Building Strong Communities

Dear Commissioners,

Please find enclosed the evidence pack for ‘Building Strong Communities’, which is due to take place on 21 July, 6-9.30pm in Redbridge Central Library.

This month’s evidence pack includes:

• An overview of the work of the Community Safety Partnership • An overview of crime and ASB in Redbridge • Age Concern Door Step Crime Report • British Crime Survey 2015 • Unit costs of crime used in Integrated Offender Management VfM toolkit • Outreach Advocacy and Case Study • Homerton University Hospital Needs Assessment • Strategy Overview • Overview of Community Cohesion • RECC report for Building Strong Communities • Cumulative submissions received from the Call for Evidence • The results of consultation with relevant community groups and frontline staff. • Outcomes of the Open meetings • Outcomes of the Schools’ Fairness Conference Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries or concerns, and I look forward to meeting with you next Tuesday.

Best regards,

Jon Owen Executive Policy Officer

1

Fairness Commission: Building Strong Communities Evidence Pack

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Executive Summary Community Safety Overview

The evidence pack details the work of the Community Safety Partnership. It also highlights the challenges and the areas where service provision could be strengthened or delivered differently. The evidence pack is divided into a number of interrelated areas of activity or priority. Each area details the work that is undertaken, the challenges and the potential gaps in service provision. The sections are as follows:

• Community Service Overview • Crime Overview; • Emerging issues; • Partnership working; • Health and Well Being; and • Areas of particular interest.

Section 1: Community Safety Service Overview:

1.1 The Community Safety Service sits within the Environment and Community Services cluster along with other service areas that have interlinked priorities. The objectives of the Service are achieved through operational delivery, strategic planning, and commissioning and policy development with key partners. These include carrying out enforcement of statutory requirements, providing advice, information and direct service provision to meet local priorities for the Council.

1.2 To meet the key themes and ensure Community Safety is aligned with the Corporate Strategy, the following objectives have been set:

• To reduce crime and anti-social behaviour; • To improve the quality of life of residents through the provision of effective regulatory and enforcement services; • To develop effective services for victims and to reduce repeat victimisation; • To implement new legislation; • To develop and implement a Service Area Transformation Strategy;

1.3 Community Safety offers a wide range of services to people who live in, work in and visit Redbridge. Service customers are potentially everyone who lives in, works in or visits the borough.

1.4 The Equality Framework represents the Council's undertaking to the Borough's residents, our partners and our employees to take positive steps to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good community relations. The Community Safety Service works to the equality framework.

Page | 2

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Current Service Provision:

1.5 The Community Safety Service is currently divided into four Functional Units:

• Safer Communities, including CCTV and Emergency Planning; • Community Protection and Environment; • Environmental Health; and • Lifeline/Telecare and Business Services.

1.6 The Community Safety service area is also responsible for developing and/or contributing to the following strategies:

• Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Partnership Plan, Safer Redbridge Strategy 2013-16; • Reducing On-Street Prostitution Strategy, 2012-15 • Taking action to end Violence against Women and Girls in Redbridge, Strategy 2015- 18; • Redbridge Prevent Strategy; • Redbridge Major Incident Plan; • Community Safety Business Continuity Plan; • Contaminated Land Strategy; • Air Quality Plan; • Food Law Enforcement Service Plan; • Health and Safety Law Enforcement Plan; • Gambling Policy; • Licensing Policy; and • Enforcement Policy.

The Community Safety Service – Revised Structure:

Transformation:

1.7 A review of enforcement services and other activity across the newly formed Community Safety and Enforcement Service is being undertaken. The outcome from the review will impact on service delivery and changes will affect some areas of work; this may be by way of reduction or increase in activity. The full impact of these outcomes will not be fully realised until the transformation process reaches conclusion.

1.8 The following services are in scope for the review, Anti-social Behaviour, Licensing, Trading Standards, Street Scene, Environmental Protection, Food and Health and Safety,

Page | 3

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Safer Communities Partnership Team, Housing Standards, Housing Improvement, CCTV, Lifeline and Telecare and the Redbridge Community Police Team.

1.9 The review began in November 2014 and it is proposed that the review’s recommendations will be implemented by the end of September 2015. The Transformation Review Team has engaged with staff throughout this process and workshops were held with all the services in scope. The Transformation Review Team also engaged with residents and businesses, benchmarked other local authorities (Waltham Forest, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Barnet) and reviewed outsourcing options.

1.10 The review will look to meet the aspirations of the Administration to create a dedicated uniformed on-street presence, where officers, who are accredited by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will have increased powers to crack down on environmental crime such as littering, fly tipping and dog fouling. It will also create a data function to enable targeted, intelligence-led enforcement activity.

1.11 The aims of the review:

• Customers will see an operation that targets its resources in a cost effective and intelligence led manner, resulting in cleaner, safer streets, and the residents will see enforcement officers who have a closer working relationship with the police. • Intelligence led strategy will be integral to the new approach and will enable strategic decision making across the new service area. • Tactical decisions and priorities will be set on a more frequent basis, with day-to- day decisions taken at a regular tasking meeting. • Through collaboration with the Customer Access Programme customers, businesses and Members will notice a significant improvement when reporting issues. • Through a joined up enforcement approach, appropriate resources will be further targeted at changing the behaviour of those repeat offenders who are causing real problems. • On-street, there will be a uniformed presence with more powers than are currently available. • Managers will have access to data that enables improved and timely decision making. • Removal of silo enforcement activity. • The new service will work with local communities and institutions to promote civic pride in the local area.

1.12 The new Enforcement Team will provide a visible presence to help deter anti-social behaviour and begin the process of establishing civic pride within our communities. The team will also provide first response, working alongside colleagues in other services to tackle issues. Enforcement will therefore be targeted and will not disrupt those who are legally interacting with the borough.

Page | 4

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Organisational considerations:

The following table explains how the review fits into the corporate strategy: Priority Met Why / how Increase fairness and Yes Reduced inequality through safer, cleaner areas respond to the across the borough aspirations of the Focus on ASB hotspots that affect people’s lives Borough Access to safe clean services and locations Public requesting cleaner, safer streets Empower our Yes Focus on community engagement communities to help Focus on civic pride and community cohesion shape our Borough and Continual resident engagement throughout the the services we deliver project Working with residents to enable better outcomes Improve the quality of Yes Key project driver life and civic pride Working with customers to understand how civic amongst our pride can be fostered communities Main outcome will aim to make Redbridge a cleaner, safer place Transform our Council Yes Technology and process will increase responsiveness in tough times to be Customers may use the same technology as officers dynamic and Key challenge is to respond efficiently and responsive to the effectively challenges of the future

1.13 The Safer Redbridge Strategy:

1.14 Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the Council, together with the other responsible authorities comprising the Safer Communities Partnership to formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder and for combating the misuse of drugs Those responsible authorities are; Metropolitan Police Service, Community Rehabilitation Company, Public Health England, Metropolitan Police Authority, London Fire Brigade, Redbridge Equalities and Community Council, Redbridge Victim Support, Redbridge Council for Voluntary Services, Redbridge Magistrates Court, National Probation Service, Redbridge Chamber of Commerce

The obligation of the partners is to: • Develop a Crime Reduction Strategy; • Include a strategy for tackling anti-social behaviour; • Ensure the strategy takes account of crime, drug and alcohol issues; • Ensure the strategy includes the priorities, aims and objectives against which success will be judged; and • Sets out the actions that partners will deliver to achieve the outcomes.

Page | 5

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

1.15 The Safer Redbridge Strategy 2013-16 identifies the crime, disorder and substance misuse priorities for the borough. It runs for three years, with an annual refresh which reviews priorities and is endorsed by Cabinet; this document sets the objectives to be achieved through partnership working between both statutory and voluntary sector organisations.

1.16The annual Partnership Strategic Assessment draws on data relating to crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour (ASB) from across the Community Safety Partnership (CSP). This Assessment aims to ensure that the Redbridge Community Safety Partnership Team benefits from taking an intelligence-led, problem-solving and outcome-orientated approach to community safety and crime reduction

1.17 The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) is the strategic oversight body which sets the direction and budget for the Metropolitan Police Service on behalf of the Mayor of London. It ensures the Metropolitan Police Service is run efficiently and effectively and holds it, and other criminal justice services, to account on behalf of Londoners. The Community Safety Partnership Team is part-funded by MOPAC to deliver crime prevention schemes via the London Crime Prevention Fund. The mayor’s office for policing and crime have put forward priorities that they want the police to achieve. These were a 20% reduction in 7 different crime types over a three year period (MOPAC 7) which are:

• Burglary • Robbery • Criminal Damage • Theft of motor vehicle • Theft from motor vehicle • Violence against the person • Theft person

1.18 In addition to the MOPAC 7, the Mayor placed special emphasis on a number of additional public safety challenges and concerns of Londoners. These include: hate crime and crimes against disabled people, serious youth violence, and business crime. Furthermore, the MOPAC Challenge entails a 20% increase in confidence in the police. This is a particular challenge for the police in Redbridge whose confidence figures are below the MPS average but in line with other East London boroughs.

1.19 The relevance for the Community Safety Partnership is that the drivers of confidence, that is the effectiveness in dealing with crime, engagement with the community, fair treatment and alleviating local antisocial behaviour are key priorities for the Council. This illustrates the importance of how we communicate our partnership work with borough residents and other key stakeholders. The issue of confidence is explored later in the report.

1.20 Reassuringly many of the areas identified by the Strategic Assessment fit well alongside the Mayor of London’s priorities and Partnership Priorities for 2014/15 remain the same as those listed in the 2013 - 16 Crime and Disorder Partnership Plan;

• Residential Burglary; • Drug and Alcohol Related Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour;

Page | 6

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

• Vulnerable Victims, including Violence against Women and Girls and prostitution; and • Integrated Offender Management.

Funding:

1.21 Funding for the Community Safety services comes from a number of different sources; including London Borough of Redbridge core funding, contributions from other service areas to joint pieces of work and external grants.

A brief overview of funding is included in the tables below:

London Borough of Redbridge Funding:

Community Safety Service (Core Funding):

Service/Team Net Budget 2015/16 Status Private Sector Housing £658,000 Anti-Social Behaviour Team £461,000 Safer Communities Partnership Team (Core Budget) £240,000 CCTV £519,000 Environmental Health £852,000 Strategic & Business Development £157,000 Emergency Planning £220,000 Various Manifesto Pledges £16,000 Community Police Team £472,000 Street Scene Enforcement £602,000 Community Protection £543,000 Support, fixed costs and non-controllable expenditure £1,088,000

Total £5,828,000 Amber

Children’s Services (Core Funding):

Project Amount Status Young People’s Substance Misuse £24,791 Youth Offending Service £925,253 Youth Crime Prevention Team 437,153

Total £1,387,197 Amber

Home Office Funding:

Project Amount Status Preventing Violent Extremism £179,500 R

Page | 7

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

MOPAC Funding:

Project Amount Status Responding to Domestic Violence £51,000 Burglary Reduction £60,000 Reducing On-Street Prostitution £133,000 Drug Intervention Programme £196,000 Victims of Hate Crime £22,500 Young People’s Substance Misuse £48,119

Total £510,619 Red

Notes on Grant Funding & Status:

1.22 The grant funding allocated in 2015/16 from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) from the London Crime Prevention Fund (LCPF), included in the above, is for one year only and was subject to a rigorous bidding and assessment process. Funding for the next financial year (2016/17) will be dependent on outcomes being successfully achieved in 2015/16.

1.23 Funding received from MOPAC has been highlighted in red due to the uncertain nature of future funding from this source. Funding for years 2017/18 and beyond will be dependent upon Home Office allocation to the Mayor’s Office, decisions made by the Mayor’s Office, and the outcome of the Mayoral Elections, which could alter future direction.

1.24 Funding received from the Home Office is also for one year only and is not guaranteed beyond 2015/16. Despite the priority given to the Prevent Agenda nationally by the current Government, it is unlikely that funding for this area of work would be dramatically reduced, however given the reduction in Government Department budgets and the possibility for redistribution to address new or changed priorities within the Prevent agenda, funding cannot be assured.

Page | 8

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Section 2: Crime Overview:

2.1 The partnership has a range of mechanisms in place to monitor crime across the borough. The principal forum is the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) This is chaired by the Borough Commander and has senior representatives from the partnership including the elected member and the local voluntary sector leads. Corporate governance is also exercised through a range of themed partnership boards. The boards mirror our strategic problem solving approach which is to look at the management of crime from a Victim, Offender and Locations perspective.

2.2 Our corporate governance arrangements ensure that performance is effectively managed and that partners are held to account. Our governance arrangements also monitor a range of action plans and partnership developments. It also provides the strategic framework to monitor the partnership’s priorities identified in the Community Safety Strategic Plan.

2.3 The most recent full strategic assessment was completed in 2013-14. However, through our regular monitoring structures we are confident that the priorities identified in our Community Safety Strategic Plan are still valid. The main findings from our last Strategic Assessment are summarised below.

Redbridge Strategic Assessment 2013-14:

2.4 The volume of crime recorded in Redbridge during the assessment period remains the lowest seen in the borough in the last 4 years (20,658 crimes). Redbridge is ranked 18th (1 being worst) and is placed mid table out of 32 London boroughs in relation to all recorded crime. Serious acquisitive crime remains one of Redbridge’s top concerns accounting for 34% of all crime in the borough. Redbridge has the highest number of motor vehicle thefts in London and it is also ranked 7th worst borough for residential burglary in London. Violence against the person is relatively low with Redbridge ranked 12th best out of the 32 London boroughs, however Redbridge has seen an increase in domestic violence and is ranked 16th for domestic violence in London having climbed 4 places in the last two years.

2.5 Recorded crime figures show that the majority of people do not experience crime and ASB in the borough on a first-hand basis. In fact, crime in Redbridge directly affects about 6% of the resident population. Similarly, around 3% of the borough’s residential properties are targeted by criminals. Previous analysis shows that 1-in-5 victims of crimes committed in Redbridge do not reside in the borough and therefore the actual proportion of residents affected by crime is even lower than this first figure suggests. It is important to note these figures only reflect crimes that are reported to the police. Currently Redbridge police force has the 4th lowest public confidence figure in London. Low confidence in the police may result in people not reporting crime.

2.6 Despite decreases in the last 12 months the three wards with the highest crime rates in Redbridge are Clementswood, Valentines and Loxford. These three wards account for 25% boroughs total crime. Redbridge contains Ilford Town Centre and therefore accommodates

Page | 9

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

a number of crime-types typically linked with busy high streets but it also suffers from crime targeting its large residential areas.

2.7 Redbridge does not suffer from a ‘gang’ problem like that seen in many other London boroughs. The lack of an established gang culture in Redbridge is evidenced by current figures concerning serious youth violence, which are a low in volume. However there has been a slight increase in serious youth violence compared to the last year resulting in Redbridge ranking increasing to the 15th worst in London.

2.8 The increase in these crimes is being monitored. In the last 12 months we have established a Serious Group Offending Board whose task is to monitor the inflow of young people who have been assessed as having the potential to cause serious harm. In addition, we are cross referencing this work with our Children and Families Service. This allows us to monitor the notifications of out of borough Looked After Children placed in Semi independence or Children Homes in the borough. Our hypothesis is that a significant driver in serious youth violence is being driven by this cohort.

2.9 We have highlighted this area as a potential area that may need dedicated funding in the future. This is because the borough is a net importer of young people into the area and has a large number of dedicated young people’s semi independence accommodation.

2.10 The borough has seen an overall decrease in reports from residents regarding incidents of ASB both in calls to the Police and Council. The Council’s ASB team service user requests continue to be dominated by noise complaints. The main cause for complaints to the Police relate to ‘rowdy and inconsiderate behaviour’ and ‘rowdy nuisance neighbours’. Vehicle nuisance, prostitution and rowdy / nuisance neighbours have seen an increase in the last year.

2.11 Redbridge Council’s Environmental Services have received a large increase in fly tipping with 8,115 reports this year, which are 1,945 more than last year. There has also been an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles reported in the borough and increased rates of graffiti. A significant majority of these crimes are focused in the south of the borough.

