopment

Olympia and Earls Court Chelsea Creek

Fulham FC Fulham Reach

Hammersmith Town Hall Hammersmith Grove

NHS Bill Electoral Boundary Review

Legal Aid Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Subletting Dangerous Dogs

LEGAL

ORGANISATIONAL

New MPS Management Board TP Development

Windsor Review Pt1 and Pt2 Leveson Inquiry

London Mayoral Elections London Assembly Elections

Austerity Arab Spring and the Middle East

Community Budgets

POLITICAL

The PESTELO analysis technique has been used to identify Political, Economical, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal, and Organisational influ-ences on a wider context which may affect LBHF’s community safety activities.

Figure 15 summarises the main challenges facing H&F from a PESTELO perspective with pages 19-21 expanding on the key themes.

4.1- PESTELO ANALYSIS

PESTELO ANALYSIS

Unemployment Inflation

Low Pay Rise Low / No Growth

Europe “Too Good to be True”

ECONOMICAL

Benefit Cap Social Divide

Riots London Olympics

Euro 2012 Population Growth

Change in Demographics Diamond Jubilee

SOCIAL

Social Networking “Hacktivists”

Digital Switchover Mobile Phone Swipe Payments

TECHNOLOGICAL Figure 15: Main challenges faced by LBHF from a PESTELO perspective.

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN EXCUDED FROM THIS VERSION OF THE STRATEGIC AS-

SESSMENT DUE TO CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE INFORMATION

D R A F T


The 2010 spending review set out how the deficit reduction announced in the June 2010 budget would be implemented. In short it describes the cut in budg-ets that Government departments have to make in order that the underlying budget deficit is “in bal-ance” by 2015/16, and that public sector net borrow-ing will fall from 149bn in 2010/11 to 20bn in 2015/16. All areas of Government were affected, with welfare, local councils and police all needing to make sav-ings. The effects of these cuts are starting to emerge, such as a fall in police numbers (a 4.2% decrease in officers nationally between September 2011 and September 2010), and a £4.7bn fall in councils combined income in 2011/12.

Financial Settlements from Central Government

This Strategic Assessment is being produced in a time of change for policing nationally. The Police Re-form and Social Responsibility Act (2011) has brought about reforms to the accountability of Police Services. In London this has meant that the Metro-politan Police Authority has been replaced with the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime (established in law on the 16th January 2012). The Mayor now has direct responsibility for setting the Metropolitan Police’s strategic direction and ac-counting of its resources and is also directly account-able for police performance. Current Mayoral Crime priorities include: serious youth violence including knife crime; targeting robbery, burglary and drug dealing in every borough; getting tough on gangs and tackling reoffending rates; and ensuring London has enough frontline police officers on the streets.

Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

with disorder being mainly confined to Fulham Broadway. In total the borough reported less then 20 crimes, while 13 other London Boroughs recorded more than 100 crimes. In the wake of the riots the Government has looked at a number of strategies. As well as punitive meas-ures such as considering changes to the imposition and enforcement of curfews, and changes to eviction laws, the Government also set about trying to ad-dress the social and economic problems that they saw as underpinning the unrest. In the weeks follow-ing the riots the Government announced its commit-ment to turning round the fortunes of the estimated 120,000 troubled families in Britain, through the Troubled Families Unit.

‘TROUBLED FAMILIES’ IN H&F • The Louise Casey Unit have estimated

that the borough should have 540 Trou-bled Families. This compares to 400 in RBKC, 790 in Westminster, 810 in Brent and 585 in Hounslow.

• All local authorities have now been asked to identify these families based on three key criteria – unemployment and work-lessness, offending and ASB and persis-tent school absences and exclusions. This will lead to the development of a pay-ments by results mechanism to ensure service effectiveness in delivering the ma-jor outcomes for these families and re-duce the amount spent on them by statu-tory services.

Snapshot Police Officers PCSOs

Mar-08 562 85

Mar-09 599 107

Mar-10 600 116

Mar-11 574 97

Mar-12 Awaiting Data

FORCE STRENGTH IN H&F

Police forces in England and Wales reported nearly 4,700 thousand arrests (as of 29th September, 2011) due to disorder related events between the 6th - 10th August 2011. The Metropolitan Police Area was one of the 10 principally affected areas seeing nearly 3,500 reported crimes. As a London borough, Ham-mersmith and Fulham was one of the least affected,

Disorder Events in August 2011 (‘Riots’)

In this area as with the Troubled Families Unit, the Government are hoping that the introductions of the Payments by Results model will encourage the pri-vate and voluntary sector to create innovative solu-tions to difficult problems. In the ‘Breaking the Cycle’ Green Paper the Govern-ment introduced plans for at least six new Payment by Results pilots: two projects for offenders released from prison; two pilot projects covering offenders managed on community sentences; and two projects testing a local approach to payment by results based on justice reinvestment principles. These are in addition to the Social Impact Bond pilot already running at HMP Peterborough. This scheme works exclusively with adult male offenders sen-tenced to less than 12 months in custody. All imple-mentation and operating costs for the pilot will be met through social investment raised by Social Fi-nance.

Prison, Probation, and Re-Offending

D R A F T


FOOTBALL CRIME IN H&F During the 2010-11 season: • There were 112 arrests and 68 Football

Banning Orders between the three clubs. • A review will be published at the end of

the football season.

Integrated Offender Management is an overarching framework that allows local and partner agencies to come together to ensure that the offenders, whose crimes cause most damage and harm locally, are managed in a coordinated way. Local integrated offender management approaches differ from area to area, reflecting local priorities, but there are common key principles. These include: all partners tackling offenders together; delivering a lo-cal response to local problems; offenders facing their responsibility or facing the consequences; making better use of existing programmes and governance; and all offenders at high risk of causing serious harm and/or re-offending being ‘in scope’.

Olympics

The Olympics and the Paralympics taking place in the Summer of 2012 will be the Metropolitan polices largest ever peacetime policing operation. It will run for 64 days, and cover over 1,000 venues including those hosting Olympic and Paralympic sports, cul-tural events and 2012 themed celebrations taking place across the Capital. On the busiest days up to 9,000 police officers will be used for Games related operations.

Football Related Crime

During 2010-11 season, the total number of people arrested in connection with all international and do-mestic football (“regulated”) matches involving teams from, or representing, England and Wales was 3,089. This represents a decrease of 9%, or 302 arrests, on 2009-10 figures. This includes football specific offences (e.g. throwing missiles in a stadium, pitch encroachment) and a wide range of generic criminal offences committed in connection with a football match. This covers such arrests at any place within a period of 24 hours either side of a match.

OLYMPIC EVENTS IN H&F H&F will be hosting several events at the Olym-pics: • The men and women’s cycling road race

will be passing through the borough along Fulham Road, which will result in the clo-sure of a key east-west route through the borough.

• Earl’s Court will play host to the volleyball which will be on every day for almost the entire games period. There are three sessions a day with over 40,000 specta-tors needing to get to and from the venue.

In light of the budget cuts mentioned above, the po-lice are trying to get clubs to pay more towards the cost of policing football matches. The issue, which has been subject to parliamentary debate is of rele-vance in Hammersmith and Fulham who have three Premiership Teams (at time of writing).

There are a number of significant physical regenera-tion initiatives in the borough which need to be con-sidered. Whilst these will create job and business opportunities, the increase in population – both resi-dent and workplace – will increase the opportunities for crime (see section x on generators of crime). These projects include the expansion of Westfield in the north of the borough, and the redevelopment of Earls Court and West Kensington area. At the same time, these regeneration plans present an opportu-nity to regenerate some of the most deprived areas of the borough and gives the opportunity to design out crime at several locations in the borough.

Major Regeneration in the Borough

The economic outlook of the country and the global economy remains uncertain, with low or no growth expected over the coming year. The recession in Europe will have significant impacts on the national economy, which in turn will have impacts on the local economy. The UK was officially in recession between December 2009 and December 2010, and entered another recession in April 2012. Locally, there have significant impacts with a reduc-tion in the number of businesses that are active in the borough, increases in the numbers of people that are claiming Job Seekers Allowance (current at 4.3% of the working age population), increases in the num-bers of long term claimants (over 200% between De-cember 2009 and March 2012 for claimants over 12 months) and large increases in the numbers of young people claiming JSA. Locally there are large varia-tions, with some of the most deprived areas having a JSA claimant rate almost three times higher than the borough average.

Worsening Economic Conditions

Integrated Offender Management (IOM)

D R A F T


DATA SOURCES Annual Residents Survey (ARS) Strategic Assessment Online Consultation Public Attitude Survey (PAS) Community Relations Group (CRG) Youth Forum Business Surveys

Community / Neighbourhood Budgets

Alongside crime data, it is important to take into ac-count residents’ views. An in depth understanding of resident’s opinions on crime and anti social behav-iour can be used, alongside the actual crime figures, to guide local and borough priorities. This is an area which will be developed further in the year, and fea-ture heavily in the next assessment.

4.2- PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

INTRODUCTION

• Based on respondents answers the wards with the biggest reassurance gap for: • Violent Crimes are: Parsons Green and Walham, Askew, Avonmore and Brook Green, and Munster. • Robbery: are Askew, Munster, Town, and North End. • Motor Vehicle Crime are: Askew, Shepherds Bush Green, and Addison. • Burglary are: Hammersmith Broadway, Askew, College Park and Old Oak, and Avonmore and Brook Green. • Vandalism are: Addison, and Avonmore & Brook Green.

• 57% of all respondents feel either very or fairly safe when outside at night. • Males feel safer at night than females. Generally speaking the older the respondent the safer they felt after

dark. 18-24 year olds had the lowest feelings of safety after dark at 48%, 55-64 year olds had the highest feelings of safety after dark at 64%.