2.12 The Partnership has taken steps to respond to issues relating to Ilford Town Centre. The police and the wider partnership commenced work under Operation Equinox to address the related issues of rising reported accounts of violence with injury and anti-social behaviour. The following challenges still remain for the partnership and these are discussed further in the report:

• Working with Goodmayes and King George’s Hospitals which are two major crime generators for offences of violence with injury (assaults against staff from patients) to look at ways incidents can be better managed; • Focused activities around licensed venues such as pubs, nightclubs and fast food outlets, especially those in the Ilford/ Seven Kings corridor; • Working with partners to address the issue of rough sleeping; and

Page | 10

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

• Addressing the issue of street drinking in the borough in particular working with specific off licences and supermarkets to voluntarily remove and prevent the sale of high strength products.

2.13 Whilst most of the borough’s residents are not affected by crime, research shows that those that are victimised often face the highest risk of being victimised again. Identifying repeat victims (and offenders) therefore provides an opportunity for intervention from the Police and other partners, preventing subsequent offences from occurring (such as cocooning tactics), Strategies to reduce repeat victimisation/offending can significantly increase overall effectiveness resulting in less crime, more effective crime prevention and an increased detection/apprehension of offenders. The IOM (Integrated offender management), MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences) and the RVP (Redbridge Victims Panel) all need continued resourcing to insure that those offenders that are the most prolific and those victims that are most vulnerable are targeted by the Community Safety Partnership.

2.14 Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) is a growing national concern. It is defined as an instance when a young person receives ‘something’ in exploitative situations, contexts and relationships in return for sexual acts, it may also occur through the use of technology without the child’s immediate recognition with them posting sexual images by phone or online. The Local Safeguarding Childrens Board (LSCB) and the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Boards have a well-developed plan in this area. This includes a Community Safety Action Plan which feeds into a wider LSCB multi-agency action plan. Furthermore, the partnership has recently completed a problem profile on CSE which builds on the operational and strategic links between the boards.

2.15 The borough has developed a new data collection tool which will improve our ability to link Community Safety disruption and prevention activity with areas where CSE has been identified. A panel has been established to enable early intervention service to safeguard children at risk of CSE in Redbridge. This is called MASE (Multi Agency Sexual Exploitation). The creation of the new data data and the increase in public awareness around CSE will lead to an increase in reporting. This means that addressing CSE is an emerging pressure and an area that will require a robust response when needed; this will impact on existing resourcing and service priorities.

2.16 Mental health has been identified as a growing concern by Redbridge Police and it also has significant implications for adult social care and the NHS. The effect mental health has on policing in the borough is difficult to quantify but significant resources are regularly deployed to respond to assaults within Goodmayes Mental Health Hospital and searching for missing people with mental health issues. (Custody records show that in the last 3 years there has been a 51% rise in offenders who disclose that they have mental health problems. This equates to about 12% of all those people processed in custody. There has also been a 10% increase in calls to the police that are flagged as being mental health related. Last year the police received 1,350 calls regarding issues related to mental health.

2.17 The issue of mental health provision has been highlighted by a range of partners. In particular ensure flexible transitional arrangements exist for young people exiting Child and

Page | 11

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and entering adult mental health services. Also a potential gap exists in managing vulnerable young adults who do not fit neatly adult social service or mental health eligibility criteria.

2.18 Different strategies are required to tackle different types of crime. For example, crime- types that generate large volumes of offences and appear fairly sporadic in nature (i.e. residential burglary and theft from motor vehicles) appear much harder to reduce via deployments and targeted initiatives, often requiring more long-term strategic approaches and analysis to understand patterns of offending behaviour. As well as enforcement activity it is vital to widen preventative approaches.

2.19 Targeting the stolen goods market remains an area that the partnership could evolve further to achieve further reductions in serious acquisitive crime (which accounts for 36% of the boroughs crime). It is important that the Partnership also tackles a number of lower volume crime and ASB-types which may not have such a large effect on reducing crime across the borough but can have a lasting impact on both victims and communities.

2.20 As a result of this Assessment and the application of the Strategic and Partnership matrices, a number of priority areas have been identified:

• Serious acquisitive crime – in particular a focus on burglary and knife related robberies - Increase in Sanction Detection rates • Domestic violence – Increase in Sanction Detection rates – tackle reoffending • Community tensions – including terrorism and hate crime • Crime and ASB influenced by Drugs and Alcohol– prostitution, and violence related to the night time economy • Growing concern about the potential extent of child sexual exploitation and increasing mental health problems within vulnerable and at risk population

Latest Redbridge Crime Figures:

Page | 12

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

2.21 Data in the following table is taken from the Metropolitan Police Website and covers the period June 2014 to May 2015, compared to the same period in the previous year. This crime data is extracted from the crime reporting information system (CRIS - the main police database).

Redbridge Met Total Redbridge Met Total Number of Offences 12 months to May 15 (year) 12 months to May 14 (year)

Total Crimes 19,823 712,225 19,901 698,417

Homicide 6 94 2 112

Violence Against the Person (Total) 5,769 201,070 4,753 159,289

Rape 133 5,185 125 4,376

Other Sexual 354 9,941 229 7,355

Robbery (Total) 660 22,007 853 27,102

Robbery (Person) 595 20,339 787 25,334

Robbery (Business) 65 1,668 66 1,768

Burglary (Total) 2,554 72,847 2,780 83,067

Burglary Residential 2,041 46,653 2,150 53,073

Burglary Non-Residential 513 26,194 630 29,994

Gun Crime 55 1,686 47 1,589

Motor Vehicle Crime 2,494 71,648 3,001 81,743

Domestic Crime 2,122 67,875 1,929 57,442

Racist & Religious Hate Crime 343 12,749 335 9,965

Homophobic Crime 20 1,628 32 1,193

Page | 13

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Anti-Semitic Crime 21 495 12 208

Islamophobic Crime 25 778 18 529

2,22 Whilst in some areas of reported crime there are significant percentage increases, the variance figure gives a clear picture of the actual increase in the number. In Redbridge the increase in murder is as a result of one incident where three individuals lost their lives within one family. In some categories of crime, there has been a notable increase in reporting, that is reflected across the country, this is especially true of the “other sexual” crimes. Reports have increased following Operation Yew Tree investigation and there is now clearly much more confidence that reports of this nature will be taken seriously and investigated. Another significant area of reporting where there has been an increase is in reports is of “harassment”, again this could also be a sign of increased confidence when reporting these types of issues.

2.23 In several of the other significant areas such as burglary there has been a reduction which could be as a result of the focused work of the Partnership in this area. Such reductions achieve a positive impact for residents and give the Partnership tangible outcomes to promote. Criminal damage has seen a significant increase and therefore is likely to be area of focus for work by the Partnership in the future. There has been an upward trend regarding Domestic Violence which is not specific to Redbridge, but an increase nationally. The Government is investing £3.2 million across the Country to help support victims of Domestic Abuse; the Community Safety Partnership has obtained funding and is working to deliver a new Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy.

Cost of Crime:

2.24 Numerous academic research papers and studies for the Home Office and other institutions have been produced to provide an estimate of the financial cost of crime. The most referenced paper was produced for the Home Office in 2000, (Home Office Research Study 217, The Economic and Social Costs of Crime, 2000, Sam Brand and Richard Price) and updated in 2005, with a further update of costs in September 2011.

2.25 “In this paper ‘costs of crime’ refer to the full range of impacts of crime, approved where possible in monetary terms – though this does not suggest that it is either straightforward or always right to reduce the consequences of any crime into purely financial terms. Costs are incurred in anticipation of crimes occurring (such as security expenditure and insurance administration costs), as a consequence of criminal events (such as property stolen and damaged, emotional and physical impacts and health services), and responding to crime and tackling criminals (costs to the criminal justice system)”.

Page | 14

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

2.26 The updated unit costs per crime offence (published 2011): Crime Type Unit Costs (2010 prices) – Impact per offence Homicide £1,774,681 Serious wounding £25,747 Other wounding £9,790 Sexual offences £36,952 Common assault £1,750 Robbery – personal £8,810 Burglary in a dwelling £3,925 Theft – not vehicle £763 Theft of a vehicle £4,970 Theft from a vehicle £1,034 Attempted vehicle theft £617 Criminal damage (personal) £1,053 Robbery – commercial £9,372 Burglary not in a dwelling £4,608 Commercial – theft of vehicle £10,043 Commercial – theft from vehicle £1,248 Commercial – attempted vehicle theft £617 Shoplifting £124 Criminal damage (commercial) £1,838

The cost outline above includes both the cost to the public through the provision of public services – Police, Courts, NHS, etc. and the cost to the individual/business.

Policing and the Community:

Confidence Measure:

2.27 Confidence statistics have been found via the MOPAC Confidence Tracker Tool https://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/neighbourhoodconfidencetool/

Neighbourhood Code Confidence Barking and Dagenham – Barking KG-KB 54 Barking and Dagenham – Dagenham KG-KR 57 Barking and Dagenham – Whalebone KG-KK 59 Enfield - Edmonton and South YE-YP 63 Enfield - Enfield and North YE-YF 67

Page | 15

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Enfield - Southgate and West YE-YS 73 Hackney - Hackney North-East GD-GS 60 Hackney – Homerton GD-GV 72 Hackney – Shoreditch GD-GX 67 Hackney - Stoke Newington GD-GL 70 Haringey – East YR-YT 61 Haringey – North YR-YD 64 Haringey – West YR-YM 60 Havering – Central KD-KC 66 Havering – North KD-KL 65 Havering – South KD-KM 63 Newham – Central KF-KO 62 Newham – East KF-KE 50 Newham – South KF-KN 59 Newham – West KF-KS 62 Redbridge – Central JI-JB 55 Redbridge – South JI-JQ 55 Redbridge – West JI-JN 64 Tower Hamlets - Bow and Mile End HT-HW 55 Tower Hamlets - Bricklane and Globe HT-HR 56 Tower Hamlets - Poplar Isle of Dogs HT-HI 61 Tower Hamlets - Stepney and Wapping HT-HA 60 Waltham Forest – Central JC-JW 72 Waltham Forest – North JC-JZ 73 Waltham Forest – South JC-JL 72

Redbridge has been shown against our neighbouring boroughs here.

Page | 16

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Crime Levels and Perceptions of Safety:

This data has also been taken from the MOPAC tracker https://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/neighbourhoodconfidencetool/

Neighbourhood Code Safety TNO Barking and Dagenham – Barking KG-KB 32 169 Barking and Dagenham – Dagenham KG-KR 28 144 Barking and Dagenham – Whalebone KG-KK 28 151 Enfield - Edmonton and South YE-YP 32 168 Enfield - Enfield and North YE-YF 22 144 Enfield - Southgate and West YE-YS 12 106 Hackney - Hackney North-East GD-GS 25 132 Hackney – Homerton GD-GV 14 204 Hackney – Shoreditch GD-GX 18 288 Hackney - Stoke Newington GD-GL 16 202 Haringey – East YR-YT 25 182 Haringey – North YR-YD 25 218 Haringey – West YR-YM 14 132 Havering – Central KD-KC 13 152 Havering – North KD-KL 20 115 Havering – South KD-KM 18 94 Newham – Central KF-KO 27 145 Newham – East KF-KE 32 142 Newham – South KF-KN 27 176 Newham – West KF-KS 27 282 Redbridge – Central JI-JB 26 125 Redbridge – South JI-JQ 40 128 Redbridge – West JI-JN 15 116 Tower Hamlets - Bow and Mile End HT-HW 19 138 Tower Hamlets - Bricklane and Globe HT-HR 18 320 Tower Hamlets - Poplar Isle of Dogs HT-HI 17 133 Tower Hamlets - Stepney and Wapping HT-HA 22 129 Waltham Forest – Central JC-JW 19 174 Waltham Forest – North JC-JZ 14 140 Waltham Forest – South JC-JL 22 158

2.26 Through the MOPAC Confidence Survey, people were asked how safe they felt in their area. Their average measurements of how safe they felt are indicated in the “Safety” column of the above table. The Total Notifiable Offences (TNO) column provides information on the total number of notifiable offences (crimes) that have taken place in the cluster during the last quarter.

Page | 17

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Community Engagement Mechanisms:

Mechanism Responsible Department Frequency

Press Briefing SLT Confidence Support Monthly Press Liaison SLT Confidence Support Each working day Twitter SLT Confidence Support Each working day BME Forum Safer Neighbourhoods Quarterly Redbridge Open Days SLT Confidence Support Yearly IAG SLT Regularly ASK ME Events SLT Confidence Support Quarterly Community Action Days Ward Teams Regularly Community Talks SLT / Safer Regularly (Pensioner Forum, Faith Groups, Neighbourhoods BBC Documentary) Crime Prevention Surgeries Ward Teams Regularly Newsletters Ward Teams Monthly Safer Neighbourhoods Board SLT Quarterly Street Briefings / Street a week Ward Teams Regularly School Events Ward Teams Regularly Cuppa-with-a-copper Ward Teams Regularly Walk-the-ward Ward Teams Regularly Ward Panel Meetings Ward Teams Monthly to Quarterly Junior Citizens Meetings Safer Neighbourhoods Occasionally Faith Officer Safer Neighbourhoods n/a Schools Officers Safer Neighbourhoods n/a Youth Engagement Officer Safer Neighbourhoods n/a

Independent Advisory Group (IAG):

2.28 Redbridge Borough Operating Command Unit (BOCU) considers it critical to involve independent observers from community groups in its decision-making process. These observers are residents of the borough and are generally community leaders.

2.29 An example of where the IAG had involvement in policing activities is surrounding the problems with prostitution on Ilford Lane and the murder incident at that location two years ago. The membership list is constantly reviewed and every attempt is made to attract those from communities who are not represented at present. However, we employ a faith officer to communicate with groups who are not represented on the panel to ensure their concerns are addressed.

Page | 18

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Current List of Attendees:

Position Input / Knowledge Member Sikh Member Muslim Member Muslim Member Buddist Member Muslim / LGBT Represents Local Chair Community and business interests Member Muslim Member C of E Member Hindu Member Tamil Vice Chair Jewish Member LGBT Candidate African/Kenyan Candidate African/Somalian Member Albanian Member White/Voluntary Groups Candidate Iranian Candidate Youth/Islam

Redbridge Safer Neighbourhood Board (RSNB):

2.30 Redbridge Police meet with the RSNB every three months. During these meetings the Police Borough Commander is notified of concerns from certain sections of the borough and is able to provide commentary on what is happening on the borough to keep residents safe. It is also a platform to hold the police accountable for the local crime rates. The current membership consists of 13 core representatives (from the police, council and Neighbourhood Ward panels) and 10 from the voluntary and community sector.

SNB Membership Group Cabinet Member for Community Safety & Enforcement Redbridge Police Borough Commander Head of Safer Communities, LB Redbridge Chair of the police Independent Advisory Group Representative of Independent Custody Visitor Panel

Page | 19

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Victim Support Redbridge Youth Council Redbridge Youth Council South Neighbourhood Panel representative Central Neighbourhood Panel representative North West Neighbourhood Panel representative Redbridge Neighbourhood Watch representative 1NE Street Pastors AgeUK Redbridge Frenford Clubs Redbridge Disability Consortium Redbridge Equalities & Community Council Redbridge Faith Forum Redbridge Pensioners Forum Refugee & Migrant Forum of Essex and London Samaritans

Stop and Search (S&S): Data from May 2015

S&S Arrest Rates

2.31 Redbridge has had a -0.8% reduction in arrest outcomes from Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and Section 60 PACE searches from March to April. At 19.6%, Redbridge is below the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) average for this month of 20.0%.

2.32 Despite this, for the last rolling 12 months, Redbridge is at 21.8% for arrest outcomes here - which is above the MPS average of 19.8%. For neighbourhood crime searches (PACE searches excluding weapons) Redbridge has seen a 9.2% reduction in positive arrest rates in April from the previous month. The arrest rate for the month of April is 26.8% (which is above the MPS average of 24.8%). For the last rolling 12 months, Redbridge has had a positive outcome rate of 34.7% for neighbourhood crime searches - compared to the MPS average of 25.2%. Redbridge appears to perform best here.

2.33 Finally, regarding weapon searches, Redbridge has had a 1.3% increase in arrest outcomes. In April, Redbridge has had an outcome rate of 11.8% - but this falls below the MPS average of 12.4%. For the previous year Redbridge’s average arrest rate for weapons searches is 10%. This falls below the MPS average of 12.4%.