• Health, disability and employment has little or no relationship with feelings of safety. • Parsons Green and Walham, Palace Riverside and Town wards have the highest feelings of safety at night

(74%,73% and 67% respectively). • College Park and Old Oak, Wormholt and White City and Shepherd’s Bush Green have the lowest feelings

of safety at night (36%, 42% and 42% respectively). • Fears of Violence / Assault, and Robbery tend to correlate strongly with feelings of safety after dark • The only variables that have a significant effect on feelings of safety during the day are the ward the respon-

dent is from and the Mosaic group their address links them to. • Violence/ Assault has a substantial to very strong link with feelings of safety during the day. • 63% of respondents (n=219) felt that more police patrols on foot would make the area safer. 37% felt that

more activities for young people would make the area safer. • Burglary, robbery and vehicle crime are the crime types that more respondents felt were a problem. • Findings from the Quarter 3 2011/12 Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey:

• 80% of respondents gave a positive response to the question ‘How good a job do you think the police are doing in H&F?’. This is an increase of 21% from the same quarter last year.

• 71% of people believed that the police and local council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in H&F’. A 7% increase on the same quarter last year.

• 50% of respondents feel informed about what the police have been doing in H&F over the past 12 months. An decrease of 9% on last year.

• 36% of respondents are worried about crime in H&F. A decrease of 10% on the same quarter last year. • 28% of respondents said they were worried about ASB in H&F. A 7% decrease on the same quarter last

year.

KEY FINDINGS

In a similar vein to the Troubled Families work the borough, along with RBKC and Westminster, is part of a "One Place" Area budget programme. The pro-gramme includes five strands of work, one of which is based on criminal justice and reducing reoffending across the three boroughs. Like the Troubled Fami-lies work, this is focused on the delivery of major out-comes for the community, with a payments by results

mechanism included. Hammersmith and Fulham also has a specific neighbourhood budget based on the White City Opportunity Area which will see similar work and mechanisms in place. The bor-ough is still exploring the possibility of a Social Impact Bond (SIB) to lever in social investment to achieve key outcomes around employment, re-ducing offending and staying in education.

D R A F T


REASSURANCE GAP

By comparing the actual crime figures with respon-dent’s perceptions of crime the reassurance gap can be plotted. The crime types of: violent crimes; drugs crimes; mo-tor vehicle crimes; burglary; and vandalism were all plotted against how much of a problem residents felt them to be. The findings of this analysis should be taken into ac-count when setting local priorities. They should also be used when writing any communication and en-gagement strategy. The table on the right shows the wards with the larg-est reassurance gaps by crime type. For full analy-sis please refer to the Consultation profile.

Figure 17: Table showing the wards with the biggest reassurance gap by crime type.

Public perception based on the ARS, and the online Crime Consultation.

Violent Crimes Parsons Green, Walham, Askew, and Avon-more and Brook Green wards

Drugs Crimes Askew, and Town wards

Motor Vehicle Crime

Askew, Shepherds Bush Green, and Addison wards

Burglary (See graph below)

Hammersmith Broadway, Askew, College Park and Old Oak, and Avonmore and Brook Green wards

Vandalism Addison, and Avonmore and Brook Green wards

Crime Type Wards with the Biggest Reassurance Gap

Burglary Reassurance Gap—the graph on the left plots respon-dent’s feelings on how much of a problem burglary is in their local area against actual burglaries per 1,000 of the population. The data is broken down by ward. The graph breaks the wards up into 4 groups: ‘more of a problem/ less crime’ (those with the biggest reassurance gap); ‘more of a prob-lem/ more crime’; ‘less of a prob-lem/ less crime’; ‘less of a prob-lem/ more crime’. This information should be taken into account when setting local priorities as different wards may require different approaches and interventions depending on their position on the graph.

Figure 18: Graph plotting residents feelings on burglary as a problem against actual burglaries per 1,000 of

H&F ARS 2011 H&F ARS 2010 H&F ARS 2009 The Place

Survey 2008

Satisfaction with Metropolitan Police (% Very/ Faily Satisfied) 63.2 50 51 53

How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in this neighbourhood after dark? (%Very/ Fairly Safe)

57.5 61 59 48

How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in this neighbourhood during the day? (%Very/ Fairly Safe)

87.8 87 91 87

How much would you agree or disagree that the police and other local public services seek people’s views about crime issues in your local area? (% Strongly/ Tend to agree)

37.8 34 39 30

How much would you agree or disagree that the police and other local public services are successfully dealing with crime issues in your local area? (% Strongly/ Tend to agree)

38.1 39 40 33

HISTORICAL TRENDS

Satisfaction with the Police has seen a large in-crease on the previous years, with 63.2% of those surveyed being Very or Fairly Satisfied. For the first time in three years, feeling of safety after dark has seen a decrease. Safety during the day however, has seen an increase.

Addison

Askew

A'more & BG

College Pk & OO

F'ham Bdw y

Fulham Reach

H'smith Bdw y

Munster

North End

Palace Riverside

P'sons Grn & W'ham

R'court Pk

Sands End

Shepherd's BG

Tow n

W'holt & WC 45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1Crimes per 1000

% F

eelin

g C

rim

e is

a P

roble

m

More of a Problem

More CrimeMore of a Problem

Less Crime

Less of a Problem

Less Crime

Less of a Problem

More Crime

The percentage of those agreeing that the police and local services seek people’s view has increase, how-ever, there has been a decrease in those agreeing that crimes issues are being successfully dealt with.

Figure 16: Historical trends of public perception taken from the ARS.

D R A F T


FEELINGS OF SAFETY

When Outside in your Local Area at Night

As part of the consultation/ survey resident’s were asked ‘how safe they felt when outside in their local area at night?’ Breaking down the answers to this question demog-raphically shows that some groups feel safer than others. Overall 57% of respondents feel either very or fairly safe when outside at night. However males feel safer at night than females. (63% of males feel safe after dark, compared to 52% of females).

A number of crime types have a strong relationship with peoples feelings of safety, (see profile for a full explanation). The assumption being that if people’s perception of crimes improve then their feelings of safety will increase.

In terms of age, the older the respondent the safer they felt after dark. Health, disability and employment has little or no relationship with feelings of safety. Generally the longer someone has lived in the bor-ough the less safe they feel after dark. Those who rent their property from a landlord have higher feel-ings of safety than owner occupiers and Council/RSL tenants. Figure 18 plots how safe respondent’s feel outside in their local area at night against actual crimes with a victim per 1,000 of the population broken down by ward.

The graph breaks the wards into 4 groups: ‘feeling safer/ less crime’; ‘feeling safer/ more crime’; ‘feeling less safe/ less crime’; ‘feeling less safe/ more crime’. Parsons Green and Walham, Pal-ace Riverside and Town wards have the highest feelings of safety at night (74%,73% and 67% re-spectively). College Park and Old Oak, Wormholt and White City and Shepherd’s Bush Green have the lowest feelings of safety at night (36%, 42% and 42% respectively).

What makes people feel safe?

Crime Type Rank Strength of Association

Q18a - Motor Vehicle Crime 9 moderate to substantial linear association

Q18b - Violence/Assault 1 substantial to very strong linear association

Q18c - Robbery 2 substantial to very strong linear association

Q18d - Burglary 6 moderate to substantial linear association

Q18e - Noisy neighbours 11 low to moderate linear association

Q18f - Teenagers 4 moderate to substantial linear association

Q18g - Rubbish lying around 10 low to moderate linear association

Q18h - Vandalism 8 moderate to substantial linear association

Q18i - Drugs 3 moderate to substantial linear association

Q18j - Drunk 7 moderate to substantial linear association

Q18k - Abandoned cars 12 low to moderate linear association

Q20 - Police/LA dealing with issues 5 moderate to substantial linear association

Violence/ Assault and Robbery both have a substan-tial to very strong link with feelings of safety at night. The table below ranks the crime types in order of their strength of association with feelings of safety at night. It also includes a brief description of the strength of association.

Figure 19: Graph plotting residents feelings of safety at night against actual

crimes with a victim per 1,000 of the population. Public perception based on the

ARS, and the online Crime Consultation.

Figure 20: Table

showing the

strength of asso-ciation between

feelings of safety

at night and

various crime types.

Addison

Askew

A'more & BG

College Pk & OO

F'ham Bdw y

Fulham Reach

H'smith Bdw y

Munster

North End

Palace RiversideP'sons Grn & W'ham

R'court Pk

Sands End

Shepherd's BG

Tow n

W'holt & WC

36%

41%

46%

51%

56%

61%

66%

71%

68 118 168 218 268Crime Rate per 1000

% F

eelin

g S

afe

Feeling Safer

More Crime

Feeling Safer

Less Crime

Feeling Less Safe

Less Crime

Feeling Less Safe

More Crime

D R A F T


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Vehicle Crim

e

Violenc

e/ Assau

lt

Robbery

Burglary

Noisy

Neigh

bours

Teena

gers

Han

ging Aroun

d

Rubbish/ Litter

Vandalism

Drugs

Drunk

/ Row

dy

Aba

ndon

ed Cars

Problem Not a Problem

When Outside in your Local Area during the Day

The only variables that have a significant effect on feelings of safety during the day are the ward the respondent is from and the Mosaic group their ad-dress links them to. Feelings of safety during the day are highest in Munster, Parsons Green and Wal-ham, and Town (98%, 95% and 93% respectively). Feelings of safety during the day are lowest in Col-lege Park and Old Oak, Shepherds Bush Green and North End (72%, 80% and 81% respectively). As with safety at night , a number of crime types have a strong relationship with peoples feelings of safety, (see full document for a full explanation).

Violence/ Assault has a substantial to very strong link with feelings of safety during the day. The next highest crimes/ ASB types, in order of rank, that have a link to safety during the day are Robbery, people using or dealing drugs, teenagers hanging around the streets, and people being drunk/ rowdy in public places. Rubbish/ litter lying around and van-dalism also have moderate to substantial links. Peoples perceptions on how well the police/ Local Authority are dealing with these issues has a moder-ate to substantial association with feelings of safety during the day. ’Motor vehicle crime’, ’burglary’, ‘noisy neighbours’, and ‘abandoned cars’ do not have a strong relation-ship with feelings of safety during the day.