Page | 20

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

S&S Use

2.34 Looking at the month by month breakdowns for stop and search it appears that Redbridge officers use their Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) search powers the most (accounts for 52% of all searches in March and 60.3% in April). It appears that Safer Neighbourhood officers are most likely to stop and search someone using a MDA power (72% of their searches are for drugs). Borough Tasking Teams (BTTs) and Emergency Response Teams (ERTs) conduct far fewer drug searches than Neighbourhood Teams. The BTTs and ERTs generally balance their search powers 50:50 between PACE and MDA.

2.35 ERTs and BTTs also appear to have a higher arrest rate for searches than SNTs/LPTs. Last month, ERTs had an arrest rate of 24.8% and BTTs had an arrest rate of 21.2%.

2.36 Redbridge management has been trying to obtain a 100% stop and search supervision rate throughout the BOCU. In March 2015 Redbridge achieved a 100% rate for the first time recorded. However, in April, this dropped to 93.9%. Ultimately, Redbridge Borough strives to have 100% of its stop and search entries supervised - the figures measure the supervision rate at the time the data analysis is done.

S&S Confidence:

2.37 The data here is gathered here is from one of the questions asked in the confidence surveys run by the MPS targeting London’s residents and canvassing their opinion on a variety of topics.

2.38 This quarter (Q4) Redbridge residents have a 75.2% confidence that stop and search is used fairly on the borough. This is more than a 5% increase from the previously recorded 70.1% confidence. Redbridge was 22nd out of 32 boroughs for stop and search confidence. It is now 12th.

2.39 In terms of increasing confidence in our use of stop and search the borough is trying to engage with the public so both the public and police can share our experiences and understanding of stop and search. This year, Redbridge has run an ASK ME campaign to address these issues and, more recently, participated in a BME Partnership Forum for the same purposes. Both these engagement events are expected to continue running a few times each year.

2.40 Redbridge monitors its breakdown of stop and search figures on a monthly basis – as they come out. Our Chief Inspector of Operations is in charge of overall governance of stop and search and works closely with an officer dealing with Data Quality and Ethics to interpret the data and assess any actions the borough needs to take regarding the results.

Page | 21

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Redbridge Police - Officer Demographics

On Redbridge - • 32% of the total workforce is female and 23% are BME

The MPS Averages for BME & Female Police Officers is as follows: • BME - 12% • Female - 26% On Redbridge: • BME officers accounts for 17% of the workforce • Female officers account for 27% of the workforce

BME and female officers together account for 40% of police officers on Redbridge.

• Special Constables better reflect the BOCU population in BME demographic and gender. Special Constables on the BOCU are encouraged to join the police service as full time officers - and stay on the borough in this full time capacity. • BME special constables currently account for 46% of Metropolitan Support Constables (MSC) officers on JI. • BME and female officers together account for 64% of MSC officers.

Page | 22

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Section 3: Emerging Issues:

MOPAC Funding:

3.1 Many of the officers within the Community Safety Partnership are funded from external sources such as the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime through the London Crime Prevention Fund. They deliver initiatives and commission the services detailed in this report. The fund directly contributes to the following areas of work in the borough:

• Reducing Prostitution-both through funding support services and changes to the environment such as alley gates to reduce the impact on residents; • Domestic and sexual violence support workers and Multi-agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) coordination; • Significant contribution to local drug and alcohol treatment services; for both adults and young people. • Reducing Burglary, through traceable liquid solutions and other crime prevention materials, supporting Neighbourhood watch and the Local Bogus Caller Partnership. • Targeted Crime Prevention Communications Campaigns.

3.2 This funding is at the absolute discretion of the Mayor of London and is aligned to the to the priority areas identified by the Mayor’s Office (MOPAC 7). Following the Mayoral Election in 2016, this funding could be reduced significantly and/or attached to a new set of priorities or withdrawn entirely. This will have a major impact on the delivery of community safety initiatives across the borough and with both internal and external partners.

3.3 The current Mayor has an arrangement with Local Authorities which allows us to buy Police officers at a discounted rate, this schemes increases the number of officers in the borough by 15. This scheme may be withdrawn following the Mayoral election in 2016.

3.4 In addition, MOPAC currently fund an additional 2.5 Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA) and a standard risk support worker for Redbridge, to meet the recommended level of provision for the population of Redbridge. Should this targeted funding be reduced, Redbridge would be below the recommended numbers to provide support to victims/survivors of Domestic Violence.

3.5 Reductions to any of these funding streams will lead to the borough having to decommission services, reduce spending in the listed areas and have fewer Police Officers, all of which would impact on residents.

Page | 23

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Home Office: The UK Government’s Counter Terrorism Strategy which has been in place since 2003 is known as CONTEST. The aim of the Strategy is to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from international terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence’.

CONTEST has four elements:

• Pursue: to stop terrorist attacks • Prevent: to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism • Protect: to strengthen our protection against terrorist attack • Prepare: where an attack cannot be stopped, to mitigate its impact

3.6 While much of the Counter Terrorism policy agenda is non-devolved, there is an impact on devolved policy areas and functions, particularly in relation to Local Authorities and Community Safety Partnerships under the Prevent arm of the strategy.

3.7 The Home Office has categorised Redbridge as a priority area with a clear responsibility to deliver the Prevent agenda within the Borough. Funds from the Home Office have enabled the Local Authority to recruit a Prevent Manager and Institutions Worker who work directly with communities as well as partners to raise awareness of the Prevent agenda. A key area for the Prevent team is engaging with schools to deliver the nationally recognised Young Leaders Project, working with sixth formers to encourage debate and foster leadership skills in young people who are off to university.

3.8 Reductions in funding will impact significantly in this piece of work being delivered within Redbridge and limit the opportunities to reach a core group of young and at risk people. In addition, reductions in Home Office funding may also impact upon police numbers locally who undertake intervention activity to identify those individuals vulnerable to radicalisation and offer early interventions.

Public Health Grant: 3.9 There are current proposals to reduce the Public Health Grant to the borough – any reductions will have far reaching implications which have particular relevance to areas such as; • Drug and alcohol treatment services; • Domestic Violence support workers; and • Mental health professionals based in custody suite.

3.10 Redbridge’s Public Health and Community Safety Teams have developed a strong partnership to help address some of the inequalities highlighted in this report. Both teams

Page | 24

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

face a number of challenges in the future during this period of austerity, noticeably the recent announcement concerning a £200 million budget cut to non-NHS services may have an impact on joint initiatives delivered by Public Health and Community Safety

3.11 Reductions in the grant may mean the loss of resource within the Community Safety Service which will impact on both the ability to undertake partnership work as well as delivering a high level strategic service to meet local demands.

Analysis:

3.12 The Community Safety Partnership has a statutory responsibility to develop and publish a strategic assessment and a Partnership plan detailing the Community Safety Partnership Priorities for the duration of the plan. To establish the priorities for this strategy, the following criteria are used:

• Collective partnership impact; • Impact on victims; • Quality of life for local residents; • Detailed crime analysis from the Redbridge Strategic Assessment; • Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) – Policing and Crime Plan 2013-16; and • Separate strategies to support National agendas.

3.13 An extraordinary amount of data is combined and analysed to produce the strategic assessment and to identify the areas to address as a priority. Data analysis is used to monitor the success of the partnership plan and to map reductions and increases and trends in crime and anti-social behaviour locally. Good data allows us to build a solid evidence base to inform our commissioning decisions and allows us to demonstrate the effectiveness and value for money of local services.

3.14 A reduction in funding within the Community Safety Team has led to the loss of the Partnership analyst; this combined with the restructure of analysis capacity within the police means there are challenges to meet these responsibilities. Under the Transformation Review, capacity is being built in to ensure a robust analysis team, it is expected that this resource will help drive service delivery and direct resources to better meet the needs of the community.

Cyber-crime:

3.15 Cyber-crime is becoming an increasing problem within the UK, although there is no agreed definition or agreement about what this does or does not include. However, if we take cyber-crime to mean any criminal activity carried out by means of computers or the internet, then it would cover a wide range of offences including but not limited to:

• Fraud and identity theft;

Page | 25

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

• Stalking, Harassment and blackmail; • Bullying; • Child Sexual Exploitation • Theft; • Organised crime including drug dealing, people trafficking etc.; • Terrorism; • Espionage both civil and corporate; • Creation and distribution of viruses; and • Disruption and denial of service attacks.

3.16 As the use and even requirement to use on-line access increases, along with the increase in personal use of the internet due to the use of social networking, the amount of crimes which include an aspect of cyber-crime if not being entirely internet or technologically related will also increase.

3.17 One of the most prominent forms of cybercrime is identity theft, in which criminals use the internet to steal personal information. This could include phising, where fake websites that appear to be legitimate, request users to enter personal information, allowing criminals to then access the accounts themselves or simply sell the information to other criminals for use. As with other forms of deception theft, it is often the most vulnerable individuals who will fall victim to this form of crime.

3.18 There are also links to other priority areas of work for the Crime Reduction Partnership (CSP), including the use of the internet to contact or harass victims of Domestic Violence and the well reported use of the internet in the grooming of children for child sexual exploitation.

Property Licensing Scheme: 3.19 Following extensive consultation an Additional Licensing scheme is due to be implemented in Redbridge in April/May 2016. Under this scheme Houses in Multiple Occupation will need to be licensed.

3.20 Approval is also being sought from the Secretary of State to introduce a Selective Licensing Scheme where all privately rented properties will need to be licensed. If a positive response is received in time it is planned to introduce this in April/May 2016.

3.21 These schemes will be set-up, implemented, managed, revised, updated and monitored by Community Safety. Of particular concern are the recent schemes, introduced by the surrounding Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Newham and Waltham Forest. It is felt this may cause ‘rogue’ landlords located in those boroughs to move into what they see as a much more lightly regulated Redbridge. This effect of “Displacement” is well known to law enforcement agencies.

Page | 26

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Sunday Trading-extended opening hours:

3.22 There are currently moves to amend legislation to reform restrictive Sunday trading laws. With online shopping gaining in popularity by the day, the health of the British high street is becoming more reliant on the flexibility to open on Sundays and customers want to shop whenever is convenient.

3.23 The Sunday Trading Act, introduced in 1994, prevented any store over 280 square metres from trading outside the hours of 10am to 6pm. This was due in part to convenience stores seeking protection from the competition of larger stores. There is a view that this is no longer applicable, because major supermarkets now dominate the convenience sector.

3.24 If Sunday Trading Laws are extended as a result of the growing arguments, this will have an impact on enforcement services in terms of regulating additional trading activities.

Page | 27

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Section 4: Partnership Working:

4.1 The Local Policing Model (LPM) introduced in Spring 2013 by the Police Commissioner, has involved a radical reorganisation and fundamental changes to the way the Metropolitan Police Service operates. The Police services are key partners in meeting the challenges of both the MOPAC 7 agenda and local priorities. Fundamental changes to partner organisations directly affect the delivery of the work of the Community Safety Partnership and resilience to respond to changes needs to be a core understanding.

4.2 The transition to the LPM led to significant changes to the deployment of officers to boroughs. The previous model for Safer Neighbourhood policing allocated dedicated neighbourhood officers on a ward basis (with 1 Police Sergeant, 2 Police Constables and 3 Police Community Support Officers per ward). Each of the cluster Inspectors has a set of Sergeants, covering a max of two wards each. Within these wards there is a Dedicated Ward Police Constable and Dedicated Ward Police Community Support Officer, together along with generalist Neighbourhood Police Constables. From 2011 to 2015, Redbridge Safer Neighbourhood Policing saw officer numbers increasing by 68, from 62 to 129.

Chief Inspector of Neighbourhoods

North Cluster Central Cluster South Cluster Inspector Inspector Inspector

Ward Sergeant Ward Sergeant

Neighbourhoods PCs

Dedicated Ward PC

Dedicated Ward PCSO

Page | 28

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPT) Clusters

4.3 Under the LPM there has been an extended remit for police officers; this includes more complex crime investigation, off borough aid commitments (e.g. large scale events), staffing front offices at contact points and backfilling the Emergency Response Teams. Designed into the LPM is the promise to restrict the abstraction of officers off borough however, this can occur which has the potential to impact on our service delivery and meeting the needs of the community.

4.4 During the MOPAC roadshows (2014/15), the most commonly raised topic was the LPM. There were concerns around the visibility of officers along with a list of problems that are relevant to the delivery of local policing (e.g. community engagement, accessibility of police). There were clear feelings that there has been a reduction in visibility alongside a reduction in neighbourhood officer numbers. Some residents commented that they rarely see officers on patrol. There were also concerns around vacancies and abstractions. Even though the LPM strengthened the role of the Neighbourhood Policing and widened officer remit, the perception has been a reduction in visible policing.

4.5 The challenges in delivering an increase in public confidence sit alongside limited resources. The marketing of what we do, and what we do well can at times be lost or seen as unimportant in the drive to deliver robust services with finite and reducing resources. The Community Safety partnership work with our own internal media services to deliver good news stories and positive

Page | 29

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

outcomes made in many of our communities. There is also a strong commitment with the Police Services to ensure a combined message on specific issues between the partnership Services.

4.6 A challenge to the Service is the limited up-take of good news stories by local press which is the incumbent for many of our older, more vulnerable communities. Alternative sources of engagement are used, both on–line through the Council websites, Twitter, Facebook and the like and other paper based articles. As a service and a strategic partnership, evaluation of the impact of our press and media articles, as well as accessing on-line resource by service users and non-users is currently unknown and not reviewed in any detail.

Redbridge Community Policing team:

4.7 One size does not fit all: Within Redbridge there can be difficulties with conflicting priorities between local borough vs London-wide priorities under the MPOAC agenda. Public Confidence, Offender Management and Anti-social Behaviour may provide a better local focus. There are well recognised social differences between the North and South of the borough, this leads to communities feeling the borough is something of ‘two-halves’ , each with their own challenges. Such a dynamic set up can be difficult to both police and ensure a fair balance of service provision across all wards.

4.8 Redbridge Community Police Team (RCPT) have responsibility for Redbridge parks and open spaces as well as supporting licensing operations and undertaking enforcement action around incidents of anti-social behaviour.

4.9 The RCPT gives Redbridge Council direct access to a team of experienced police officers with full use of police powers and local bye laws. This is an extraordinary opportunity for direct tasking of flexible police resources. The RCPT presents an enforcement tool beyond that which the Local Authority could achieve by any other means and support the council with:

• Taskable resource available at short notice to deal with LA priority issues; • Taskable support for Enforcement officers; • Taskable support for Licensing Team; • Support for Anti-social Behaviour Team; • Quick time actions from Tasking Meeting; • Enforcement of bylaws; • High visibility presence in identified hot spot areas; • Patrols of parks and open spaces; • Resolution of occupation of land issues; • Support for Housing Team Enforcement visits; • Support for Landlord Registration Enforcement; • Proactive response to complaints re dangerous dogs in parks; • Respond to riding of motor vehicles off road; • Vital support for Safer Neighbourhood Teams in problem solving community issues; and • Response to lower risk complaints from council members.

Page | 30

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Intelligence Led Tasking:

4.10 Pro-active enforcement action is based on direct intelligence received and public reporting. The Service, working in partnership with the police now seeks to further support our communities by targeting specific concerns, both immediate and long term.

4.11 Intelligence led tasking operates weekly and brings together multiple partners, including the RCPT to address three main areas reported concerns from our communities:

• Residential / street (including fly-tipping, ASB, harassment, neighbour disputes, youths gathering, street drinking, drug taking, litter) • Parks and open spaces (ASB, drug taking, criminal damage, theft of mobile phones etc.) • Licensing and business (including issues that have arisen from the previous week, priority premises, details of upcoming temporary events and applications for new alcohol licences or to vary alcohol licences).

4.12 The aim is for resources to be utilised in the way to best achieve a positive outcome for those who live, work and do business in Redbridge.

This may be achieved through:

• Targeted patrols by the Redbridge Community Police Team or the Anti-Social Behaviour Team to address concerns of residents by providing a visible presence and enforcement action where necessary • Police and Local Authority Licensing Teams to work together to address issues that have arisen in licensed premises in the previous week • Targeting particular issues that have arisen such as: street drinking, collecting scrap metal in shopping trolleys, • Deploying a CCTV camera to act as a deterrent and record evidence

Case Study:

Engagement with street drinking and addressing residents’ concerns:

4.13 The Service received multiple complaints with regard to ASB and on-street drinking within Ilford. This was affecting daytime shoppers as well as evening visitors to the area. An intelligence led approach engaged with Outreach workers who went out and spoke to street drinkers to offer services to them to help tackle alcohol dependency. The Police and Redbridge Licensing Teams met with business and talked through the retailer responsibilities to help reduce ASB in the locality. The emphasis being a better local area will increase customer base and help stop negative perceptions raised by street drinkers being present. Retailers were encouraged to sign up to voluntary agreement not to sell high

Page | 31

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

strength lager, beer and cider and new alcohol licences in the area have this as a condition on their license.

4.14 A joint operation with officers from the ASB Team, Licensing Team and the Redbridge Community Police Team carried out high visibility sweeps for two weeks speaking to any street drinkers again offering the services available to tackle alcohol dependency and homelessness. Enforcement of the controlled drinking zone was implemented and any alcohol opened was poured away and unopened alcohol was taken. This work was recognised by the community as 300 residents signed a thank you in response to the work that was done through all the partners in tackling this issue.

Our Parks and Open Spaces:

4.15 More remote parts of the Borough are now proactively patrolled thanks to the RCPT. Police are expert and confident enforcers of the law and vigorously enforce both statute law and local bye laws. Dealing with the confiscation of alcohol and tackling ASB head on has improved public perception of the safety of many of our open spaces.

4.16 Feedback from the various park user groups, at the bi-monthly meeting attended by RCPT, is always very positive. As well as the benefits to public confidence of regular police patrols there has been a dramatic drop in a variety of offences including robbery (reduced nearly 40%), theft of pedal cycles (Down 17%).

4.17 The use of the four wheel drive vehicle, off road motor bikes and pedal cycles even the remotest areas of park land are accessible to the RCPT. This helps give a visible presence across the Borough and help bridge the gap across the accepted North/South ‘split’.

4.18 The RCPT mobile phone number displayed in many of the parks provides instant access for the public to speak to local police with the specific equipment, expertise and a remit to deal with community issues. This gives the public a swift, local response. As a separately funded team the RCPT are in addition to Redbridge Police resources and calls to service from the public to the RCPT do not draw in other police patrol resources allowing a better overall service to the public.

Case Study:

4.19 An excellent example of an incident where the RCPT added enormous value to the service provided by partners in Redbridge was August Bank Holiday 2013, there were three separate reports of lost children in Valentines Park. All three were promptly reunited with their parents by RCPT. As any experienced police officer will know, early police response is critical when dealing with children missing from public spaces. The RCPT presence, experience and equipment allow management of incidents in Redbridge green open spaces producing results which would otherwise be impossible to achieve.

4.20 The RCPT provides support for Redbridge Council enforcement officers with licensing visits, assisting with noise abatement problems, traveller issues, rough sleepers and ‘Beds in Sheds’ operations in tandem with the UK Borders Agency and most recently the Council’s

Page | 32

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Redbridge Action Days. The extra resource provided by the RCPT allows a police presence at public events, having been involved in numerous community engagements from events at local primary schools, children in Elmhurst Park to open days at Loxford School and assisting with LFB and MPS open days. The RCPT has shown a high degree of flexibility and willingness to adapt in order to uphold the excellent working relationship it maintains with the council and public.

4.21 The work of the RCPT feeds, together with the Council Services feeds into the overall effectiveness of crime reduction tactics across the Partnership; this helps to address the MOPAC 7 targets as well as lending police support to ‘live; local issues.

Redbridge Action Days:

4.22 Redbridge Action Days (RAD) were introduced as a Borough initiative in December 2014. Their primary objectives are to deliver high visibility, multi-agency, intelligence led enforcement activities, that aim to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour and to take appropriate action against those who breach statutory or Local Authority laws and regulations.

4.23 Whilst the operations are primarily intended to take an enforcement led stance against crime, environmental issues and anti-social behaviour in the Borough, they also provide opportunities to demonstrate positive action taken to improve the general environment, offer public reassurance and support vulnerable people in the Borough, by direct community engagement, offering practical advice and accessibility to services. The aims of the Redbridge Action Days are to deliver a visible and effective response to issues of crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues, thereby improving the quality of life of those living, working in, and/or visiting Redbridge

Joint Enforcement Action:

4.24 In support of weekly tasking and to ensure wider community concerns are considered that cannot be resolved at weekly tasking meetings, the Service has a Joint Action Group (JAG) that has:

• strategic oversight of the Redbridge Action Day process; • Strategically manage problem locations which cause a disproportionate and enduring instances of crime, environmental crime and anti-social behaviour; • Oversight of enforcement activity targeted at specific perpetrators of ASB and Crime; • Focus on identifying ASB hotspots and locations for joint multi-agency enforcement activity; and • Reports regularly into the Business Support Group.

Priorities:

• Reduce incidents of anti-social behaviour and environmental crime; • Protect the most vulnerable communities, particularly previous and repeat victims of crime; and

Page | 33

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

• Increase resident and Member confidence, particularly resident satisfaction with local crime and disorder services in priority areas.

Our problem solving approach:

4.25 The problem solving approach consists of the following elements:

• The agency’s tactical assessment of the problem; • Any particular perpetrator management issues generated by the tactical assessment; • Any vulnerable and repeat victims linked to the presenting problem; • Analysing any reputational, political or media concerns linked to the problem; and • A review of previous interventions and activity to address the problem

The meetings build upon the learning gained from Redbridge Action Day operations, areas for improvement and identifying locations/themes for future operations.

Transformation Challenges:

4.26 As the Service changes and evolves through the Civic Pride and Enforcement Transformation process, both tasking and the interaction with the RCPT will require review to ensure these are fit for purpose. The review is a good opportunity to ensure checks and balances are in place to deliver a fair service across all communities, both North and South of the borough based on intelligence and planned outcomes.

4.27 The Transformation Review Team engaged with residents and businesses about the review proposals. The overwhelming majority felt that picking up or clearing the issue was more important than enforcement, other than when the offender is a persistent offender.

4.28 There was a variety of views amongst residents with respect to the need for increased on-street enforcement presence. The consulted businesses felt it was a good idea, some residents thought that the money would be better spent on civic pride e.g. working more in schools or using it to attract more businesses to Redbridge. In all cases, it was clear the feedback highlighted that improved engagement, especially with businesses, is needed and should be ongoing.

4.29 The future of Redbridge’s Enforcement Officer (REO) will be focused on prevention, education and compliance, with enforcement most targeted at persistent offenders. The review has recognised the significance of these aspects and a designated post has been created in the proposed structure to lead this education and communication work. Where there are serious, persistent or grave breaches of legislation, the Redbridge Enforcement Team (RET) will seek to use enforcement to recover costs, send a message and ultimately change the behaviour of those who refuse to do so.

4.30 The new RET service will be operational from September 2015; in relation to other boroughs operating a similar service, within Redbridge officer numbers will be significantly smaller. The operational size of the new RET service and how will this impact on reported crime in the Borough is yet unknown however performance measures are being developed

Page | 34

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

to demonstrate a change in service delivery from the current position. The priorities of the new RET service may result in an imbalance of service delivery across the North and South of the Borough. The social issues facing the South of Redbridge, for example Loxford will inherently draw on RET resourcing and enforcement action as the area has wider environmental issues than other more affluent wards. In addition the new RET team will be tasked to specific areas which may impact existing enforcement work undertaken.

4.31 New legislation such as the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 has given local authorities new powers to tackle ASB issues, such as Criminal Protection Orders, Notices and Public Space Orders. The new powers are a strong tool to use against a wide range of community issues such as difficult letting agencies, tenants and private land owners.

4.32 Youth Related Anti-social Behaviour is an ongoing issue; Hainault in particular has an increasing issue with regard to youth related Anti-social behaviour and low level crime. The enforcement teams are currently targeting known offenders and managing interventions with Children’s Services and Enforcement teams have been working on reassurance engagement and support with the community.

4.33 Street Drinkers in Ilford Town Centre and surrounding areas have been an ongoing issue; a number of engagement and enforcement measures have been taken to engage and reduce the amount of street drinkers and protect others in the area from ASB. This has involved working with local businesses, support agencies and enforcement teams to ensure that the current “No Drinking Zone” is enforced.

4.34 Due to a larger Muslim community in Redbridge, both settled and new we are seeing an increase in the Shisha Bar trade. This leads to a number of ASB related calls and reports. Often the locations used do not fit building or non-smoking requirements and often leads to an increase in reports of noise and public nuisance.

4.35 We have seen an increase of reports from residential areas concerning overcrowding in rented properties, late night noise from new communities from Eastern Europe preferring to stay outside and gather outside later in the evenings. This has led to some local tension issues between new and host communities. Different life-styles and working or non-working patterns have led to an increase of reported ASB and noise. Our interventions show that language is not the issue but more about a reluctance to communicate and engage. We have worked with local support groups and community leaders to look at bringing communities together.

4.36 Moving forward under the new Service the capacity to respond to ASB issues such as above, to the extent that is achieved at this time is not yet known. Any reduction in expected service delivery would, in all likelihood, see an increase in complaints which will impact on public confidence and potentially give rise to community tension issues coming to the fore. An additional impact may see new and re-emerging referrals to the existing Redbridge Victims panel if issues are not resolved quickly at an early stage.

Page | 35

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

4.37 Again, checks and balances need to be in place to ensure a fair, consistent and transparent approach to incoming intelligence and enforcement response to community concerns. This will be a challenge to manage public expectations and prevent community issues potentially increasing.

Page | 36

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Section 5: The Impact of the Wider Determinants of Health on the Well-being of Perpetrators and Victims of Crime:

5.1 The Community Safety Partnership recognises that being a victim of crime is fundamentally unfair. The effect on victims is much wider than any financial implications, the impact on emotional wellbeing and confidence is difficult to calculate. This is compounded by the fact that some members of society are more likely to become victims of crime than others. Sadly often those most vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly are targeted by offenders.

5.2 High levels of crime and antisocial behavior can make communities decline, with people investing less in, and being less satisfied with their local areas. Much of the work of the Community Safety Service focuses on supporting those who have been victims of crime as well as trying to reduce the likelihood of future victimisation through early intervention, improving the environment and crime prevention initiatives.

Inequalities, Health & Well-being:

5.3 Inequalities in health arise because of inequalities in society – in the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. So close is the link between particular social and economic features of society and the distribution of health among the population, that the magnitude of health inequalities is a good marker of progress towards creating a fairer society. Taking action to reduce inequalities in health does not require a separate health agenda, but action across the whole of society. Well-being has been described as “a positive physical, social and mental state.”

Perpetrators of Crime:

Cognitive Functioning:

5.4 There is a wide consensus that individuals with below average functioning (in particular cognitive impairments) are disproportionately represented within the prison population. The acquisition of cognitive skills (your ability to process information, reason, remember, and relate) is strongly associated with better outcomes across the life course over a range of domains including employment, income and health. A range of empirical studies provide evidence that cognitive ability is a powerful determinant of earnings, propensity to get involved in crime and success in many aspects of social and economic life as well as health across the social gradient.

Income Inequality:

5.4 The most well-established environmental determinant of levels of violence is the scale of income differences between rich and poor. There is a tendency for rates of violent crime and homicide to be higher where there is more inequality. This is not just about material deprivation however. There is evidence that the degree of inequality in society is having a harmful effect on health, not only of the poor, but of society as a whole. Countries and areas within countries, marked by greater inequality have not only worse health but a

Page | 37

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

higher rate of crime and other adverse social outcomes. Both poverty and inequality may be important for social cohesion, life opportunities and health.

Deprived Neighbourhoods

5.5 Poorer people are more likely to live in more deprived neighbourhoods. The more deprived the neighbourhood, the more likely it is to have social and environmental characteristics presenting risks to health. These include poor housing, higher rates of crime, poorer air quality, a lack of green spaces and places for children to play and more risks to safety from traffic.

Exposure to Violence in Childhood and Education Achievement

5.6 Turbulent social environments characterised by exposure to violence in adolescence can impact on educational achievement. These environments are associated with health and developmental risk, yet mechanisms have been understudied. Results indicated that turbulent environments were associated with cumulative exposure to violence in adolescence. Both turbulence and cumulative exposure to violence were positively associated with higher health risk behaviour, poorer mental health, and inversely associated with high school completion.

Victims of Crime

Fear of Crime on Isolation and Physical Activity

5.7 High rates of crime and fear of crime create a risk to health and can lead to social isolation as well as reduced physical activity. Data from a population-based health and lifestyle survey of adults in northwest England were used to analyse associations between individual and neighbourhood perceptions and physical activity. People who felt safe in their neighbourhood were more likely to be physically active but no associations were found for vandalism, assaults, muggings or experience of crime. Feeling safe had the potential largest effect on population levels of physical activity. Strategies to increase physical activity in the population need to consider the wider determinants of health-related behaviour, including fear of crime and safety.

Social Cohesion

5.8 Some research suggests that where income differences are smaller, people experience their social environment as less hostile and more hospitable. That income inequality is related particularly closely to deaths from homicide, accidents (unintentional injuries), and alcohol-related causes also points toward pathways mediated by failing social cohesion. The distribution of street crime and violence suggests that the poorest neighbourhoods are least cohesive because richer neighbourhoods remain more cohesive; the rich are less likely than the poor to be victims of crime.

Page | 38

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Housing Improvement Policies

5.9 A review of systematic reviews found that general housing improvement policies, such as home visits to carry out risk assessments, removal of hazards to reduce risks of injury and installing insulation, were associated with positive change in social outcomes, including reductions in fear of crime and improvements in social participation.

Community Engagement Initiatives: Reduction in Crime and Perceptions of Crime

5.10 In a study conducted by Sheffield Hallam University (2005) they evaluated the impact of an area-based regeneration programme (New Deal) addressing five specific outcome areas: education, health, housing and the physical environment, crime, and employment. They found that community residents felt more secure in their local areas. In the main, changes in the perception of community safety were associated with the presence of street wardens and environmental improvements; however the evidence linking such benefits to community engagement is limited. The review also found evidence that taking part in community activities, and interacting with other local people, could improve residents’ perceptions of ‘threatening’ groups, such as young people. The proportion of residents reporting being a victim of crime and feeling it is unsafe after dark decreased significantly.

Conclusion

5.11 People who live in areas of higher deprivation whether they are perpetrators or victims of crime are more likely to be affected by tobacco smoke, biological and chemical contamination, hazardous waste sites, air pollution, flooding, sanitation and water scarcity, noise pollution and road traffic. At the same time, they are less likely to live in decent housing and in sociable and congenial places of high social capital that feel safe from crime and disorder, provide access to green spaces and have adequate transport options and opportunities for healthy living.

5.12 Further, action on social determinants of health leads to other benefits to society, which may in turn have more immediate economic benefits. For example, a more socially cohesive, educated population is likely to have lower rates of crime and civil disorder, a more highly skilled workforce and enable people to lead lives they have reason to value, as well as having better health and greater health equity.

Page | 39

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Section 6 - Areas of Particular Interest

Prevent and the Young Leaders Program

6.1 Introduction:

‘Prevent’ is one of the four strands of the Governments counter-terrorism strategy, ‘Contest’, which is part of the ‘National Security Strategy’. The four strands of the ‘Contest’ strategy are:

• Pursue; • Prevent; • Protect ; and • Prepare.

6.2 The aim of ‘Prevent’ is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It will do this by: • Responding to the ideological challenge we face from terrorism and aspects of extremism, and the threat we face from those who promote these views; • Provides practical help to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure they are given appropriate advice and support; and • Working with a wide range of sectors (including education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and health) where there are risks of radicalisation that are needed to be dealt with.

6.3 The strategy covers all forms of terrorism, including far right extremism, animal right activists and some non-violent extremism. However work is prioritised according to the risks that are faced. The ‘Prevent’ agenda is managed by the Home Office but is delivered by local authorities, a wide range of government departments and community organisations.

Prevent in Redbridge:

6.4 Redbridge has been designated a Prevent priority borough since the establishment of the Governments Counter Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST). This designation is based on a threat assessment developed by the security services. Limited information from this threat assessment is shared (in a restricted format) with the Chief Executive of the Local Authority via the Counter Terrorism Local Profile (CTLP).