Crime / ASB Types

n = 1022

The above graph shows the answers to how much of a problem respondents found the various asb/ crime types. Of those who answered the question on bur-glary, 59% found it either a very big or a fairly big problem. 52.5% of those who answered the question on robbery found it a very big or fairly big problem. 52.1% of those who answered the question on vehi-cle crime found it a very big or fairly big problem. Only 4.9% of respondents found abandoned cars a problem.

n = 1070 n = 1072 n = 1094 n = 1311 n = 1310 n = 1344 n = 1240 n = 1011 n = 1250 n = 1126

Figure 21:

Graph showing

the overall feel-ings of how much

of a problem

various crime

types are.

D R A F T


7%

9%

9%

9%

10%

10%

16%

23%

24%

26%

26%

29%

29%

32%

37%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Better crime prevention advice from the local

authority

M ore activit ies for old people

Other

Better crime prevent ion advice f rom the police

Better access to police crime prevent ion advice

Better home security

A Neighbourhood watch scheme in your area

Increase amount of st reet light ing

M ore at t ract ive environment

Increase quality of st reet light ing

M ore police car patrols

local authority and local people

M ore ef fect ive consultation between police

M ore CCTV

M ore act ivit ies for young people

M ore police patrols on foot

n = 219 The crime consultation asked what changes would make residents feel safer. There were 219 respon-dents that lived in the borough. Of those that re-sponded 63% felt that more police patrols on foot would make the area safer. 37% felt that more activi-ties for young people would make the area safer. 32% felt that more CCTV would make the area safer.

Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey for Hammersmith and Fulham: Quarter 3 2011/12 - Summary

80% of respondents gave a positive response to the question ‘How good a job do you think the police are doing in H&F?’. This is an increase of 21% from the same quarter last year. 68% of people believed that the police and local council ‘seek people’s views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in H&F’. A 20% increase from the same quarter last year. 71% of people believed that the police and local council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in H&F’. A 7% increase on the same quarter last year.

In the effectiveness in dealing with crime questions all crime types had seen a reduction in feelings of effectiveness apart from ‘prevents terrorism’ and ‘responds to emergencies promptly’. 78% of respondents believed that the police in H&F would treat everyone fairly, regardless of who they are. An 11% increase on the same quarter last year. 50% of respondents feel informed about what the police have been doing in H&F over the past 12 months. An decrease of 9% on last year. 36% of respondents are worried about crime in H&F. A decrease of 10% on the same quarter last year.

SA ONLINE CONSULTATION To get a fuller understanding of crime in LBHF an online Crime Consultation was held specifi-cally for the Strategic Assessment. Local peo-ple were asked for their thoughts on their ex-periences of crime, feelings of safety, and ap-proaches that would make them feel safer. We received over 250 responses and these, along with the 1100 responses on from the Annual Residents Survey have been fed into this years Strategic Assessment. In addition, specific work was also done with harder to reach groups, namely young people and community groups.

Figure 22: Respondents answers to what changes would make residents feel

safer, taken from the Online Consultation.

D R A F T


4.3- STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT PRIORITISATION MATRIX

The aim of the Prioritisation Matrix is to provide a methodical framework to scan and assess the crime and disorder types in LBHF against a set range of criteria. For each one of the set criteria, a score out of 4 is given. The scores are then added together, and sorted in descending order to produce a ranked list of crime and disorder types that should be consid-ered as a priority for H&F. The matrix is a mixture of quantitative analysis of trends and activities, as well as more subjective views on seriousness and public concern. In future, the matrix approach could be applied to more partnership activity and build in additional ele-ments such as cost and or ability to make a signifi-cant impact. Alternatively, we might consider using the matrix to assess enablers, attractors, and generators, and their ‘weighting’ and ultimately prioritise other areas in other disciplines.

Crime / Problem Type

Vo

lum

e

Perfo

rma

nc

e

Tre

nd

s

Serio

us

ne

ss

Prio

rity

Pu

blic

Co

nc

ern

Gen

era

tor

PE

ST

EL

O

To

tal

Motor Vehicle Crime 4 4 3 2 3 2 2 3 23

Personal Robbery 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 21

Violence (VAP) 4 1 1 4 4 3 2 2 21

Residential Burglary 3 1 1 3 4 3 2 3 20

Terrorism 0 2 1 4 2 3 4 4 20

Anti-social behaviour 4 1 1 2 4 3 3 1 19

Drugs 3 2 3 2 0 3 4 0 17

Domestic Abuse 2 0 1 4 3 2 1 1 14

Alcohol 4 0 2 1 0 2 4 0 13

Sexual Offences 0 1 2 4 3 2 1 0 13

Knife Crime 1 0 1 3 2 3 3 0 13

Non Residential Burglary 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 13

Fraud 1 2 1 1 0 2 3 3 13

Pedal Cycle Theft 3 1 3 0 2 0 0 3 12

Race Crime 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 0 12

Homophobic Crime 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 0 12

Gun Crime 0 0 1 4 2 2 3 0 12

Theft from shops 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 12

Other Theft 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 11

Commercial Robbery 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 3 11

Criminal Damage 3 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 9

4.4- STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR CONTROL STRATEGY

Based on the findings from sections 4.1 to 4.3 of this assessment, figure 23 summarises the crime types and themes that should be considered as priorities feeding into the 2012-15 Partnership Plan.

INTRODUCTION

RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES

Figure 23: Prioritisation Matrix.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 2012-15

Serious Acquisitive Crime Focus on: Residential Burglary;

Street Crime (Robbery and Snatch);

Motor Vehicle Crime

Violence including Domestic Violence

ASB

Drugs & Alcohol

Public Reassurance

Town Centres

Youths

Crime Type /

Theme

Offender Management

NATIONAL & LOCAL CONTEXT

PESTELO ANALYSIS


DATA MATRIX

Figure 24: Suggested Strategic Priorities for the 2012-12 Partner-

ship Plan.

D R A F T


CATEGORY THEME (Examples)

CATEGORY C Violence Against the Person

CATEGORY B Specific Licensed Venues

CATEGORY A

Drugs Alcohol

Town Centres Youths

DESCRIPTION

Short term basis requiring a policing response via the TTCG and PTG and can be connected to Category B problems.

If the problems continues over 12 weeks, then it becomes a cate-

gory B problem.

Long term problems and are people, places, or events that con-sistently make up the crime and disorder in H&F.

Drivers behind the category B problems.

At the end of FY11/12 Hammersmith and Fulham Police changed intelligence to work to a Territorial Policing (TP) wide intelligence model. A key part of that new model is the Borough Crime Picture (BCP). The BCP is series of issues that can be described as the boroughs long term crime and disorder problems as well as the causal themes behind them. These are problems that have consistently made up parts of the boroughs crime and disorder, either daily, weekly or seasonally. The long term problems are collec-tively known as category B problems.

The intelligence unit also continues to identify the short term changes in crime and disorder which re-quire a policing response via the DMM or TTCG process. These problems are known as category C problems. They can be connected to existing cate-gory B problems and if they continue to be a problem after 12 weeks then they become a category B prob-lem.

Above the category B problems sits a small number of category A themes. When analysis of these long term category B problems is complete, the drivers behind them should be identified and the most com-mon drivers and causes become known as category A themes. By making these category A themes a priority for partnerships as part of the strategic proc-ess and by working to address these causal themes then successful partnership working should see posi-tive impacts on all of the long term problems that are driven by them so crime and disorder driven by these themes should reduce.

A borough crime picture for Hammersmith & Fulham has been drafted and this year will see the BCP be-ing developed and analysed. This long term strategic analysis will then be recorded on the intelligence and tasking system and be updated regularly. This will allow the problems to be allocated to plan owners who will be responsible for the problems and co-ordinating and recording the activity carried out to

BOROUGH CRIME PICTURE

5 - ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The following chapter gives a summary of the key findings, recommendations, and intelligence gaps for each of the recommended priorities and themes. Although

In addition, there are some key analysis, charts, and graphs that have been included. Note that behind each of the priorities and themes lie an in-depth problem profile. This can be requested from the P.I.T or the B.I.U.

Figure 25: Example of the elements making up the Borough Crime Picture.

D R A F T

28 Analysis of Strategic Priorities

RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY

KEY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS INTELLIGENCE GAPS

• There has been a 13% reduction when

comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• Burglary accounts for 7% of the total

crime in H&F for 2011-12.

• There were on average 4.4 burglaries a

day in 2011-12.

• Artifice and aggravated type burglaries

are rare on the borough, with 97% of the offences being a standard breaking and entering. Attempted burglaries ac-counted for 22% of the standard of-

fences.

• Peak geographical areas in 2011-12

were similar to the boroughs long term burglary areas.

• West Kensington, Addison, Sands End,

and across the Fulham area accounted for roughly a third of all the burglaries in H&F.

• Multi-occupancy buildings that are either

purpose built or converted were com-monly targeted, as were terraced prop-erties.

• Doors are targeted more than windows,

with 14% shown as insecure.

• Nearly 80% of offences feature a front

approach, largely from ground level. It is more difficult to measure more spe-cific MOs used.

• Offences peaked on Fridays, with the

start of the week also reporting high numbers.

• Offences were more likely to occur be-

tween 12:00-17:59. A lesser peak can be seen between 02:00-03:59.

• Offenders are targeting small, portable

items which have some value and can be easily converted into cash via a han-dling market.

• Property recovery was rare. Bags and

purses which were stolen were generally searched and then dumped.

• Suspects were generally young IC1 or

IC3 males who reside on the borough with unemployment a factor in their lives.

• 32% of the 267 drug tests in 2011 for

those arrested for burglary tested posi-tive. 10% tested positive for both (cocaine & opiates), 7% for opiates, and 15% for cocaine.

• Targeting the weeks in 2012-13 that

reported a high number of crimes in 2011-12.

• Historically, the winter months show a

high number of crimes. This trend did not occur in 2011-12, however, plans should be in place should this occur in 2012-13.

• Long term and short term burglary areas

are relatively consistent in the borough. Further analysis to understand these areas should be carried out as part of the borough crime picture work. This should be a joint piece or work between the police and the local authority.

• Until the longer term analysis is com-

pleted, peak streets data should be used to inform initial directed crime preven-tion work to reduce the risk of the streets being targeted consistently more than others.