6.5 Redbridge has employed a Prevent Coordinator since 2006 and a Prevent Support Officer since 2012, both officers funded by the Home Office. The Counter-Terrorism and

Page | 40

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Security Act 2015 (CT Act) came into force on July 1st 2015, and provides statutory guidance to support Prevent delivery in Redbridge.

6.6 Prevent delivery in Redbridge is overseen at a strategic level by the Prevent Strategic Group. It is chaired by the Chief Officer for Community Safety and members include Children’s Services, Adult Social Services, Police, Probation and Head Teachers representatives. Meetings are held quarterly. To date the Prevent Risk Assessment, as required by the CT Act and the 2015/6 delivery plan have been agreed.

6.7 The Prevent Support Officer delivers WRAP3 – Workshops to Raise Awareness of Prevent, training to all council frontline staff, including teachers and social workers. All (18) Redbridge secondary schools have received training as well as a number of the (53) Redbridge primary schools. This training has led to an increase in referrals to the Channel programme (a multi-agency safeguarding panel to which people at risk of radicalisation and extremism are referred) and also an increase in Prevent Case Management, which provides support for individuals referred to the Channel programme but who do not meet the Channel threshold.

6.8 Redbridge has delivered a number of Prevent projects funded by the Home Office. The Young Leaders programme, designed and developed in Redbridge over the past three years is considered a best practice Prevent project by the Home office. Redbridge has received Home Office funding for two projects for 2015/16 – The Young Leaders Programme and delivery of “You Have the Choice” DVD in schools.

Challenges:

• Perception of Prevent Agenda/Programme: Due to the main focus of the work, sections of the Muslim Community are unwilling to engage in the Prevent agenda;

The Young Leaders Program:

6.9 The main aim of the program is to develop the leadership skills of the participants whilst educating them on the Prevent agenda and the radicalisation processes. (This includes far right violent extremism as well as Al Qaida/ISIL inspired extremism.) This enables a cohort of local young people who are confident, resilient and knowledgeable about the Prevent agenda and the radicalisation process to positively influence others, and provide a counter narrative if necessary. The 2015/16 cohort will join the previous years’ cohorts as an advisory panel.

6.10 The nine month programme has just commenced - NCY will select Year 11 & 12 students from all Redbridge secondary schools to participate. Participants will reflect the

Page | 41

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

population diversity in Redbridge. The programme will include participants attending fifteen evening workshops/modules and a three day residential to be held at a University in the February half term.

“You have the Choice” DVD:

6.11 12 Young Leader’s from the 2012/13 cohort have story boarded, filmed & produced a 10 min DVD to raise awareness of the radicalisation process. This has been designed suitable for 13yr olds to be shown as part of a series of Year 9 RE/PHSE lessons. Pilots have been undertaken in two Redbridge secondary schools which have been successful. A number of other Redbridge secondary schools would like to show the DVD and deliver the associated lesson plans. However, the majority of staff lack the knowledge and confidence required to do so, which has resulted in a request to the Home Office for additional funding to undertake capacity building with staff to address this issue.

Page | 42

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Violence against Women and Girls

6.12 Supporting vulnerable victims is a strategic priority for the Redbridge Community Safety Partnership. This priority includes those experiencing any form of Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). The United Nations defines VAWG as: ‘any act of gender- based violence that is directed at a woman because she is a woman, or acts of violence which are suffered disproportionally by women’. The term VAWG brings together 8 strands of policy under one umbrella term. These are:

• Domestic Violence and abuse; • Rape and Sexual violence; • Stalking and Harassment; • Trafficking and Prostitution; • Sexual Exploitation; • Female Genital Mutilation ; • Forced Marriage; and • Honour Based Violence.

6.13 The Partnership remains committed to preventing violence from happening, providing early support where violence occurs and working in partnership with voluntary and statutory agencies to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. In line with national action locally we are working towards increasing:

• Prevention and Early Help; • Provision of Support Services; • Partnership Working; and • Justice outcomes and risk reduction.

6.14 This strategy is focused on the needs of women and girls and is a deliberate response to the disproportionate impact of gender based violence on women and girls. This does not mean that men are never victims of, for example, rape, forced marriage, or domestic violence, or even that women are not sometimes perpetrators. The Partnership is also committed supporting men and boys to addressing all forms of exploitation and abuse across the borough.

Local context 6.15 Accurate data which details the prevalence of VAWG issues is difficult to obtain because of the hidden nature of the crimes. Under reporting of all forms of VAWG is common, with research suggesting that there can be many incidents before disclosures are made. We do have an accurate picture of the number of Domestic Abuse and Sexual Offences which are reported to police within the borough.

Page | 43

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Offence June 13-May 2014 June 14-May 2015 % Change

Rape 127 132 +3.9%

Other Sexual 185 132 +89.7

Harassment 1338 1748 +30.6%

Domestic Crime 1929 2122 +10% NB Reporting of sexual offences has increased nationwide in response to Operation Yewtree and the Saville enquiry.

6.16 As illustrated, the number of crimes has increased significantly in the stated period. We currently have limited data on the prevalence of some of the other VAWG strands such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) although health services will be obliged to collect and share data from October 2015.

Challenges

Improving Criminal Justice Outcomes:

6.17 The increase in incidents presents a challenge; this is combined with a reduction in the sanction detection rates for these crimes. The Metropolitan Police Service continues to work hard to support victims to increase positive criminal justice outcomes by offering support through the criminal justice process, special measures at court and pursuing evidence led prosecutions which can go ahead without the support of the victim.

Developing appropriate support services

6.18 An integral part of our work to reduce VAWG strategy is to increase support for those who are experiencing any of the forms of violence or control listed above. The Community Safety Partnership are working together with other service areas within the council to develop a new approach, where women and girls are supported at the earliest opportunity by providing services that are responsive and tailored to support clients. The new service model was developed following a best practice scoping exercise, and consultation with service users.

Early Intervention

6.19 The borough has a fully functioning Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference which is a multi-agency meeting which works with and supports those victims who

Page | 44

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

at most serious risk of harm or death as a result of domestic abuse. In 2014, 271 individuals and their children were referred to this panel for support and safety planning.

6.20 Despite this large number we are very aware that this is just a small percentage of those families living with domestic abuse as we know as well as the number of police incidents, Children and Families Services are seeing a large increase in referrals to Child Protection Teams where domestic abuse is a factor and Housing continue to see a large number of families approaching the Homeless Advice Centre requesting support as a result of domestic violence.

6.21 We therefore need to offer interventions as early as is possible, this is more effective, reduces the impact on children and in the long terms saves money by reducing the numbers of higher cost interventions such as support with homelessness.

Responding to Prostitution in Redbridge:

6.22 Although prostitution is one of the strands under the umbrella of Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG), we have developed a separate local strategy to reduce Prostitution. In line with the Mayor of London’s strategy which promotes a more holistic response to trafficking and prostitution to support women to exit, the Redbridge strategy also has strands which cover Enforcement, Engagement and Environmental change.

6.23 The Partnership recognise that women involved in prostitution can be some of the most vulnerable in our communities and that most women and girls enter into prostitution through a lack of choice, however we have to balance this with the impact that living in an area known for on-street prostitution has on local residents.

6.24 There are therefore two, sometimes competing groups whose needs need to be addressed, when responding to prostitution:

• Women (and men) Involved in Prostitution; and • Local Residents, particularly in the Ilford Lane area who are impacted by the activities of the women involved in prostitution and the men who exploit them.

Local context:

6.25 Scoping exercises carried out to establish the extent of on-street prostitution in Redbridge revealed the existence of isolated incidents of on-street prostitution in a number of wards. However, the small number of women involved in prostitution evident at these

Page | 45

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

locations and the irregularity of occurrence, minimise the majority of the associated impacts on the local community in these areas, along with the options for undertaking appropriate interventions.

6.26 The exception to this is the well-established on-street prostitution issue in the South of the borough, on and around Ilford Lane. The on-street prostitution problem in this area has been well covered in the local press and has resulted in the Council receiving two petitions from local residents of the area, highlighting the negative impact that this activity is having upon them.

6.27 There has been two reported serious incidents related on-street prostitution on Ilford lane. These include the murder of Mariana Popa on the 29th October 2013. With another incident being the knife attack on an outreach worker who was working with the women involved in prostitution on Ilford Lane, which resulted in serious injury in November 2014.

Head Counts:

6.28 To obtain a better understanding of the volume of women involved in prostitution, visibly working on Ilford Lane, the Community Safety Partnership has conducted visual head counts over two week periods on a number of occasions since June 2013. Women usually arrive around 2200hrs, the number of women observed operating in the area is as follows:

Month Average number

June/July 2013 10.5

Jan/Feb 2014 4.5

May/June 2014 5.8

Jan/Feb 2015 3.0

May 2015 7.0

6.29 As can be observed from the table above, although the number of women visibly operating on Ilford Lane has reduced from the initial count, it has not been a consistent reduction and continues to fluctuate. Despite this we have seen a 46% reduction in ASB complaints relating to prostitution in Loxford over the period 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015.

Page | 46

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

• Enforcement Activity:

6.30 The focus of the enforcement activity has shifted during the time span of the strategy. Initially, more enforcement activity was undertaken against the women involved in prostitution; however as the work has progressed the focus of the enforcement activity has moved onto the men who purchase sex. The objective of this tactic is to reduce further criminalisation of women involved in prostitution and instead to collapse the market place through targeting the men.

Sex Worker Cautions Kerb Crawler Prosecutions 01/04/13 to 31/03/14 – 237 01/04/13 to 31/03/14 - 43 01/04/14 to 31/03/15 – 148 01/04/14 to 31/03/15 - 77 Reduction of 38% Increase of 79%

Outreach Service and Needs Assessment:

6.31 To provide further information on the needs of the women involved in prostitution, the Community Safety Partnership commissioned Open Doors to produce a needs assessment This research, which involved outreach and engagement with the women, looked at their needs with regards to health, safety, history of violence, housing provision, along with what would be required to help these women to exit from prostitution.

6.32 A full copy of the report “Findings from an eight week Needs Assessment Conducted with Street Sex Workers in the London Borough of Redbridge, May 2014” can be found as an appendix to this report.

6.33 Much of this information was used to develop the service the Council has commissioned QALB to provide an Outreach, Advocacy and Support service to the women involved in prostitution. This project started on the 7th April 2015, with the work to date including outreach and engagement work with on-street sex workers, working in coordination with the local Policing team in Loxford ward. It has also carried out visits to a number of suspected brothels in conjunction with other Neighbourhood Policing team, to engage with those women found working in these establishments.

6.34 Additionally to this the London Borough of Redbridge has worked with and supported a number of other organisations who have worked with the women involved in prostitution. This has included working with the Safe Space project, set up by the Redbridge Street Pastors in conjunction with the Salvation Army, with the aim of providing a safe environment for women involved in prostitution where engagement and signposting can take place along with general support in a neutral space.

Page | 47

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

6.35 In October 2015, with the launch of the integrated VAWG service, this service provision will be folded into the wider VAWG service. The contract will be monitored to ensure that outreach, advocacy and support for the women involved in prostitution continues to be undertaken.

6.36 To date we have not been made aware of any specific incidents of men operating as sex workers either on-street or off-street. No intelligence information exists that this is a problem either through reports or complaints from local residents or from self-reporting by any men involved in this activity following incidents. Both the current outreach service provision and the new VAWG service include a requirement for referral pathways to male service providers to be available, should the need for this service arise.

Challenges:

6.37 Anecdotally, the number and prevalence of off-street prostitution environments is on the increase in Redbridge, this perception may be the result of an increase in advertising material being distributed across the borough. A report compiled by ‘Eaves’ in 2008 into the provision of brothels across London, estimated that there were 39 brothels operating in Redbridge. This has been identified as an area of work to increase intelligence information on the numbers, types and locations of brothels operating in Redbridge. This will to allow relevant agencies to have a better understanding of the problem and the level of resources required to address this.

6.38 As stated previously the Partnership recognises that women involved in prostitution can be incredibly vulnerable, and that many women enter into prostitution through a lack of choice. We have to balance the desire to offer support and the facility to encourage exit, with the need to reduce the impact that living in an area known for on-street prostitution has on local residents.

6.39 The ongoing allocation of resources, responding to residents’ concerns and complaints vs the use of intelligence led tasking which may direct resources elsewhere in response to competing priorities. Previous experience has shown that lack of sustained activity to reduce on-street prostitution in the hot spot area has led to a return to increased activity.

Page | 48

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Responding to Residential Burglary in Redbridge

Introduction:

6.40 Residential Burglary is one of the four priorities of the Redbridge Community Safety Partnership, as set out its Redbridge Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Partnership Plan 2013-16. Burglary is categorised as either residential burglary or non-residential burglary and on the Metropolitan Police’s website, these are described as:

• Residential Burglary: Is the theft, or attempted theft, from a building/premises (that is fit for habitation) where access is not authorised. Damage to buildings/premises that appear to have been caused by a person attempting to enter to commit a burglary is also counted as burglary. • Non-Residential Burglary: Is the theft, or attempted theft, from a building where access is not authorised. The building is not fit or intended for habitation e.g. a commercial property. Damage to buildings that appears to have been caused by a person attempting to enter to commit a burglary is also counted as burglary.

6.41 Due to the differing nature of these types of offences, in terms of the nature of the response required to address the problem, coupled with the differences in the volume of each of these two sub-categories of burglary and the impact upon victims, residential burglary was chosen as the priority over burglary as a whole. When a burglary is carried out, where entry to the premises is gained through deception or trickery, such as pretending to be a utilities meter reader, this is often referred to as artifice or distraction burglary. Where this has taken place within a residential property, it would be categorised within the residential burglary figures.

Residential Burglary in Redbridge:

6.42 Redbridge, along with many other boroughs, makes up London’s suburban commuter belt. Indeed, there are 99,105 households in Redbridge providing accommodation to a population of 278,970 people. Ironically many of the things that make Redbridge an attractive place to live also make the borough an attractive place for burglars to operate. An example is the excellent road, tube and rail links into the borough, that provide superb access to the city for residents, as well as routes into the borough for offenders.

6.43 Redbridge saw successive increases in the rate of residential burglary in the Borough between 2007/08 and 2011/12. However since this point, the combined work of the Police, Council and other partnership agencies has resulted in a significant decrease in residential burglary.

Year (1st April – 30th Mar) Volume of Residential Burglary Change

Page | 49

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

2011 – 2012 2,982 N/A 2012 – 2013 2,651 - 11.1 % 2013 – 2014 2,255 - 14.9 % 2014 – 2015 2,017 - 11.8 % Apr 2015 to end May 2015 236 N/A

Responding to Residential Burglary:

6.44 Work undertaken through the Community Safety Partnership to address residential burglary is channelled through three main responses, which are:

• Supporting victims of crime; • Improving vulnerable locations; and • Tackling offenders.

Please note, some of the activities or projects undertaken could fall under one or two of these areas of work but they will only be covered under one category. The work undertaken to tackle offenders, is principally addressed through work by either the Police, Probation or in partnership with the Local Authority under the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) scheme which is covered in a separate paper, as such this paper will concentrate on the first two areas of intervention. The partnership will also task activities to take place in burglary hotspot areas, such as Operation Liberals, which through targeting commercial vehicles and vans reduces the likelihood of these areas being targeted in this way.

Supporting victims of crime:

6.45 The following activities and projects are undertaken in Redbridge to help support victims of burglary:

• Follow up visits by Safer Neighbourhood Team officers; • During these follow up visits, each victim of burglary and where appropriate their immediate neighbours are offered a free traceable liquid marking kit. Previously these have been SelectDNA property marking kits but following the roll out of the MetTrace project in Redbridge, the Community Safety Partnership are in the process of purchasing additional kits to continue to be provided to victims of burglary; • Referral to Victim Support Service; and • Referral to the Safer Homes Project – this is a Council funded scheme managed by Victims Support, where a handy man will visit identified properties which have suffered a burglary and install additional window and door alarms, spy holes, locks and chains;

Page | 50

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

6.46 Improving Vulnerable Locations:

• Alley-Gating: The Community Safety service operate an alley-gating scheme, where match funding and project management assistance is made available to resident lead schemes, to install gates closing off alleyways in burglary hotspot areas; • Neighbourhood Watch (NHW): The Council and the Community Safety Partnership have provided financial assistance to NHW, to help the establishment of the independent NHW Charity. This has supported NHW with the purchase of promotional material to promote NHW and street signage to be put up in NHW areas; • Bogus Caller Partnership (BCP): The Community Safety Partnership has continued to support the Bogus Caller Partnership, which is responsible for the introduction and management of the 42 “Caller Restricted Zones” in the borough. It also carries out awareness raising exercises, especially with the elderly and vulnerable residents in the borough giving them confidence to turn away cold callers and fraudsters, reducing artifice burglary; and • Private Rented Property Licensing Scheme: The introduction of this scheme will require private landlords to register and meet minimum standards for their let property. This will ensure that Landlords take into account ‘Entry by Intruders’ as a hazard, this includes the inclusion of preventative measures such as appropriate locks on doors and windows, security lighting, door chains etc.