• Crime prevention work should focus on

terrace or multiple occupancy buildings

and their vulnerabilities as they make up a high proportion of the borough’s hous-ing stock and burglary venues. In addi-tion, matching of burglary venues against tenure type could give intelli-gence to better target prevention work.

• Burglary activity as a rule should be

focussed around the mid-week after-noons or early hours. However, the FIM/TTCH process should inform actions that are specific at the time.

• Handling markets are a key driver for

acquisitive crime; including burglary and targeting handling markets in a planned and intelligence led fashion can and should disrupt offending.

• Crime prevention and target hardening

can be incorporated into other streams of work such as warmer homes. This will coincide with the seasonal peak of winter.

• Seasonal trends such as a high number

of crimes in winter did not occur in 2011-12. Why was this? What are the other main factors behind seasonal trends.

• 73% of offences had no suspect descrip-

tion. Due to this, the knowledge around suspects and offenders is limited.

D R A F T


BURGLARY TRENDS

Figure 26: Long term residential burglary offences in H&F between 2000-01 to

2011-12. Red bar indicates an increase on the previous year; green bar indicates

a decrease on the previous year.

Upper Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Lower Quartile

2170

2008

2186

2074

2214 2240

2118

1947

1720

1347

1880

1630

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

9%

9% 9%

7% 7%

7%

7%

7%

9%

9%

8%

9%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

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

Total 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Burglary in a Dwelling 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Addison 87 130 128

Askew 110 118 84

Avonmore and Brook Green 77 124 106

College Park and Old Oak 89 67 73

Fulham Broadway 65 120 113

Fulham Reach 70 138 107

Hammersmith Broadway 92 102 76

Munster 79 150 128

North End 71 129 105

Palace Riverside 36 89 62

Parsons Green and Walham 88 136 121

Ravenscourt Park 104 99 107

Sands End 99 105 115

Shepherd's Bush Green 74 102 83

Town 89 140 106

Wormholt and White City 102 117 104

Figure 27: The percentage of total residential burglaries in H&F broken down by

month. The bars represents the average for the 3 years to 2011-12, with the

lines representing individual years.

Figure 28: The number of residential burglaries by ward for the 3 years to

2011-12. The colour codes represents the quartile the ward falls within when

compared against the fifteen other wards for that year.

Figure 29: Map showing the rate of residential burglaries in 2011-12 per

100,000 population by ward.

D R A F T


STREET CRIME


• There has been a 2.1% reduction in

personal robbery when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• Personal robbery accounted for 3.2% of

crime but is a risk with violence and weapons being used.

• Seasonal peaks occur in June, Septem-

ber, October, and February. Trend data as well as the victims & suspects sug-gests a link between school term and robberies.

• The Shepherd’s Bush Area was the peak

location for robbery offences in 2011-12, as it has been for the last three years.

• 34% of robbery offences occurred within

250m of an LUL station.

• Robbery offences peak on a Monday.

Otherwise, offences rose throughout the week, peaking at weekends.

• The peak times of 15:00-21:59 and

00:00-00:59 suggests that robberies are connected to the after school period and the night time economy.

• 45% of offences featured some form of

violence, and 28% featured a weapon.

• Mobiles phones were most commonly

stolen, although cash, bags, wallets, and jewellery were also commonly stolen.

• 12% of offences had multiple victims.

• Victims tended to be young IC3 males,

most of whom resided on the borough.

• Robbery offenders were most likely to

offend in groups of two or more, and offenders tended to be young IC3 males. Most resided in the borough.

• Robbery suspects being known by the

victim was not uncommon.

• The number of snatch offences have

seen a significant rise in 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• Snatch offences peaked in the winter

months, with possible links between increased hours of darkness and rises in snatch offences.

• 36% of offences occurred within 250m

of a LUL station.

• Snatch offences peak on Wednesdays

and Saturdays. In terms of time, the peak times are 13:00-13:59 and 17:00-20:59.

• Victims were marginally more likely to

be women than men. Most victims were IC1 and tended to be older, and living in the borough.

• Snatch offenders tended to work alone,

and were nearly all male. 40% of of-fences show the suspect riding a bike.

• 23% of the 109 drug tests in 2011 for

those arrested for robbery tested posi-tive. 6% tested positive for both (cocaine & opiates), 4% for opiates, and 13% for cocaine.

• Although robbery numbers are low,

there remains a level of risk around vio-lence and robbery is subject to a de-manding target for FY12/13 and should be considered one of the boroughs pri-orities for FY12/13.

• May presents the best opportunity for

reductions year on year and some form of robbery activity should occur in that month.

• Seasonally offences rise in June, Sep-

tember, October and February. There appears to be a loose connection with school term dates and combining rob-bery activity with op Protect activity is recommended.

• Around Westfields and Shepherds Bush

Green is the peak location for offences. Long term work around this area to re-duce offences should be employed.

• Around a third of all offences occurred

around an LUL station and measures to reduce offences around these locations

should be considered.

• Offending largely occurs in the after

school period, again suggesting a link in with Op Protect activity could be effec-tive.

• Around 28% of offences were weapons

enabled so other activity to combat the possession and use of weapons is rec-ommended to continue.

• Mobile phones were most commonly

stolen. Identifying handling networks, developing intelligence around them and working to disrupt them could reduce the demand for stolen phones and therefore offences, but given the nature of the item the demand for high end phones is likely to be too big to effec-tively disrupt.

• Victims and suspects were most likely to

be young male residents of the borough. Once again Op Protect activity should be considered as part of the robbery tac-tics.

• Snatch offences are less of a risk and

make up a lower volume of offences but have been rising year after year. There-fore they should be subject to some monitoring and actioning when problems emerge

• Hammersmith is the peak area and pre-

vention work and targeting should focus on this area.

• Many snatches occur to victims who

clearly take out their phones at either lunch times or after work and crime pre-vention work should focus on peoples phone use.

• In particular this should be focussed

around LUL stations where over a third of offences occur

• Seasonal trends such as a high number

of crimes in winter did not occur in 2011-12. Why was this? What are the other main factors behind seasonal trends.

D R A F T


ROBBERY TRENDS

Figure 30: Long term personal robbery offences in H&F between 2000-01 to

2011-12. Red bar indicates an increase on the previous year; green bar indicates

a decrease on the previous year.

Upper Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Lower Quartile

Figure 31: The percentage of total personal robberies in H&F broken down by

month. The bars represents the average for the 3 years to 2011-12, with the


Figure 32: The number of personal robberies by ward for the 3 years to 2011-

12. The colour codes represents the quartile the ward falls within when compared

against the fifteen other wards for that year.

Figure 33: Map showing the rate of personal robberies in 2011-12 per 100,000

population by ward.

835

12351197

1095

1340

1244

1108

804

640698

767 751

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

8% 8%9%

8%

6%

7%

10%

8%

9%

8%

9%

9%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%


Total 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Personal Robbery 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Addison 49 56 51

Askew 38 40 38






Munster 17 24 17

North End 33 29 41




Sands End 23 30 25


Town 41 25 23


D R A F T


MOTOR VEHICLE CRIME


• Theft from a MV rose by nearly 16% in

2011-12, with the proportion of overall crime it accounts for rising from 9.3% to 11.1%.

• Seasonality is not a significant factor

in MV crimes in H&F.

• The peak locations for theft from vehi-

cle offences were around North End ward and around Ravenscourt Park ward.

• Most offences occur on the streets

although there are data discrepancies here. A number of streets in these peak areas were targeted consistently more than other streets.

• The borough is an ideal area for a mo-

tor vehicle crime offender. Cars parked on the street can be easily check for property left inside, are well lit by street lighting, and can be checked to see if they are insecure without drawing excessive attention to the offender.

• A high number of offences are linked

to the leisure and retail facilities on the borough. However, the peak times and days do not reflect this, with Saturday showing low level of offences.

• Standard four wheeled family type

vehicles make up the vast majority of theft from mv offences, with the VW Golf and BMW 3-Series most com-monly targeted.

• Windows being smashed is the main

MO, however, a large number of inci-dents include open or insecure cars.

• Property being left on display is a fac-

tor in some, but not all of the of-fences, with the boot area often being opened up by offenders to steal prop-erty. All sorts of property is being stolen.

• Nearly 60% of victims lived on the

borough, with 21% residing out of the MPS.

• Most suspects acted alone, mainly

male, IC1 in appearance, and mostly between 14 to 29 years old.

• A number of named suspects were

linked to high volume of offences.

• 80% of named suspects resided in

H&F. and where recorded, 98% were unemployed.

• TDA offences generally occur over-

night, during the midweek days in residential areas. 70% of the vehicles stolen were two wheeled vehicles.

• Although the monthly spikes in crime

are not seasonally driven, they could occur again. Therefore, policing activi-ties during these periods could generate significant reductions.

• North End, and Ravenscourt Park were

the peak wards, with a number of peak streets within their boundaries. Long term crime prevention efforts should be made in these areas.

• Due to a high number of offences occur-

ring on the street, designing out crime will be difficult. Efforts to eliminate peo-ple leaving property on display, or ve-hices being left insecure should con-tinue.

• The sting car features in a number of

incidents and is clearly an effective tool for capturing offenders. Work with this asset should continue.

• TDA offences are less of a problem than

theft from offences and should be less of a priority. In addition the bulk of of-

fences are the theft of scoters and mo-peds something difficult to prevent.

• Residential areas are the main locations

for TDA offences with bikes and scooters being stolen from the street, where they are often subject to poor security, mak-ing them easy to remove.

• A small number of bikes and scooters

were stolen from pizza delivery compa-nies and they should be expected to make better efforts to secure their vehi-cles.

• There is some gap between the age of a

TDA victim and a TDA suspect, despite scooter and moped use being so com-mon amongst youths. Either youths are choosing not to report thefts, or many of the vehicles they use are stolen or known to be of dubious heritage. Careful checking of scooters and mopeds when carrying out stops of youths should be utilised.

• Feature code use is poor and there are

limitations in measuring the MO used to gain entry and whether property was left on display or not. Efforts to address data quality to improve analysis and understanding should be considered.

• Very little property is shown as recov-

ered despite so much of it appearing to have little or no worth. It may be the case that this is not being correctly re-corded, but understanding of what prop-erty has been recovered or not should be improved.