6.47 Challenges:

• Continuing the current reduction in residential burglary requires a continuation in the funding and the prioritisation of this area of work within the crime reduction partnership to ensure that after the current reduction, there is no sudden increase; • The identification of vulnerable individuals to be prioritised for target hardening work, to reduce victimisation of these individuals; • Managing the introduction of further ‘caller restricted zones’ to respond to residents’ concerns while being able to effectively inforce or respond to issues in already established zones, with diminishing resources; • The increasing number of transient residents and private let properties in the borough, which result in an increase in fluctuating communities. This results in less natural guardianship, through a reduction in knowledge of neighbours, properties which have reduced security measures added by property owners therefore increasing the opportunity to burgle properties and a need to repeat crime reduction information to new residents through increased flux in the resident population;

Page | 51

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Community Engagement and Consultation:

6.48 Residents are engaged through a number of activities in the following ways:

• Police Safer Neighbourhood Teams – Engagement through day to day interaction, the provision of crime prevention advice at public events and through ward panel meetings, follow up visits to victims of burglary; • Neighbourhood Watch – Engagement activity takes place with residents as a matter of course, Neighbourhood Watch is a charity run by local residents. It promotes neighbourhood watch at public events, with the aim of increasing the number of watches actively operating in the borough. Each watch will be organised and run by a local resident, with support from ward coordinators and the borough co-ordinator; and • London Borough of Redbridge Marketing and Communications team – Produce articles and publish information to advice local residents on crime prevention measures that can be undertaken as part of the burglary reduction strategy and to act as a reminder to residents to be aware of the issue;

Page | 52

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Integrated Offender Management (IOM)

Introduction:

6.49 Integrated Offender Management (IOM) is a multi-agency partnership approach to reducing crime and re-offending as well as protecting victims. It was launched nationally in 2004 and focuses on supervising, managing and positively impacting on the criminal activity of repeat offenders in custody and in the community. The London-wide IOM Strategic and Operational Frameworks were launched in 2014 in recognition of IOM being adopted at different rates and that the approach adopted varies significantly between London Boroughs.

6.50 The frameworks aim to provide a consistent approach across London and give guidance on issues such as selection and management of cohorts, staff resources, governance, outcome and data management, information sharing, supported compliance, roles and responsibilities of key partners, contributions of wider partners and links to other organisations that work with offenders in the community.

6.51 Promoting change in the lifestyle of prolific and entrenched offenders may take considerable time. The approach therefore includes close monitoring and continued support as well as swift enforcement action should an offence take place.

Redbridge has adopted the Government’s five principles of IOM, namely:

• A partnership approach to tackling offenders; • Delivering a local response to local problems; • Offenders facing up to their responsibilities or the consequences of their crimes; • Making better use of existing programmes and governance; and • Focussing on offenders at high risk of causing serious harm and/or reoffending.

6.52 By targeting the right offenders the IOM approach can potentially have the most beneficial impact on the lives of their families and the communities they live in. An important factor is that the individual is motivated to change and to break the cycle of offending. This is dependent on a number of conditions.

6.53 The IOM multi-agency panel has representatives from Probation, Metropolitan Police Service, the local authority (Housing and Social Services), drug and alcohol treatment service, Single Housing Project (SHP) Floating Support (a charity providing accommodation and support services).The panel develops responses to address those issues which have been identified as the underlying causes and triggers of offending behaviour. These are:

• Accommodation; • Education, training & employment; • Health (physical and mental);

Page | 53

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

• Drugs & alcohol; • Finance, benefit & debt; • Children and families; and • Attitudes, thinking & behaviour.

6.54 Redbridge already follows the preferred delivery model of co-location of IOM partners. Other work is ongoing. The cohort has been refreshed in line with the agreed criteria and is currently at a level of between 35 and 40. New legislation (The Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014) extends the requirement for statutory supervision to those offenders sentenced to less than 12 months custody which it is expected will significantly increase the size of the cohort. In anticipation of this increased workload a second IOM police officer has been appointed. An IOM Co-ordinator has also been appointed by the local authority to develop links with local partners. A Reducing Re-Offending Board has been set up to follow the governance model in the London framework. This ensures collaboration with other offender focused schemes in the borough, namely the Deter Young Offenders Panel and Serious Group Offenders Group.

6.55 With effect from October 2015, the probation services in London will be structured to work with clients through themed cohorts. These are designed to reflect different client needs and client numbers. There will be a separate cohort for women and for those with mental health and intellectual disabilities. There will be 3 groups for males including one for younger men (18 to 25 years) and one for older males (50+ years).

Challenges:

• Housing – Limited availability of housing to provide accommodation; • Changes to statutory services – Changes to the national probation service and the development of two new organisations as a result; • Changes to delivery model – Internal changes within partner organisations have resulted in changes to the management and construction of monitored cohort; • Changes to Legislation – Requirement to monitor offenders sentenced to less than 12 month prison sentences result an increase in the number of managed offenders; and • Ensuring appropriate representation at multi-agency meetings due to reductions in partner agencies budgets and staffing levels.

IOM Case Study:

6.56 This 35 year old male was an entrenched Class A drug fuelled offender. By his own account he started using heroin and crack cocaine in his teens, through experimenting with his friends. He has an extensive history of offending, coming to the notice of the authorities in his early 20’s in 1999. Most of his offending has been of an acquisitive nature, primarily shoplifting and also residential burglary. He has been known to be violent. He has 21 convictions resulting from 27 arrests and was one of the “top” offenders in the borough which had a detrimental impact on the community.

Page | 54

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

He lost his job as a plumber, partly through drug use and inability to keep to the work commitment, which perpetuated the spiral of offending and drug use.

6.57 Since 2003, he had the opportunity to engage in drug treatment through the Drug Interventions Programme. However, his engagement was chaotic and he often dropped out of the service within weeks. He also had the opportunity to engage in prison and seemed to do well in custody. In 2012 he was taken on the IOM cohort due to previous convictions for residential burglary. In July 2012 he was sentenced to 30 months in prison for attempted residential burglary in the borough whilst subject to a prison licence for residential burglary. During this time in custody he became abstinent, not even using prescribed opiate substitutes and was regularly tested and found to be negative for Class A drugs. As a result of this he was able to move to the drug free wing in prison. He was a model prisoner, attending key work and group work sessions and did paid work as a cleaner. On release on licence in November 2013, despite engaging with treatment services he later lapsed, due he said to “boredom”.

6.58 Support was provided by the IOM when he was threatened with eviction. He was adamant that he wanted residential rehabilitation and recognised that he needed to leave the area and the negative peer associations and drug using way of life. By this time he was estranged from almost all of his family. Funding for residential rehabilitation was successfully applied for on his behalf and he commenced treatment in Bournemouth in April 2014. He was supported by the IOM team in his year in rehab, with two team visits by the Metropolitan Police Service, Probation and Criminal Justice Intervention Team. He attended a healthy relationships programme as part of the rehabilitation. He became reconnected with his family during this time, who provided support which helped. He has continued to receive IOM support after his licence ended in January 2015.

6.59 He does not want to return to London and recognises that he will be vulnerable and at risk of re-offending if he does. He plans to settle in Bournemouth and gain employment there having completed an Education Training Employment (ETE) programme provided by local agencies. He has continued to remain abstinent. There have been no indications of any further offending or negative intelligence from either the rehab centre or other agencies.

6.60 During his time on the cohort, the Redbridge IOM services have provided intense monitoring and the support they have provided for the client has been relentless. Between them they worked through some challenging behaviour. Much of the success is attributable to the partnership between police; probation and criminal justice drug service all giving a consistent focus.

Page | 55

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

The Redbridge Night-Time Economy:

Redbridge in Context:

6.61 The Council has the responsibility for licensing a range of commercial and leisure activities. These include Massage & Special Treatments, Gambling, Alcohol & Entertainment and Street Trading. Many of these licensing regimes impact upon the provision of a safe and sustainable night-time economy. Gambling premises licences are particularly scrutinised to ensure that the licensing objective to ensure the protection of children and other vulnerable persons from harm is actively promoted.

6.62 As well as licensing and making provision, the council also provides a Licensing Enforcement service, which through compliance and regulation achieves a fair and safe environment for traders, patrons and residents. The Council’s Licensing Services work in partnership with other statutory bodies including the Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, other Council regulatory services and the borough’s licensees. This partnership aims to support the night-time economy through education, compliance and regulation and in so doing create a vibrant and diverse night-time economy with a full range of cultural and social activities. These include activities that are not dependent upon the provision of alcohol such as theatres, cafes and restaurants. The aim is to establish a safe, sustainable and thriving economy that can be enjoyed by persons of all ages and from all sections of the community.

Night-time Economy

6.63 The Core Strategy recommends the participation best practice schemes such as Purple Flag and Best Bar None. Previous years have seen Best Bar None awards and an annual ‘Best Premises’ presentation. The Purple Flag award has been awarded to the Gants Hill area of Redbridge, as a standard to aspire to.

The Licensing service contributes to the Safer Redbridge strategy by working to:

• improve the quality of life of residents through the provision of a clean and safe local environment; • protect the public and local residents from crime, anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance caused by irresponsible licensed premises; • effectively manage and police the night-time economy and take action against those premises that are causing problems; • recognise the important role which pubs and other licensed premises play in our local communities by minimising the regulatory burden on business, encouraging innovation and supporting responsible premises; • provide a regulatory framework for alcohol which reflects the needs of local communities and empowers local authorities to make and enforce decisions about the most appropriate licensing strategies for their local area; and • encourage greater community involvement in licensing decisions giving residents the opportunity to have their say regarding licensing decisions that affect them.

Page | 56

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Cumulative Impact Policies:

6.64 The Licensing Authority identified Ilford Town Centre and South Woodford as areas where the number, type and density of premises selling alcohol for consumption on the premises were having a serious negative impact on the local community. These areas became subject to special policies which ensure that further licences will not be issued unless applicants can demonstrate there will be no adverse impact upon the local area. These policies acknowledge the need to rebalance the rights of residents and others who are adversely affected by issues in the night-time (and day-time) economy.

Regulation, Compliance & Enforcement in the Night-Time Economy:

6.65 The Council’s Enforcement Services work closely and in partnership with other statutory agencies, local, regional or national to secure compliance and fairness at all active licensed premises. The principal aim is to ensure safety and sustainability in the night-time economy. A balance of the needs of residents and their entitlement to the quiet enjoyment of their homes is a core objective of the services. The borough’s Anti-Social Behaviour Team is active throughout night-times to deal with incidences of nuisance and ASB that impacts upon property and the lives of residents.

6.66 The Licensing service provides night-time compliance and enforcement activities in a ‘robust’ application of the legal framework and conditions under which night time venues may operate. Regular partnership activities aim to reduce incidences of crime and have contributed to a 27% reduction in violence with injury in the rolling 12 months to June 2015. Much of the reduction is attributed to the enforcement activities of Partnership agencies in licensed premises and town centre locations.

Challenges:

• Reductions in availability of staff to continue partnership working; • Reduction in ability to monitor licensed premises to ensure compliance with licensing conditions; • Managing expectations of residents vs business needs; and • Establishing rates for licenses, each borough to set their own tariffs, rates must be competitive and fair.

Page | 57

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

Community Cohesion:

6.67 Redbridge has a track record of strong community cohesion and the work of the fairness commission to reduce economic and social disadvantage will be fundamental to maintaining and progressing what has been achieved to date in challenging circumstances. There are many aspects of cohesion that are very effectively addressed, commonly where enforcement measures apply such as crime and antisocial behaviour, street cleaning etc. There are also high profile aspects such as preventing people becoming radicalised or supporting terrorism which are proactively addressed. These are important components of cohesion but not the whole picture. There are a range of common issues involved in the overall cohesion picture, they include:

• Delivering better services and tackling broad social problems; • Greater partnership working; • Tackling inequalities, prejudice and discrimination; • Addressing economic and social disadvantage; • Reducing crime and the fear of crime; • Raising educational standards; • Alleviating poverty and deprivation; • Addressing unemployment; • Cleaning up the physical environment; • Improving social housing; and • Fostering greater confidence in the police

We can see that we have addressed many of these themes, often very positively but they are not always badged as community cohesion.

6.68 A cohesive borough is one where:

• Diversity is a strength; • People live positively together, value each other and get on well together; • Links and relationships are built; • Everyone has a stake in society, makes a contribution and the contribution of everyone is valued; • There are equal opportunities for everyone and no-one is excluded; • There is commitment to social justice and reducing inequalities; and • People are proud of the borough and their neighbourhood.

6.69 Whilst we aim to have a cohesive borough evidence shows that cohesion is built in neighbourhoods. In building local identity, engagement and empowerment, neighbourhoods can demonstrate that people have more in common than they have to divide them. By focussing on local priorities (such as street cleaning, parking, and local

Page | 58

Fairness Commission Evidence Pack

facilities) neighbourhoods can develop stronger links than would be possible through discussions of “difference”

Conclusion: 6.70 Redbridge has a good record of positive community relations some of which is attributable to work on aspects of community cohesion by statutory and voluntary agencies across the borough. Maintaining current levels of cohesion might prove challenging as times become more difficult. There is a temptation to focus resource into areas with immediate visible outcomes, for example through enforcement activity. There are, however, further dimensions of community cohesion which are less concrete and more difficult to appreciate whilst they are going well; nevertheless, it is important that we continue to work on those aspects with equal vigour.

Page | 59

Title: Overview of crime & ASB in Redbridge

Date period: Rolling year July 2014 –May 2015

Data requested by: Fairness Commission

Date: 03/07/2015

Produced by John Phillipson - Crime and Disorder Strategic Analyst / Senior transformation analyst

Information on data the data used to provide this report Data is taken from the Metropolitan Police Website. This crime data is extracted from the crime reporting information system (CRIS). (The main police database). Small changes can be made to figures to reflect developments in investigations - for example, the MET police could determine that a crime recorded as a burglary was actually criminal damage, so the crime would be reclassified on the system to provide the most accurate picture - these crime figures are subject to change.

There will always be slight differences between borough totals and ward figures. This is because there may be certain incidents where the location of the crime is not known by the victim or investigating police force. For example, the victim may not know or be able to recall where a crime took place, or it may have occurred during travel between two locations. The MET work to around a 5% tolerance for ward figures measured against borough figures.

IMPORTANT: Data in this report cannot be measured against figures produced on the Police.uk website. Police.uk provides a snap-shot of crimes and anti-social behaviour at street-level over the past month. The information provided is anonymised if the crime location would lead to it being shown more than 20m from where it actually took place, if this is the case then these crimes are not shown on the map.

Please note caveat for the data provided:

Rape/sexual offences

Due to the increased profile of sexual offences in the press caused by the Jimmy Saville scandal, there has been some historic reporting of these types of offences, which led to an increase of reporting nationally for sexual offences. Crimes like rape are sometimes reported some time after the event but are always recorded in the figures in the year that they were reported.