D R A F T


THEFT FROM MV TRENDS

Figure 34: Long term theft from mv offences in H&F between 2000-01 to 2011-

12. Red bar indicates an increase on the previous year; green bar indicates a

decrease on the previous year.

Upper Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Lower Quartile

Figure 35: The percentage of total theft from mv offences in H&F broken down

by month. The bars represents the average for the 3 years to 2011-12, with the


Figure 36: The number of theft from mv offences by ward for the 3 years to



Figure 37: Map showing the rate of theft from mv offences in 2011-12 per


4430

4805

4476

3379

3605

32733477

2895

21862353

2244

2600

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

8% 8%8%

8%

8%

8%

9%

10%

8%

8%8%

8%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%


Total 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Theft from MV 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Addison 170 135 135

Askew 99 156 112






Munster 163 138 159

North End 110 110 165




Sands End 112 98 136


Town 166 141 156


D R A F T


VIOLENT CRIME


• Awaiting Full Profile. • Awaiting Full Profile. • Awaiting Full Profile.

D R A F T


VAP TRENDS

Figure 38: Long term theft from mv offences in H&F between 2000-01 to 2011-

12. Red bar indicates an increase on the previous year; green bar indicates a

decrease on the previous year.

Upper Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Lower Quartile

Figure 39: The percentage of total theft from mv offences in H&F broken down

by month. The bars represents the average for the 3 years to 2011-12, with the


Figure 40: The number of theft from mv offences by ward for the 3 years to



Figure 41: Map showing the rate of theft from mv offences in 2011-12 per


4365 4283 4323 4287

4622

5041 5054 4983 49384720

4900

4345

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

8%

9% 9%9%

9%

8%8%

8%

8%

7%

8%

8%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%


Total 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

VAP 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Addison 241 241 213

Askew 289 304 248






Munster 125 144 125

North End 208 247 206




Sands End 204 228 208


Town 333 281 253


D R A F T


ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR


NOISE

• Except for the Neighbourhood Wardens,

all data sources indicate a decrease in noise incidents when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• Peak months where there is 10% more

than the annual daily average are be-tween April through to September.

CAD Noise

• In 2011-12, there was a 27% decrease

in noise calls when comparing against 2010-11.

• April 2011 was the only month which

saw an increase on the previous period.

• April 11 through to August 11 are the

peak months, with 10% more than the annual daily average of 2.10 calls.

• All wards have seen a decrease in the

number of calls when comparing 2011-

12 against 2010-11.

CAD Nuisance Neighbours

• There was a 17% decrease in calls when

comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• April and May 2011 were the only

months that saw increases in calls com-pared to the previous period at 39% and 4% respectively.

• April, June, November, and December

are the peak months with 10% more incidents than the annual daily average of 3.43 calls.

• In the months from April 2011 through

to July 2011 there were at least 10% more incidents than the annual daily average of 3.05 R/NN CAD calls. For the months December 2011 through to March 2012 there were at least 10%

less.

• Wormholt & White City (8%), and Sands

End (11%), experienced the largest in-creases.

Noise Nuisance Team

• There were 13% fewer logged calls in

2011-12 compared to 2010-11.

• Palace Riverside, and Parsons Green &

Walham are the two wards that have seen increases in calls.

• April 11 through to September 2011 are

the peak months, with 10% more than the annual daily average of 9.6 calls.

Neighbourhood Wardens

• There has been a 50% increase in the

number of noise incidents logged.

• The estates of Emlyn Gardens and Gibbs

Green saw the largest increases.

ReACT

• The number of ReACT calls has de-

creased by 10% in 2011-12 compared to 2010-11.

• NHWs are the only service to see an

increase in reports of noise nuisance. Investigation needs to be carried out to see if this is a recording issue rather than an operational one.

• Parsons Green & Walham shows a spe-

cific increase in noise from music/entertainment. Investigation should be conducted with licensing and police about any new premises opened in the last 12 months.

• What is the overall % increase or de-

crease of noise nuisance incidents year on year?

• What % is noise nuisance of the total of

all kinds of ASB across the year and how does this compare to previous years?

D R A F T



ALCOHOL

• The majority of data sources indicate a

reduction on the number of alcohol re-lated incidents recorded.

• Further analysis and key findings can be

found in section 5.6.

CAD Street Drinking

• There has been a 81% decrease in CAD

calls relating to Street Drinking when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• All months reported a decrease in the

number of calls when compared to the previous period.

CAD Rowdy Behaviour

• The number of calls decreased by 10%

when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11.

• The months which saw increases were

April 2011 (10%), May 2011 (1%), June 2011 (2%) and August 2011 (3%).

• Of the 56 day/time slots, 23% showed

an increase compared to the previous year.

• 6 of the 16 wards experienced an in-

crease, with Palace Riverside (29%), Addison (24%), and North End (24%) reporting the highest increases.

Other

• There were 28% fewer logged calls in

2011-12 compared to 2010-11.


creased by 71% in 2011-12 compared to 2010-11.

HATE INCIDENTS

Police Data

• Racist & Religious Hate Crimes have

increased from 263 in 2010-11 to 270 in 2011-12; an increase of 2.7%.

• Homophobic Crime has increased from

30 in 2010-11 to 46 in 2011-12; an in-crease of 53.3%.

ReACT

• There has been a 14% increase in Re-

ACT incidents logged when comparing 2011-12 against 2010-11

• Addison, Askew, Town, and College Park

& Old Oak each saw an increase of 100% compared to incidents logged in 2010-11.

VANDALISM


creased by 53% in 2011/12 compared to 2010/11. All months showed a decrease in incidents except for August where there was an increase of 29%.

• The number of Graffiti (Racist / Offen-

sive) incidents increase by 12% com-pared to 2010/11. April, August and December 2011 all saw an increase of 300% compared to the same period the previous year.

• The number of Graffiti (other) incidents

increase by 15% compared to 2010/11. August and December 2011 saw an in-crease of 113% and 163% respectively,

• The change in peak calls to the NHWs to

between 15:00 and 17:59 suggests school leavers. Investigation to be car-ried out by Local Authority and police to see if there is also a rise in under-age drinking on borough.

• Investigation into January 2012 reports

to be carried out by ASBU to pinpoint where these reports came from and if they are concentrated to a particular place.

• React data will mainly be on estates and

Street Scene on other roads, buildings etc. What is the approach to graffiti/vandalism used on estates compared to other areas? As React shows 53% de-crease and Street Scene 11.8% (racist/offensive) and 14.9% (other) increase.

• Investigation into January 2012 reports

to be carried out by ASBU to pinpoint where these reports came from and if they are concentrated to a particular place.

D R A F T


ASB TRENDS

CAD Data

Category 2010-11 2011-12 Change % Change

Animal Problems 442 218 -224 -51%

Begging / Vagrancy 374 362 -12 -3%

Fireworks 150 79 -71 -47%

Hoax Call to Emergency Services 230 32 -198 -86%

Littering / Drugs Paraphernalia 57 38 -19 -33%

Malicious / Nuisance Communications 672 660 -12 -2%

Noise 1045 765 -280 -27%

Prostitution Related Activity 38 18 -20 -53%

Rowdy / Nuisance Neighbours 1333 1112 -221 -17%

Rowdy or Inconsiderate Behaviour 8273 7466 -807 -10%

Street Drinking 476 89 -387 -81%

Substance Misuse 1457 1272 -185 -13%

Trespass 167 150 -17 -10%

Veh Abandoned - Not Stolen 269 189 -80 -30%

Veh Nuisance / Inappropriate Use 421 522 101 24%

Anim

al P

roble

ms

Beggin

g / V

agra

ncy

Fire

work

s

Hoax C

all to

Em

erg

ency S

erv

ices

Litte

ring / D

rugs P

ara

phern

alia

Malic

ious / N

uis

ance C

om

muni-

catio

ns

Nois

e

Pro

stitu

tion R

ela

ted A

ctiv

ity

Row

dy / N

uis

ance N

eig

hbours

Row

dy o

r Inconsid

era

te B

ehav-

iour

Stre

et D

rinkin

g

Substa

nce M

isuse

Tre

spass

Veh A

bandoned - N

ot S

tole

n

Veh N

uis

ance / In

appro

pria

te

Use

Addison 13 22 6 0 2 13 52 0 68 393 6 71 14 11 16

Askew 11 18 1 0 6 35 40 1 106 482 2 93 12 11 22

Avonmore & Brook Green 14 18 5 5 0 55 53 2 78 418 7 73 12 14 27

College Park & Old Oak 18 10 3 0 5 34 27 0 44 297 5 39 5 10 30

Fulham Broadway 18 5 8 0 1 26 56 3 68 584 10 95 6 6 48

Fulham Reach 16 15 0 15 2 153 46 2 48 384 0 70 0 11 25

Hammersmith Broadway 15 92 3 1 1 54 50 0 79 924 14 108 15 23 52

Munster 8 1 5 0 1 24 34 0 50 202 2 31 0 5 17

North End 5 16 5 2 2 33 51 4 67 451 6 168 6 15 30

Palace Riverside 5 15 0 1 2 19 21 0 41 212 8 21 6 8 33

Parsons Green & Walham 11 26 7 1 3 20 46 1 39 389 2 60 10 15 41

Ravenscourt Park 17 37 5 0 4 24 47 0 64 535 9 79 11 10 46

Sands End 12 5 9 2 2 45 42 0 84 277 0 40 20 14 32

Shepherds Bush Green 21 57 5 4 3 49 58 3 74 988 14 129 15 12 31

Town 5 8 3 0 2 19 62 2 60 259 3 33 5 3 23

Wormholt & White City 19 7 12 1 1 39 50 0 105 439 0 128 4 10 23

Worst Quartile Second Worst Quartile Second Best Quartile Best Quartile

Figure 42: LBHF ASB related CAD calls in 2010-11

and 2011-12.

Figure 43: LBHF ASB related CAD calls in 2011-12

broken down by ward and quartile.