Maps used:

Hotspot map – Thematic map – Variance map – based on based on point based on ward ward data, shows where level data, ignores data, shows highest incidents have increased boundaries. and lowest values. and decreased in value. Overview of crime in Redbridge MAPit

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Redbridge Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 2 6 +4 +200.0% ▲ Wounding/GBH 535 663 +128 +23.9% ▲ Assault With Injury 1228 1361 +133 +10.8% ▲ Common Assault 1273 1626 +353 +27.7% ▲ Offensive Weapon 94 95 +1 +1.1% ▲ Harassment 1338 1748 +410 +30.6% ▲ Other Violence 262 264 +2 +0.8% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 4732 5763 +1031 +21.8% ▲ Rape 127 132 +5 +3.9% ▲ Other Sexual 185 351 +166 +89.7% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 312 483 +171 +54.8% ▲ Personal Property 783 596 -187 -23.9% ▼ Business Property 65 65 0 0.0% ◄ Robbery Total 848 661 -187 -22.1% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 2151 2041 -110 -5.1% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 629 511 -118 -18.8% ▼ Burglary Total 2780 2552 -228 -8.2% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 939 957 +18 +1.9% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 2063 1537 -526 -25.5% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 241 262 +21 +8.7% ▲ Theft From Shops 878 915 +37 +4.2% ▲ Theft Person 521 512 -9 -1.7% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 168 173 +5 +3.0% ▲ Other Theft 2629 2531 -98 -3.7% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 66 39 -27 -40.9% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 7505 6926 -579 -7.7% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 12 33 +21 +175.0% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 12 33 +21 +175.0% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 324 322 -2 -0.6% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 130 161 +31 +23.8% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 685 722 +37 +5.4% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 364 440 +76 +20.9% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 1503 1645 +142 +9.4% ▲ Drug Trafficking 67 70 +3 +4.5% ▲ Possession Of Drugs 1652 1246 -406 -24.6% ▼ Other Drugs 6 6 0 0.0% ◄ Drugs Total 1725 1322 -403 -23.4% ▼ Going Equipped 17 9 -8 -47.1% ▼ Other Notifiable 321 403 +82 +25.5% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 338 412 +74 +21.9% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 19755 19797 +42 +0.2% ▲

Theft & Handling Crime category % 35% Violence Against The Person Theft & Handling Violence Against The Person 29% Burglary Burglary 13% Criminal Damage Criminal Damage 8% Drugs Drugs 7% Robbery Robbery 3% Sexual Offences Sexual Offences 2% Other Notifiable Offences 2% Other Notifiable Offences Fraud & Forgery 0% Fraud & Forgery Overview of crime in Redbridge (Cont.) MAPit

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Redbridge Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Domestic Crime 1929 2122 +193 +10.0% ▲ Racist & Religious Hate Crime 335 343 +8 +2.4% ▲ Homophobic Crime 32 20 -12 -37.5% ▼ Anti-Semitic Crime 12 21 +9 +75.0% ▲ Islamophobic Crime 18 25 +7 +38.9% ▲ Total ASB in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Hotspot map showing total ASB incidents reported to the council for the rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 Hotspot map showing the total ASB incidents reported to the council for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP CHURCH END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES Redbridge CLEMENTS- WOOD MAYFIELD Volum Per 1000 pop

RANK Area eVariance LOXFORD Redbridge 4203 379 15.0661

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table)

Per 1000 Per 1000 RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop 11Loxford 307 74 18.5566 1Clementswood 205 0 13.9779 21Hainault 292 19 22.5430 2Aldborough 202 -4 13.8889 31Goodmayes 285 40 21.8073 3Fullwell 184 36 14.2525 41Chadwell266 40 18.6575 4Bridge 177 22 15.1827 51Snaresbrook 258 84 21.7446 5Mayfield 153 19 11.1908 61Seven Kings 255 40 16.8161 6Church End 138 -26 11.9833 71Roding 240 14 19.0024 7Barkingside 135 -49 10.7066 81Fairlop 240 29 19.9269 8Monkhams 119 38 11.4182 91Newbury 227 34 13.5442 9Clayhall 111 -19 8.3831 10 Valentines 214 3 15.1526 20 Wanstead 108 12 9.3563 21 Cranbrook 87 -27 6.8075 Graph showing monthly trends forcriminal damage total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

800  In Redbridge there were 4203 total ASB incidents in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 379 increase

700 compared to the pervious year.

600  15 wards experienced an increase in total ASB 500

400 Redbridge  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is July * 300  81% of ASB incidents reported to the council are about noise 200  100

0  Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Total notifiable offences in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of total notifiable offences for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of total notifiable offences for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

1 Clementswood 2132 20 1.4537 11 Hainault 789 41 0.6091 1 Area6 4307 -94 0.960 7% 2 Valentines 1538 25 1.0890 12 Fairlop 765 -82 0.6057 2 Area7 3433 131 0.786 22% 12% 3 Loxford 1457 -23 0.8807 13 Church_End 722 -29 0.6270 3 Area5 3114 -81 0.733 Area 6 22% 4 Seven_Kings 1400 -19 0.9232 14 Clayhall 719 70 0.5430 4 Area2 2589 86 0.567 Area 7 18% Area 5 16% 5 Aldborough 1001 -36 0.6883 15 Mayfield 718 -91 0.5252 5 Area4 2407 33 0.596 12% Area 2 13% 6 Cranbrook 965 62 0.7551 16 Fullwell 709 -84 0.5492 6 Area3 2263 -125 0.588 Area 4 12% Area 3 12% 18% 7 Newbury 930 44 0.5549 17 Bridge 691 4 0.5927 7 Area1 1442 -59 0.616 Area 1 7%

8 Goodmayes 919 65 0.7032 18 Barkingside 687 -1 0.5448 Redbridge 13% 9 Wanstead 800 -62 0.6931 19 Roding 649 1 0.5389 Per 1000 16%

10 Chadwell 795 -127 0.5576 20 Snaresbrook 642 3 0.5411 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Monkhams 527 110 0.5057 Redbridge 19555 -109 70.097 Graph showing monthly trends fortotal notifiable offences offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May- 15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

250 2000  In Redbridge there were 19555 total notifiable offencess in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -109 1800 Seven Kings crime decrease. 200 1600 Loxford 1400  11 wards experienced an increase in total notifiable offences 150 1200 Clementswood 1000  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is October * Valentines 100 800  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is October * 600 Redbridge 50 400  In Loxford the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is July * Poly. (Clementswood) 200

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is December * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Total notifiable offences in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of total notifiable offences for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the variance of total notifiable offences for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop 1 Clementswood 2132 20 1.4537 11 Hainault 789 41 0.6091 1 Area6 4307 -94 0.960 7% 2 Valentines 1538 25 1.0890 12 Fairlop 765 -82 0.6057 2 Area7 3433 131 0.786 22% 12% 3 Loxford 1457 -23 0.8807 13 Church_End 722 -29 0.6270 3 Area5 3114 -81 0.733 Area 6 22% 4 Seven_Kings 1400 -19 0.9232 14 Clayhall 719 70 0.5430 4 Area2 2589 86 0.567 Area 7 18% Area 5 16% 5 Aldborough 1001 -36 0.6883 15 Mayfield 718 -91 0.5252 5 Area4 2407 33 0.596 12% Area 2 13% 6 Cranbrook 965 62 0.7551 16 Fullwell 709 -84 0.5492 6 Area3 2263 -125 0.588 Area 4 12% Area 3 12% 18% 7 Newbury 930 44 0.5549 17 Bridge 691 4 0.5927 7 Area1 1442 -59 0.616 Area 1 7%

8 Goodmayes 919 65 0.7032 18 Barkingside 687 -1 0.5448 Redbridge 13% 9 Wanstead 800 -62 0.6931 19 Roding 649 1 0.5389 Per 1000 16%

10 Chadwell 795 -127 0.5576 20 Snaresbrook 642 3 0.5411 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Monkhams 527 110 0.5057 Redbridge 19555 -109 70.097 Graph showing monthly trends fortotal notifiable offences offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May- 15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

250 2000  In Redbridge there were 19555 total notifiable offencess in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -109 1800 Loxford crime decrease. 200 1600 Valentines 1400  11 wards experienced an increase in total notifiable offences 150 1200 Clementswood 1000  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is October * None 100 800  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is October * 600 Redbridge 50 400  In Valentines the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is October * Poly. (Clementswood) 200

0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for total notifiable offences is July * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Violence against the person in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of violence against the person for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of violence against the person for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop 1 Clementswood 719 138 0.4902 11 Aldborough 250 58 0.1719 1 Area6 1449 236 0.323 4% 11% 2 Loxford 502 86 0.3034 12 Mayfield 228 12 0.1668 2 Area5 1062 171 0.250 25% 3 Seven_Kings 500 74 0.3297 13 Barkingside 223 54 0.1769 3 Area7 961 167 0.220 Area 6 25% 4 Valentines 449 37 0.3179 14 Fullwell 208 -36 0.1611 4 Area3 762 109 0.198 11% Area 5 19% Area 7 17% 5 Goodmayes 289 65 0.2211 15 Bridge 190 44 0.1630 5 Area4 633 161 0.157 Area 3 13% 6 Hainault 284 73 0.2193 16 Roding 163 32 0.1353 6 Area2 601 139 0.132 Area 4 11% Area 2 11% 7 Chadwell 273 32 0.1915 17 Clayhall 160 49 0.1208 7 Area1 231 23 0.099 13% Area 1 4% 8 Fairlop 270 72 0.2138 18 Church_End 150 15 0.1303 Redbridge 19% 9 Newbury 257 52 0.1533 19 Snaresbrook 126 33 0.1062 Per 1000 17%

10 Cranbrook 255 78 0.1995 20 Wanstead 105 -10 0.0910 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Monkhams 98 48 0.0940 Redbridge 5699 1006 20.429 Graph showing monthly trends forviolence against the person total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

90 600  In Redbridge there were 5699 violence against the persons in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 1006 80 Seven Kings crime increase. 500 70 Loxford 60 400  19 wards experienced an increase in violence against the person 50 Clementswood 300  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for violence against the person is March * 40 Goodmayes 30 200  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for violence against the person is October * Redbridge 20 100  In Loxford the month with the highest average for violence against the person is July * 10 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for violence against the person is March * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Violence against the person in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of violence against the person for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the variance of violence against the person for the rolling period Jun-14 to May- compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 15 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop 11Clementswood 719 138 0.4902 11Aldborough 250 58 0.1719 Area6 1449 236 0.323 4% 11% 21Loxford 502 86 0.3034 22Mayfield 228 12 0.1668 Area5 1062 171 0.250 25% 31Seven_Kings 500 74 0.3297 33Barkingside 223 54 0.1769 Area7 961 167 0.220 Area 6 25% 41Valentines 449 37 0.3179 44Fullwell 208 -36 0.1611 Area3 762 109 0.198 11% Area 5 19% Area 7 17% 51Goodmayes 289 65 0.2211 55Bridge 190 44 0.1630 Area4 633 161 0.157 Area 3 13% 61Hainault 284 73 0.2193 66Roding 163 32 0.1353 Area2 601 139 0.132 Area 4 11% Area 2 11% 71Chadwell 273 32 0.1915 77Clayhall 160 49 0.1208 Area1 231 23 0.099 13% Area 1 4% 81Fairlop 270 72 0.2138 8Church_End 150 15 0.1303 Redbridge 19% 91Newbury 257 52 0.1533 9Snaresbrook 126 33 0.1062 Per 1000 17% pop 10 Cranbrook 255 78 0.1995 20 Wanstead 105 -10 0.0910 RANK Area Volume Variance 21 Monkhams98 48 0.0940 Redbridge 5699 1006 20.429 Graph showing monthly trends forviolence against the person total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

90 600  In Redbridge there were 5699 violence against the persons in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 1006 80 Loxford crime increase. 500 70 Valentines 60 400  19 wards experienced an increase in violence against the person 50 Clementswood 300  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for violence against the person is March * 40 None 30 200  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for violence against the person is October * Redbridge 20 100  In Valentines the month with the highest average for violence against the person is June * 10 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for violence against the person is July * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Theft from motor vehicle in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of theft from motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of theft from motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

1 Wanstead 114 -32 0.0988 11 Seven_Kings 69 -30 0.0455 1 Area2 331 19 0.073 9% 2 Church_End 104 12 0.0903 12 Goodmayes 68 3 0.0520 2 Area6 231 -134 0.051 22% 12% 3 Monkhams 104 40 0.0998 13 Bridge 66 -4 0.0566 3 Area7 227 -105 0.052 Area 2 22% 4 Loxford 94 -35 0.0568 14 Snaresbrook 64 -41 0.0539 4 Area4 217 -90 0.054 Area 6 15% Area 7 15% 5 Clayhall 84 -10 0.0634 15 Chadwell 60 -38 0.0421 5 Area5 197 -65 0.046 Area 4 14% 6 Valentines 83 -32 0.0588 16 Mayfield 58 -37 0.0424 6 Area1 178 -73 0.076 13% Area 5 13% Area 1 12% 15% 7 Aldborough 80 -44 0.0550 17 Fullwell 57 -9 0.0442 7 Area3 136 -71 0.035 Area 3 9% 8 Clementswood 79 -62 0.0539 18 Roding 57 -29 0.0473 Redbridge 14% 9 Cranbrook 74 -45 0.0579 19 Barkingside 53 -36 0.0420 Per 1000 15%

10 Newbury 70 -28 0.0418 20 Fairlop 41 -52 0.0325 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Hainault 38 -10 0.0293 Redbridge 1517 -519 5.438 Graph showing monthly trends fortheft from motor vehicle offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May- 15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

25 250  In Redbridge there were 1517 theft from motor vehicles in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -519 Seven Kings crime decrease. 20 200 Loxford  3 wards experienced an increase in theft from motor vehicle 15 150 Clementswood  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is January * Goodmayes 10 100  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is January * Redbridge 5 50  In Loxford the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is August * Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is August * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Theft from motor vehicle in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of theft from motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the variance of theft from motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

11Wanstead 114 -32 0.0988 11Seven_Kings 69 -30 0.0455 Area2 331 19 0.073 9% 21Church_End 104 12 0.0903 22Goodmayes 68 3 0.0520 Area6 231 -134 0.051 22% 12% 31Monkhams 104 40 0.0998 33Bridge 66 -4 0.0566 Area7 227 -105 0.052 Area 2 22% 41Loxford 94 -35 0.0568 44Snaresbrook 64 -41 0.0539 Area4 217 -90 0.054 Area 6 15% Area 7 15% 51Clayhall 84 -10 0.0634 55Chadwell 60 -38 0.0421 Area5 197 -65 0.046 Area 4 14% 61Valentines 83 -32 0.0588 66Mayfield 58 -37 0.0424 Area1 178 -73 0.076 13% Area 5 13% Area 1 12% 15% 71Aldborough 80 -44 0.0550 77Fullwell 57 -9 0.0442 Area3 136 -71 0.035 Area 3 9% 81Clementswood 79 -62 0.0539 8Roding 57 -29 0.0473 Redbridge 14% 91Cranbrook 74 -45 0.0579 9Barkingside 53 -36 0.0420 Per 1000 15% pop 10 Newbury 70 -28 0.0418 20 Fairlop 41 -52 0.0325 RANK Area Volume Variance 21 Hainault38 -10 0.0293 Redbridge 1517 -519 5.438 Graph showing monthly trends fortheft from motor vehicle offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May- 15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

25 250  In Redbridge there were 1517 theft from motor vehicles in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -519 Loxford crime decrease. 20 200 Valentines  3 wards experienced an increase in theft from motor vehicle 15 150 Clementswood  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is January * None 10 100  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is January * Redbridge 5 50  In Valentines the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is August * Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for theft from motor vehicle is August * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Theft/taking of motor vehicle in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of theft/taking of motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of theft/taking of motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May- 15

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

1 Goodmayes 61 14 0.0467 11 Church_End 45 -5 0.0391 1 Area2 185 21 0.041 11% 2 Newbury 59 0 0.0352 12 Loxford 45 8 0.0272 2 Area7 147 20 0.034 20%

3 Snaresbrook 59 13 0.0497 13 Wanstead 43 -29 0.0373 3 Area6 137 -3 0.031 12% Area 2 20% 4 Roding 54 9 0.0448 14 Aldborough 42 4 0.0289 4 Area5 128 -12 0.030 Area 7 16% Area 6 15% 5 Hainault 52 -4 0.0401 15 Cranbrook 39 3 0.0305 5 Area3 123 -7 0.032 Area 5 14% 6 Bridge 51 8 0.0437 16 Fairlop 36 7 0.0285 6 Area4 118 0 0.029 Area 3 13% 16% 13% Area 4 13% 7 Valentines 49 17 0.0347 17 Fullwell 35 -10 0.0271 7 Area1 102 -16 0.044 Area 1 11% 8 Clayhall 46 -7 0.0347 18 Monkhams 35 9 0.0336 Redbridge