D R A F T


Animal Problems

Lit tering / Drugs

Paraphernalia

Noise

Rowdy / Nuisance

Neighbours

Rowdy or Inconsiderate

Behaviour

Street Drinking

Substance M isuse

-100.00%

-50.00%

0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

150.00%

200.00%

250.00%

300.00%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

7922 7915

7721

8074

7022

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

7600

7800

8000

8200

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Noise Data

Apr09 - Mar10

Apr10 - Mar11

Apr11 - Mar12

Grand To-tal

Total 1571 1254 1025 3850

ReAct Data

Figure 44: Long term trend of LBHF ASB

related CAD calls when using 2007-08 as a

base.

Figure 45: 5 year trend of incidents reported to the LBHF Noise Nuisance

Team.

Figure 46: Count of incidents reported to the LBHF Noise Nuisance Team

in 2011-12 by Ward.

Figure 47: Total number of incidents logged on LBHF ReAct ASB database.

D R A F T


DRUGS


• The estimated number of Problematic

Drug Users (PDU - Crack and/or Opi-ates) taken from the ‘Glasgow Esti-mates’ has decreased from 2058 in 2008-09 to 1443 in 2009-10. Although many of the London Boroughs have also seen a decrease, the reduction in H&F in one of the highest.

• It is estimated that 48% of the PDU

population in H&F are not known to treatment services.

• Around 45% of clients starting treat-

ment in 2010-11 were new clients.

• Mapping out the location of where those

accessing treatment services live, show a high density in the north of the bor-ough for Heroin and/or Crack users. Cocaine, and Cannabis users are more evenly dispersed across the borough.

• H&F received on average 9.3 referrals

per month from prison substance misuse teams. The average pick up rate is 35%.

• 93% of clients leaving treatment in a

planned way do not re-present back at treatment (based on a 6 month calcula-tion).

• Treatment Outcome Profile analysis

shows that offending behaviour de-creases the longer a client has been in treatment.

• H&F has one of the highest drug related

death rates in London. In addition, the borough also has the second highest rate for drug related mental health and behavioural disorders, and the highest rates of drug poisoning hospital admis-sions in London.

• The rate of those testing negative fol-

lowing arrest of a trigger offence has increased from 57% in 2007 to 70% in 2011.

• Those testing positive for Opiate has

seen a steady decrease from 19% in 2008 to 9% in 2011. Cocaine rates de-creased from 24% in 2008 to 10% in 2010. 2011 reported a rate of 15%

• H&F shows a high correlation of positive

drug tests to drug purities of police force

seizures.

• 32% of those arrested for burglary test

positive for Opiates and/or Cocaine. This compares to 23% for Robbery, and 28% for Theft.

• There were 1586 drug offences in 2011-

12 compared to 1845 in 2010-11.

• 62% of those on the probation caseload

for burglary regard drug misuse as a factor in their offending. This compares to 61% for robbery, 43% for theft, and 34% for violence.

• There are an estimated 168 individuals

on the caseload that were recorded as a parent, involving 302 children.

• Although the Glasgow University Esti-

mates are generally well received, more emphasis and development on local in-telligence is needed.

• In addition to the work carried out by

the DAAT, it is recommended that pro-viders carry greater responsibility to target the treatment naïve population.

• Ensuring that clients referred from

prison substance misuse services are effectively ‘picked up’ by the H&F Crimi-nal Justice Intervention Team.

• Further investigation is needed, possibly

through the Joint Strategic Needs As-sessment, for the reasons behind the high rates of drug related hospital ad-missions, and drug related deaths. Fur-ther actions are then required to address this.

• Analysis show that a high rate of those

using drugs are not testing positive fol-lowing an arrest for a trigger offence. Actions should be taken to target those

known to be using drugs that are testing negative.

• Due to the numbers involved, and the

high level of harm, parents with sub-stance misuse should be considered as an element for wider work and strate-gies such as the Trouble Families pro-ject / Community Budgets.

• 42% of respondents from the 2011 An-

nual Residents Survey feel that people using or dealing drugs is a problem in their local area. This is an increase from 32% in 2010. Plans should be drawn up to address this problem.

• A communication strategy should be

developed to address the concerns of residents.

• Although the Glasgow University Esti-

mates are generally well received, local intelligence still remains a gap in terms of identifying the local picture

• What has caused the rise in residents

feeling that people using or dealing drugs in their local area is a problem.

D R A F T


DRUG TRENDS

Figure 48: Long term drug offences in H&F between 2000-01 to 2011-12. Red

bar indicates an increase on the previous year; green bar indicates a decrease on

the previous year.

Upper Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Lower Quartile

Figure 49: The percentage of total drug offences in H&F broken down by month.

The bars represents the average for the 3 years to 2011-12, with the lines repre-

senting individual years.

Figure 50: The number of drug offences by ward for the 3 years to 2011-12.

The colour codes represents the quartile the ward falls within when compared

against the fifteen other wards for that year.

Figure 51: Map showing the rate of drug offences in 2011-12 per 100,000

population by ward.

712

884

1160 1165

872914

1390

1983

2196

1882 1845

1586

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

9% 9%

8%

10%

9% 9%

8%8%

8%

8%

6%

8%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%


Total 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Drug Offences 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Addison 120 112 92

Askew 133 130 86






Munster 25 23 26

North End 132 91 106




Sands End 46 30 40


Town 78 61 64


D R A F T


0%

2%

0% 0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

5-26 Weeks 27-52 Weeks 1-4 Years 4+ Years

H&F Nat ional

17%

19%

13% 12%

9%

4% 4%

8%8%

5%

22%24%

12%10%

15%

43%

48%

34%

30% 30%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Both (Cocaine & Opiates) Opiates Cocaine Total

32%

44%

15%

30%29%

23%

29%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Burglary Drugs Fraud Non-

Trigger

Other Robbery Theft

2198

342

690

1166

1405 1385

202

410

773

507

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

PDU 15-

64

PDU 15-

24

PDU 25-

34

PDU 35-

64

Crack Opiates Opiates

15-24

Opiates

25-34

Opiates

35-64

Inject ing

Figure 52: Estimated number of drug

users - 3 year average.

5%

8%

4%

2%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

5-26 Weeks 27-52 Weeks 1-4 Years 4+ Years

H&F Nat ional

Shoplifting Other Theft

DRUG TESTING AFTER ARREST

ESTIMATED DRUG POPULATION IN H&F

Figure 53: Percentage of positive drug

tests by drug type and year in H&F.

Figure 54: Percentage of positive drug

tests by offence in H&F.

TREATMENT OUTCOME PROFILE

This section looks at TOP reviews during 2010-11,

broken down to how long after the treatment start

the review was carried out.

The rates show the percentage of all the TOP reviews

where the client answered ‘Yes’ to for the different

crime type.

Figure 55 Figure 56

D R A F T


0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 61: Actual rate in 2010/11 per 100,000 population (15-64 age) of NHS

hospital admissions where a primary diagnosis of poisoning by drugs, by Primary

Care Trust.

Figure 60: Actual rate in 2010/11 per 100,000 population (15-64 age) of NHS

hospital admissions where there was a primary or secondary diagnosis of drug

related mental health and behavioural disorders, by Primary Care Trust.

HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS

AMBULANCE CALLS DRUG RELATED DEATHS

Figure 57: Drug related

calls to the London Ambu-

lance Service in 2011– count by census output

area.

Figure 58: Drug related deaths by area of residence, per 100,000 population

ranked against other London Boroughs.

Figure 59: Drug related deaths by place of death, per 100,000 population

ranked against other London Boroughs.

D R A F T


ALCOHOL


• There are an estimated 16,548 higher

risk drinkers in LBHF.

• Previously, LBHF had the highest rates

of increasing risk and higher risk drink-ing in London. LBHF now has the 7th lowest in London.

• LBHF has moved from having the 5th

highest binge drinking rates in London to now the 7th.

• LBHF has the highest rates of alcohol

specific hospital admissions for London

(2009-10).

• In the 12 months between December

2010 to November 2011, almost 7% of ambulance call outs in LBHF were alco-hol related. This is the third highest rate in London behind Westminster, and Camden.

• Crime data shows that LBHF have some

of the highest rates in London for alco-hol attributable crime.

• For the year 2010-11, LBHF had the 5th

highest rates in London for alcohol at-tributable violent crime, and the 5th highest rates for alcohol attributable crime in general.

• Instances of ASB peaks between 00:00

and 01:00—almost double the number recorded between 21:00 and 22:00.

• Police data show that 36 licensed prem-

ises accounted for 1095 incidents be-tween 2007 and 2011.

• Two of the licensed premises accounted

for 57% of the 1095 incidents reported above.

• Incidents include the following: bag

snatches, possession of drugs, drug traf-ficking, common assault, theft, pick pocketing, violence, harassment, and sexual offences.

• The SNT reported that there had been

an increase by 21% of notifiable of-fences in 2010/11 which have been linked with the night time economy.

• Users of on-licensed premises often mi-

grated to premises who offered late night refreshments which meant that the safe and quiet dispersal of these groups was made more difficult.

• The Trading Standards Team reported

that from 107 premises visited in the area, nearly 30% failed test purchase sales of age restricted products such as alcohol and cigarettes.

• Waste and Street Services reported that

the cleaning problems associated with the area were urination, vomiting, and staining of pavement.

• High levels of littering and public urina-

tion were the top two types of anti social behaviour reported by residents.

• More work needs to be done with the

Town Centre Management Teams to try and reduce the numbers of alcohol re-lated ambulance calls.

• The Substance Misuse Team to discuss

with Licensing on better town centre management of premises in selling / addressing risky behaviour.

• Alcohol initiatives such as the ‘alcohol

use scratch card’ in custody suites to be better analysed.

• New ways to engage criminal justice

alcohol users should be tried. There is emerging research regarding the use of Identification and Brief Advice in this area.

• A communication strategy should be

developed to address the concern of residents.

• Business / Town Centre Management

representation at CDRP.

The following recommendations are taken from the LBHF Alcohol Licensing Strat-egy for 2011-2013:

A: Building an Evidence Base:

Aim: Using complaints, crime, and other data to develop an accurate picture of key licensing issues across the borough.

Objectives: (1)Adopt a systematic approach

to identify problems and issues. (2)Improve intelligence through accurate infor-mation collection.

Why: See licensing strategy for full details.

How: See licensing strategy for the full list of proposed actions..

B: Providing Advice and Education:

Aim: To empower key partners and stake-holders to utilise the powers available to them under the Licensing Act 2003 and as-sociated legislation.

Objectives: (1)Increase clarity amongst members of the community about the dif-ferent functions of Responsible Authorities. (2)Use legislation and readily available, up-to-date guidance to ensure that we have knowledgeable and skilled officers working in accordance with best practice. (3)Improve perception of safety and reduce the ‘fear of crime’ through active and accu-rate engagement with the news media and other sources.



• Those attending A&E for alcohol related

injury / incidents still remain a large intelligence gap.

• Alcohol, and licensing incidents are re-

ported across a number of different sys-tems with different degrees of accuracy.

• Alcohol consumption, particularly at

home still remains an intelligence gap.

• It is still not fully understood why alco-

hol related harm in LBHF are at such a high level.

D R A F T



• Environment Protection Team statistics

for the Shepherd’s Bush study illustrated that between 2005 to 2010, they re-ceived on average 70 complaints, and conducted 40 inspections a year at li-censed premises in the area.

• Alcohol is a major contributing factor

when looking as probation data. Be-tween January 2010 and September 2011, 35% of people of the probation caseload said their alcohol use was linked to their offending. This is the highest rate in Inner London.

• LBHF has the 5th highest rate of li-

censed premises, and the 8th highest rates of premises with 24hour opening in Inner London.

• More males than females find people

being drunk in public places a problem. In addition, 35-54 year olds are more likely to find it a problem.

• More people in the north of the borough

find people being drunk in public places

a problem.

• Between 2009-10 and 2010-11, the

number of those accessing treatment in LBHF has dropped by 33%. This is in contrast to the Inner London picture (excluding H&F) where the rate has in-creased by 5%.

• In 2010-11, the number of clients in

treatment was 353. This is down from the 518 figure reported for 2009-10.

• 80% of Supporting People clients with

alcohol problems had an identified need of maximising income.

• Across the two sites of Charing Cross

Hospital, and Hammersmith Hospital, there were a total of 906 unique indi-viduals with an appointment arranged in 2010-11 to see the alcohol nurse.

C: Regulation and Enforcement

Aim: To use the four licensing objectives and the full range of enforcement options/sanctions to increase the level of compli-ance within licensed premise across the borough.

Objectives: (1)Use early interventions for minor offences to help bring about positive

outcomes for the community by promoting the four licensing objectives. (2)To target those licensed premises that choose to breach their licence conditions and fail to uphold the licensing objectives.



D: Improving Public Health

Aim: Working in partnership to reduce the negative affect of alcohol on public health within the borough.

Objectives: (1)Make it difficult for under eighteens to purchase alcohol in the bor-ough. (2)Promote the benefits of sensible drinking and reducing alcohol intake. (3)Reduce the dependency on alcohol. (4)Improve the health of children and future generations. (5)Reduce the likelihood of drug use on licensed premises.



D R A F T


0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Richmond upon Thames

Sutton

M erton

Barnet

Havering

Enf ield

Redbridge

Hillingdon

Greenwich

Camden

Lewisham

Barking and Dagenham

Southwark

Lambeth

Hammersmith and Fulham

Newham

City of London

Figure 62: Recorded crime attrib-

utable to alcohol: Persons, all ages,

crude rate per 1000 population (20010/11)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00


Barnet

Bexley

Harrow

Redbridge

Havering

Kensington and Chelsea

Hillingdon

Greenwich

Waltham Forest


Lewisham

Southwark

Hackney


Islington

City of London

Figure 63: Recorded violent crime

attributable to alcohol: Persons, all

ages, crude rate per 1000 popula-tion (20010/11)

Figure 63 overlays the premises' in Hammersmith and Fulham that have an alcohol licence (including public houses, restaurants, off licences, supermar-kets, clubs, and news agents). It also overlays the police CAD data for rowdy behaviour. In Shepherds Bush and Hammersmith town centres there are high rates of CAD calls and also a high density of li-censed premises. The same is true in Fulham Broadway but there are a lower number of CAD calls.

Figure 64: Count of Rowdy Be-

haviour CAD Calls in 2011 by 250m

grid square overlaid by licensed premises.

D R A F T


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

H&F

Median

Upper Quartile

Lower Quartile

ALCOHOL RELATED HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS - NI39

Dots represents other London Boroughs.

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00

Islington

Enf ield

Barnet

Havering

City of London

M erton

Croydon



Hillingdon

Waltham Forest

Tower Hamlets

Wandsworth

Ealing

Camden

Hackney


0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00

City of London

Enf ield

Barnet

Brent



Newham

M erton

Sutton

Greenwich

Bromley

Waltham Forest

Hounslow


Lambeth

Camden


Figure 66: Admitted to hospital

with alcohol specific conditions:

Males, all ages, DSR per 100000 population (2009/10)

Figure 67: Admitted to hospital

with alcohol specific conditions:

Females, all ages, DSR per 100000 population (2009/10)

Rate

of Alc

ohol Adm

issio

ns p

er

100,0

00

Figure 65: Historical trend of

LBHF performance against other

London boroughs for alcohol related hospital admissions.

D R A F T


PUBLIC REASSURANCE


• See Page x • Consideration is given to re-scheduling

of the planning cycle between the local authority and local police to ensure that the priorities that arise from the strate-gic assessment feed into major docu-ments and plans such as the Corporate Plan and Communications Strategies.

• A better use of local intelligence and

insight to inform the targeting of com-munication campaigns across the part-nership.

• The Annual Residents Survey is contin-

ued with expanded questions around what would make people feel safer. Con-sideration is given to a widened sample base to allow for more robust, local, and statistically significant local data (at ward level for example).

• Reconsider the use of online consultation

applications given the lack of success in this Assessment. Consider a wider use of the “My Account” functionality held within LBHF to target communications and consultations.

• A rolling programme of consultation be

developed across the year to feed in to next year’s Assessment.

• The borough commits to an ongoing

Annual Business Survey to assess per-ceptions of local business crime, and the impacts of crime on doing business in the borough.

• Possible communications representation

at CDRP.

TOWN CENTRES


YOUTHS


A FULL PROFILE IS BEING DEVELOPED BY THE B.I.U. AND THE P.I.T. AS PART OF THE BOROUGH CRIME PICTURE WORK - SEE PAGE 24.

A FULL PROFILE IS BEING DEVELOPED BY THE B.I.U. AND THE P.I.T. AS PART OF THE BOROUGH CRIME PICTURE WORK - SEE PAGE 24.

D R A F T


DEFINITION • A proven re-offence is defined as any of-

fence committed in a one year follow up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.

• Further information can be found at http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending

OFFENDERS

For this strategic assessment cycle, we are develop-ing an offender profile. By linking in data, informa-tion, and knowledge from across the partnership, we will be able to build up a rich picture of the offending population in H&F. The profile will include the I.O.M cohort which will be a key area of work for the partnership.

The profile is still in development, and is due for completion in June 2012. However, below shows some key findings from the initial analysis.

PROVEN RE-OFFENDING RATES

Adult

Offenders

Juvenile

Offenders

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Dec-0

5

Apr-

06

Aug-0

6

Dec-0

6

Apr-

07

Aug-0

7

Dec-0

7

Apr-

08

Aug-0

8

Dec-0

8

Apr-

09

Aug-0

9

Dec-0

9

Apr-

10

Proportion of Offenders who Re-Offend

The latest available data shows that at 29.4%, LBHF has the third highest rate in London for offenders (adult and juvenile offenders combined) who re-offend. For both adult offenders and juvenile offenders, LBHF ranks in the top three highest boroughs in Lon-don for the latest available data. Whilst the rate of re-offending for adults has re-mained constant over the last few years, the rate for juvenile offenders has seen a large increase.

Figure 68: Proportion of offenders who re-offend. LBHF com-

parison against other London boroughs. Data for those that

received some form of criminal justice sanction in the 12 months to June 10 that went on to commit another offence in the set time

period. Light blue bars highlights Most Similar Groups as classi-

fied by iQuanta.

Figure 69: Proportion of offenders who re-offend. LBHF com-

parison between the 12 months to Dec 2005 to the 12 months to

Jun 2010. Data for those that received some form of criminal justice sanction in the 12 months to period 10 that went on to

commit another offence in the set time period.

Barn

et

Hillin

gdon

Wandsw

ort

h

Cro

ydon

Lam

beth

Hackney

RB

KC

South

wark

Islin

gto

n

LB

HF

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

D R A F T


Average Number of Re-Offences per Offender

Adult

Offenders

Juvenile

Offenders

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Dec-0

5

Apr-

06

Aug-0

6

Dec-0

6

Apr-

07

Aug-0

7

Dec-0

7

Apr-

08

Aug-0

8

Dec-0

8

Apr-

09

Aug-0

9

Dec-0

9

Apr-

10

For the base timeframe of July 2009 to June 2010, LBHF had an average number of re-offences per offender of 2.83 in the follow up period. Although this is the 5th highest rate in London, the range be-tween the boroughs being low. The average number of re-offences for juvenile of-fenders follows a similar patter to the proportion of juvenile offenders that re-offend. For the 12 months to December 2008, the average number of re-offences in the follow up period was 2.4. This gradu-ally rose to 2.9 for the latest period of June 2010.

During the same period that saw an increase in the average number of juvenile re-offences, the average number of re-offences for adult offenders decreased. Due to this trend, the average number of re-offences for the two separate cohorts were similar for the lat-est period of June 2010. Previously, the average re-offences per offender for adult offenders would gen-erally be higher than that for juvenile offenders.

Figure 70: Average number of re-offences. LBHF comparison against other London

boroughs. Data for those that received some form of criminal justice sanction in the 12

months to June 10 that went on to commit another offence in the set time period. Light blue bars highlights Most Similar Groups as classified by iQuanta.

Figure 71: Average number of re-offences. LBHF comparison between the 12

months to Dec 2005 to the 12 months to Jun 2010. Data for those that received

some form of criminal justice sanction in the 12 months to period 10 that went on to commit another offence in the set time period.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Theft fro

m M

V

Theft o

f M

V

Theft fro

m S

hops

Pers

onal R

obbery

Resid

entia

l Burg

lary

Assault

with

Inju

ry

Com

mon A

ssault

Hara

ssm

ent

Serious W

oundin

g

a=121 b =18

a=117 b =18

a=1115 b =147

a=218 b =34

a=158 b =26

a=491 b =94

a=662 b =126

a=934 b =161

a=101 b =20

a=total number of crimes with accused b=top 20% accused

Figure 72: The % of the total crimes (where accused was known) attributable to

the top 20% of the accused in the crime category.

POLICE ACCUSED DATA

Crimes by Top 20%

A high % of theft crimes such as Theft from MV, Theft of MV, and Theft from Shops were attributable to the top 20% of the accused. For example, 42% of the Theft from MV crimes where the accused were known were attributable by only 20% of the accused. Violent crimes such as Assault with Injury, Common Assault, and Serious Wounding have lower rates. This would suggest that by concentrating resources of the top 20% of the accused, crimes would reduce by a higher proportion for theft crimes than violent crimes.

Barn

et

South

wark

Hillin

gdon

Hackney

RB

KC

Wandsw

ort

h

Lam

beth

LB

HF

Cro

ydon

Islin

gto

n

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

D R A F T


8%

19%

27%

30%

31%

35%

35%

36%

38%

40%

41%

42%

44%

45%

49%

50%

51%

53%

54%

54%

54%

55%

55%

56%

56%

58%

59%

62%

62%

62%

65%

66%

66%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Picking Pockets, etc

Business Property

Other Fraud & Forgery

Counted per Victim

Other Theft

Burglary in Other Buildings

Theft From Shops

Going Equipped

Other Notifiable

Burglary in a Dwelling

Other Sexual

Theft From M /V

Criminal Damage To Other B ldg

Harassment

Other Criminal Damage

Rape

Criminal Damage To M /V

Other Violence

Snatches

Theft/Taking of Pedal Cycles

Offensive Weapon

Possession Of Drugs

Theft/Taking of M /V

Others - Other Accepted Crime

Arson

Serious Wounding

Personal Property

Common Assault

Other Drug Offences

Assault with Injury

Drug Trafficking

Handling Stolen Goods

Criminal Damage To a Dwelling

M /V Interference & Tampering n=22

n=271

n=292

n=574

n=786

n=55

n=1075

n=371

n=175

n=16

n=425

n=211

n=4779

n=377

n=141

n=65

n=407

n=171

n=40

n=188

n=2072

n=140

n=289

n=105

n=398

n=941

n=138

n=3141

n=266

n=766

n=349

n=334

n=85

n=66

H&F Perpetrators

The table on the right shows of the crimes where the accused was known, what percentage had a home address within the borough. Of the Serious Acquisitive Crimes, Personal Robbery has the highest rates of those accused living in the borough at 59%. Only 42% of the accused for Theft from a MV had an address within the borough. Other Theft, and Theft from Shops which account for a high percentage of the total crime also have low rates at 31% and 35% respectively.

INTEGRATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT (IOM)

Key Points

Below are some key points from the initial analysis of the IOM cohort: • 95 individuals on the IOM caseload as at the end of August 2011. • For the 24 months to August 2011, the cohort were arrested for approximately 380 crimes. • The majority of individuals were arrested for 1-3, and 4-6 crimes in the same period. • 58 of the individuals were arrested for a Theft and Handling Offence. • Drugs, and Violence also had a high percentage of the cohort arrested. • Crime types where the cohort accounted for a high percentage of crimes include Burglary (4.4% of ac-

cused, 9.2% of crimes), Robbery (4.3% of accused, 11.0% of crimes), and Theft (2.3% of accused, 7.3% of crimes).

• The cohort were drug tested 229 times for the 24 months to August 2011, of which, 63% were positive. • Only 24 individuals had negative results for all the tests in the period. • More information in the Offender Profile.

Figure 73: The % of the crimes where the

accused was recorded with an address in LBHF.

% shows of the crimes where the accused was known.

D R A F T

52 Appendix

Apr-11

APPENDIX

May-11

Jun-11

Jul-11

Aug-11

Sep-11

Acquisitive crime initiative saw over 250 Chelsea clips

distributed to licensed premises.

Joint operation between StreetScene Enforcement

and the Met Police targeting DVD sellers trading ille-

gally.

Hate Crime Officers along with the Met’s Community

Safety Unit set up and delivered the Disability Keep

Safe Scheme.

An information event promoting International Day

Against Homophobia was promoted in Lyric Square.

Multi agency meeting held to address the issue of low

level ASB from youths in SW6. Actions includes out-

reach work by Chelsea FC and P2P, and diversionary

activities.

Following reports on attacks on the Somali commu-

nity ASBC held a successful meeting at Old Oak Com-

munity Centre to meet with community members

along with police and partners. One positive outcome was the setting up of a new 3rd party reporting centre

at the Community Centre.

OPERATION TARGET – The Neighbourhood Wardens

worked with the Police on a week-long high profile

operation in Shepherd Bush dealing with multiple

Anti Social Behaviour issues.

Joint Action Week - Street Scene Enforcement par-

ticipated in the Boroughs joint action week by partici-

pating in a road stop examining and serving notices

on a number of vehicles for carrying illegal waste.

Officers from the CSU visited all 22 sheltered accom-

modation locations in the borough managed by H&F

Homes in order to carry out a security review for the

sheltered accommodation consultative panel.

A Closure Order was granted at West London Magis-

trates Court following ASBU and police information

that lead to a raid on a W6 property that had been

causing serious ASB and drug related nuisance for some months. Possession was applied for and

granted at a later date.

Oct-11

Nov-11

Dec-11

Jan-12

Feb-12

Ongoing

3 officers from the Parks Constabulary assisted the

Met Police on the Junior Citizens Project for a week in

October.

The Parks Constabulary were involved in a number of

operations, including a joint anti-knife crime opera-

tion with the police, a BARK patrol with police and

council partners, and a joint school education visit with police.

ASBC’s became aware of a drug dealing issue on a

W14 estate. Police identified 5 properties in the local-

ity, which they hoped to execute warrants on. They

also advised that several known individuals are to be targeted along with the addresses. The Council

worked with police and offered assistance with police

operations.

Two Neighbourhood Wardens delivered a presenta-

tion to a well attended women’s’ group at the Sikh

Temple. The theme was around personal safety and

crime prevention. The feedback was very positive, and the wardens plan to build on this new partner-

ship.

Street Scene Enforcement Officers took part in a road

stop with the police aimed at stopping fly tipping at

source. As a result 5 individuals were served with a

notice and 1 with a fixed penalty notice.

Neighbourhood Wardens reached out to residents on

a well known estate through calling on all 167 flats

and holding a residents meeting. Overall most resi-

dents were satisfied with how things are, however, a minority reported various ASB issues which the war-

dens will work to resolve.

The wardens will continue to proactively targeted

rough sleeper hotspots. They ensured, amongst other

outcomes that rough sleepers were signposted to

services. Over 150 interactions were recorded over the year and the borough was recognised as the

highest performing in London.

Community Payback - LBHF continues to deliver a

robust weekly Community Payback Programme in

partnership with the London Probation Trust and the

Met Police. Throughout 2012 the Community Payback programme will continue on a weekly basis and plans

are already underway to perform work improving

local parks.

Dog Micro chipping Programme - with the assistance

of the Dogs Trust the Parks Constabulary has devel-

oped a free dog micro chipping programme which is

delivered to local residents in parks throughout the borough.

i) Partnership Activitiy

D R A F T

53 Appendix

Dec

11

Jan 12

Feb

12

Mar 12

Apr 12

May

12

Jun 12

Jul 1

2 Aug 12

Sep

12

Oct 12

Nov 12

Dec

12

Jan 13

Feb

13

Mar 13

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

ACTION PLANNING

MONITORING / DELIVERY

Dec

11

Jan 12

Feb

12

Mar 12

Apr 12

May

12

Jun 12

Jul 1

2 Aug 12

Sep

12

Oct 12

Nov 12

Dec

12

Jan 13

Feb

13

Mar 13

CONSULTATIONS

DATA COLLECTION

ANALYSIS

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

SIGN-OFF

STRATEGIC

ASSESS-

MENT

PROBLEM PROFILES

INDIVIDUAL ACTION PLANS

H&F PARTNERSHIP PLAN

SIGN-OFF

PARTNER-

SHIP

PLAN

CONTINUOUS M

ONITORING

THROUGH

STRATEGIC GROUP

&

PARTNERS TASKING GROUP

CDRP TO

REVIEW

PERFORM-

ANCE

&

DELIVERY

REFRESH STRATEGIC

ASSESSMENT

ii) S

TRATEGIC ASSESSMENT PROCESS

D R A F T

54

iii) Glossary

ARS - Annual Residents Survey ASB - Anti Social Behaviour ASBC - Anti Social Behaviour Contract ASBU - Anti Social Behaviour Unit BARK - Borough Action for Responsible K9s BIU - Borough Intelligence Unit BTP - British Transport Police CSU - Community Safety Unit FIM - Fortnightly Intelligence Meeting Identity Codes (IC)

• IC1 – White person, northern European type

• IC2 – Mediterranean European/Hispanic

• IC3 – African/Afro-Caribbean person

• IC4 – Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Maldivian, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, or any other (South) Asian person

• IC5 – Chinese, Japanese, or South-East Asian person

• IC6 – Arab person

• IC0 – Origin unknown JSA - Job Seekers Allowance IMD - Index of Multiple Deprivation IOM - Integrated Offender Management LBHF - London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham LFB - London Fire Brigade P.I.T - Performance and Information Team TDA - Taking and Driving Away TFL - Transport For London

END

Documents

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT (DRAFT) 2012--1515 - LBHFdemocracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s20431/Appendix 1 - Community... · strategic assessment (draft) ,ppenjix8t. d r a f t contents 2 contents