9 Clementswood 46 4 0.0314 19 Chadwell 34 -8 0.0238 Per 1000 14% 14%

10 Mayfield 46 -15 0.0336 20 Seven_Kings 33 -18 0.0218 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Barkingside 30 3 0.0238 Redbridge 940 3 3.370 Graph showing monthly trends fortheft/taking of motor vehicle offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

12 140  In Redbridge there were 940 theft/taking of motor vehicles in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 3 crime Seven Kings increase. 10 120

100 Loxford 8  12 wards experienced an increase in theft/taking of motor vehicle

80 Clementswood 6  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is July * 60 Valentines 4  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is June * 40 Redbridge 2  In Loxford the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is October * 20 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is June * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Mar-14 Dec-13 Mar-15 Dec-14 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Theft/taking of motor vehicle in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of theft/taking of motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the variance of theft/taking of motor vehicle for the rolling period Jun-14 to May- compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 15 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

11Goodmayes 61 14 0.0467 11Church_End 45 -5 0.0391 Area2 185 21 0.041 11% 21Newbury 59 0 0.0352 22Loxford 45 8 0.0272 Area7 147 20 0.034 20%

31Snaresbrook 59 13 0.0497 33Wanstead 43 -29 0.0373 Area6 137 -3 0.031 12% Area 2 20% 41Roding 54 9 0.0448 44Aldborough 42 4 0.0289 Area5 128 -12 0.030 Area 7 16% Area 6 15% 51Hainault 52 -4 0.0401 55Cranbrook 39 3 0.0305 Area3 123 -7 0.032 Area 5 14% 61Bridge 51 8 0.0437 66Fairlop 36 7 0.0285 Area4 118 0 0.029 Area 3 13% 16% 13% Area 4 13% 71Valentines 49 17 0.0347 77Fullwell 35 -10 0.0271 Area1 102 -16 0.044 Area 1 11% 81Clayhall 46 -7 0.0347 8Monkhams 35 9 0.0336 Redbridge

91Clementswood 46 4 0.0314 9Chadwell 34 -8 0.0238 Per 1000 14% 14% pop 10 Mayfield 46 -15 0.0336 20 Seven_Kings 33 -18 0.0218 RANK Area Volume Variance 21 Barkingside30 3 0.0238 Redbridge 940 3 3.370 Graph showing monthly trends fortheft/taking of motor vehicle offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

12 140  In Redbridge there were 940 theft/taking of motor vehicles in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 3 crime Loxford increase. 10 120

100 Valentines 8  12 wards experienced an increase in theft/taking of motor vehicle

80 Clementswood 6  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is July * 60 None 4  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is June * 40 Redbridge 2  In Valentines the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is May * 20 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for theft/taking of motor vehicle is October * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Burglary in a dwelling in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of burglary in a dwelling for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of burglary in a dwelling for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

1 Chadwell 147 -41 0.1031 11 Cranbrook 95 8 0.0743 1 Area2 369 25 0.081 8% 2 Newbury 134 27 0.0800 12 Fullwell 94 -21 0.0728 2 Area5 366 -6 0.086 18% 12% 3 Goodmayes 129 51 0.0987 13 Wanstead 93 -28 0.0806 3 Area4 331 -26 0.082 Area 2 18% 4 Clayhall 126 0 0.0952 14 Seven_Kings 90 -16 0.0594 4 Area7 312 29 0.071 Area 5 18% Area 4 16% 5 Bridge 125 28 0.1072 15 Valentines 83 -6 0.0588 5 Area3 262 -56 0.068 Area 7 15% 13% 6 Mayfield 113 -2 0.0827 16 Loxford 74 -36 0.0447 6 Area6 245 -36 0.055 Area 3 13% 18% Area 6 12% 7 Aldborough 109 -20 0.0749 17 Monkhams 74 -7 0.0710 7 Area1 156 -39 0.067 Area 1 8% 8 Hainault 101 7 0.0780 18 Church_End 69 1 0.0599 Redbridge 15% 9 Roding 101 3 0.0839 19 Fairlop 67 -42 0.0530 Per 1000 16%

10 Barkingside 96 -6 0.0761 20 Snaresbrook 63 -11 0.0531 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Clementswood 58 2 0.0395 Redbridge 2041 -109 7.316 Graph showing monthly trends forburglary in a dwelling offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

30 300  In Redbridge there were 2041 burglary in a dwellings in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -109 crime Seven Kings decrease. 25 250 Loxford 20 200  8 wards experienced an increase in burglary in a dwelling Clementswood 15 150  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is December * Goodmayes 10 100  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is January * Redbridge  In Loxford the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is August * 5 50 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is December * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Burglary in a dwelling in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of burglary in a dwelling for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the variance of burglary in a dwelling for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

11Chadwell 147 -41 0.1031 11Cranbrook 95 8 0.0743 Area2 369 25 0.081 8% 21Newbury 134 27 0.0800 22Fullwell 94 -21 0.0728 Area5 366 -6 0.086 18% 12% 31Goodmayes 129 51 0.0987 33Wanstead 93 -28 0.0806 Area4 331 -26 0.082 Area 2 18% 41Clayhall 126 0 0.0952 44Seven_Kings 90 -16 0.0594 Area7 312 29 0.071 Area 5 18% Area 4 16% 51Bridge 125 28 0.1072 55Valentines 83 -6 0.0588 Area3 262 -56 0.068 Area 7 15% 13% 61Mayfield 113 -2 0.0827 66Loxford 74 -36 0.0447 Area6 245 -36 0.055 Area 3 13% 18% Area 6 12% 71Aldborough 109 -20 0.0749 77Monkhams 74 -7 0.0710 Area1 156 -39 0.067 Area 1 8% 81Hainault 101 7 0.0780 8Church_End 69 1 0.0599 Redbridge 15% 91Roding 101 3 0.0839 9Fairlop 67 -42 0.0530 Per 1000 16% pop 10 Barkingside 96 -6 0.0761 20 Snaresbrook 63 -11 0.0531 RANK Area Volume Variance 21 Clementswood58 2 0.0395 Redbridge 2041 -109 7.316 Graph showing monthly trends forburglary in a dwelling offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

20 300  In Redbridge there were 2041 burglary in a dwellings in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -109 crime 18 Loxford decrease. 250 16 Valentines 14 200  8 wards experienced an increase in burglary in a dwelling 12 Clementswood 10 150  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is December * None 8 100  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is January * 6 Redbridge 4  In Valentines the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is September * 50 Poly. (Clementswood) 2 0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for burglary in a dwelling is August * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Total criminal damage in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of total criminal damage for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of total criminal damage for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop 1 Clementswood 165 28 0.1125 11 Mayfield 72 -1 0.0527 1 Area6 358 19 0.080 7% 2 Seven_Kings 145 21 0.0956 12 Aldborough 58 9 0.0399 2 Area5 297 11 0.070 9% 22%

3 Loxford 121 -8 0.0731 13 Roding 58 -4 0.0482 3 Area7 264 37 0.060 Area 6 22% 4 Valentines 112 7 0.0793 14 Bridge 57 -5 0.0489 4 Area3 246 37 0.064 Area 5 18% 13% Area 7 16% 5 Newbury 98 29 0.0585 15 Wanstead 57 4 0.0494 5 Area2 208 20 0.046 Area 3 15% 6 Hainault 89 6 0.0687 16 Cranbrook 54 1 0.0423 6 Area4 154 17 0.038 Area 2 13% Area 4 9% 18% 7 Fairlop 82 12 0.0649 17 Snaresbrook 51 -4 0.0430 7 Area1 108 0 0.046 Area 1 7% 8 Goodmayes 80 -10 0.0612 18 Barkingside 49 6 0.0389 Redbridge 15% 9 Fullwell 75 19 0.0581 19 Monkhams 49 24 0.0470 Per 1000 16%

10 Chadwell 72 0 0.0505 20 Clayhall 47 2 0.0355 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Church_End 44 5 0.0382 Redbridge 1635 141 5.861 Graph showing monthly trends forcriminal damage total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

25 180  In Redbridge there were 1635 total criminal damages in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 141 crime

160 Seven Kings increase.

20 140 Loxford 120  14 wards experienced an increase in total criminal damage 15 Clementswood 100  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is November * 80 Goodmayes 10 60  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is January * Redbridge 5 40  In Loxford the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is July * 20 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is December * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Total criminal damage in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of total criminal damage for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the variance of total criminal damage for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 compared to the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop 11Clementswood 165 28 0.1125 11Mayfield 72 -1 0.0527 Area6 358 19 0.080 7% 21Seven_Kings 145 21 0.0956 22Aldborough 58 9 0.0399 Area5 297 11 0.070 9% 22%

31Loxford 121 -8 0.0731 33Roding 58 -4 0.0482 Area7 264 37 0.060 Area 6 22% 41Valentines 112 7 0.0793 44Bridge 57 -5 0.0489 Area3 246 37 0.064 Area 5 18% 13% Area 7 16% 51Newbury 98 29 0.0585 55Wanstead 57 4 0.0494 Area2 208 20 0.046 Area 3 15% 61Hainault 89 6 0.0687 66Cranbrook 54 1 0.0423 Area4 154 17 0.038 Area 2 13% Area 4 9% 18% 71Fairlop 82 12 0.0649 77Snaresbrook 51 -4 0.0430 Area1 108 0 0.046 Area 1 7% 81Goodmayes 80 -10 0.0612 8Barkingside 49 6 0.0389 Redbridge 15% 91Fullwell 75 19 0.0581 9Monkhams 49 24 0.0470 Per 1000 16% pop 10 Chadwell 72 0 0.0505 20 Clayhall 47 2 0.0355 RANK Area Volume Variance 21 Church_End44 5 0.0382 Redbridge 1635 141 5.861 Graph showing monthly trends forcriminal damage total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

25 180  In Redbridge there were 1635 total criminal damages in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a 141 crime

160 Loxford increase.

20 140 Valentines 120  14 wards experienced an increase in total criminal damage 15 Clementswood 100  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is November * 80 None 10 60  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is January * Redbridge 5 40  In Valentines the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is September * 20 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for total criminal damage is July * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Total drugs in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the volume of total drugs for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 Area Committee map showing the volume of total drugs for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop 1 Loxford 146 -39 0.0882 11 Mayfield 54 -43 0.0395 1 Area6 334 -132 0.074 7% 8% 2 Clementswood 134 -50 0.0914 12 Fullwell 53 7 0.0411 2 Area7 312 -74 0.071 26% 3 Cranbrook 128 -19 0.1002 13 Hainault 46 -7 0.0355 3 Area5 172 -104 0.040 Area 6 26% 4 Valentines 126 -23 0.0892 14 Chadwell 44 -32 0.0309 4 Area4 150 -74 0.037 10% Area 7 24% Area 5 13% 5 Wanstead 72 17 0.0624 15 Barkingside 36 -32 0.0286 5 Area3 135 -29 0.035 Area 4 12% 6 Goodmayes 66 -40 0.0505 16 Fairlop 36 -29 0.0285 6 Area2 99 -21 0.022 Area 3 10% Area 2 8% 12% 7 Seven_Kings 62 -32 0.0409 17 Church_End 27 -16 0.0234 7 Area1 94 12 0.040 Area 1 7%

8 Aldborough 58 -35 0.0399 18 Monkhams 25 5 0.0240 Redbridge 24% 9 Newbury 58 -32 0.0346 19 Roding 25 0 0.0208 Per 1000 13%

10 Clayhall 56 -7 0.0423 20 Bridge 22 -10 0.0189 RANK Area Volume Variance pop 21 Snaresbrook 22 -5 0.0185 Redbridge 1296 -422 4.646 Graph showing monthly trends fordrugs total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

25 180  In Redbridge there were 1296 total drugss in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -422 crime decrease.

160 Seven Kings

20 140 Loxford 120  3 wards experienced an increase in total drugs 15 Clementswood 100  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total drugs is July * 80 Goodmayes 10 60  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for total drugs is October * Redbridge 5 40  In Loxford the month with the highest average for total drugs is November * 20 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Seven Kings the month with the highest average for total drugs is October * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Feb-14 Feb-15 Sep-13 Sep-14 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Total drugs in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 MAPit Ward map showing the variance of total drugs for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 compared to the Area Committee map showing the variance of total drugs for the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15 compared to previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14 the previous rolling period Jun-13 to May-14

KEY MONKHAMS HAINAULT

BRIDGE

FAIRLOP Area 2 CHURCH Area 3 END RODING FULLWELL ALDBOROUGH

CLAYHALL SNARES- Area4 BROOK BARKINGSIDE CHADWELL NEWBURY Area 1 Area 7 Area 5 CRANBROOK SEVEN KINGS WANSTEAD GOODMAYES VALENTINES CLEMENTS- Area 6 WOOD MAYFIELD

LOXFORD

WARDS (TOP table ) WARDS (BOTTOM table) Area Commitees ranked by volume % of borough total in Area Commitees

Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000

RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Ward Volume Variance pop RANK Area Volume Variance pop

11Loxford 146 -39 0.0882 11Mayfield 54 -43 0.0395 Area6 334 -132 0.074 7% Clementswood 134 -50 0.0914 Fullwell 53 7 0.0411 Area7 312 -74 0.071 8% 2122 26% 31Cranbrook 128 -19 0.1002 33Hainault 46 -7 0.0355 Area5 172 -104 0.040 Area 6 26% 41Valentines 126 -23 0.0892 44Chadwell 44 -32 0.0309 Area4 150 -74 0.037 10% Area 7 24% Area 5 13% 51Wanstead 72 17 0.0624 55Barkingside 36 -32 0.0286 Area3 135 -29 0.035 Area 4 12% 61Goodmayes 66 -40 0.0505 66Fairlop 36 -29 0.0285 Area2 99 -21 0.022 Area 3 10% Area 2 8% 12% 71Seven_Kings 62 -32 0.0409 77Church_End 27 -16 0.0234 Area1 94 12 0.040 Area 1 7%

81Aldborough 58 -35 0.0399 8Monkhams 25 5 0.0240 Redbridge 24% 91Newbury 58 -32 0.0346 9Roding 25 0 0.0208 Per 1000 13% pop 10 Clayhall 56 -7 0.0423 20 Bridge 22 -10 0.0189 RANK Area Volume Variance 21 Snaresbrook22 -5 0.0185 Redbridge 1296 -422 4.646 Graph showing monthly trends fordrugs total offences by selected ward(s) for Jun-13 - May-15 PLEASE NOTE (Redbridge volume is plotted on right axis) Headlines for Redbridge

25 180  In Redbridge there were 1296 total drugss in the rolling period Jun-14 to May-15, a -422 crime decrease.

160 Loxford

20 140 Valentines 120  3 wards experienced an increase in total drugs 15 Clementswood 100  In Redbridge the the month with the highest average for total drugs is July * 80 None 10 60  In Clementswood the month with the highest average for total drugs is October * Redbridge 5 40  In Valentines the month with the highest average for total drugs is October * 20 Poly. (Clementswood)

0 0  In Loxford the month with the highest average for total drugs is November * Jul-13 Jul-14 Jan-14 Jan-15 Oct-13 Oct-14 Jun-13 Jun-14 Apr-14 Apr-15 Sep-13 Feb-14 Sep-14 Feb-15 Dec-13 Mar-14 Dec-14 Mar-15 Nov-13 Nov-14 Aug-13 Aug-14 May-14 May-15 *(based on 2yr average) Designed by John Phillipson 2015 Overview of crime in Aldborough

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Aldborough Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 17 24 7 41% ▲ Assault With Injury 53 61 8 15% ▲ Common Assault 55 68 13 24% ▲ Offensive Weapon 5 1 -4 -80% ▼ Harassment 53 89 36 68% ▲ Other Violence 9 7 -2 -22% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 192 250 58 30% ▲ Rape 4 8 4 100% ▲ Other Sexual 13 11 -2 -15% ▼ Sexual Offences Total 17 19 2 12% ▲ Personal Property 22 28 6 27% ▲ Business Property 1 2 1 100% ▲ Robbery Total 23 30 7 30% ▲ Burglary in A Dwelling 129 109 -20 -16% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 18 12 -6 -33% ▼ Burglary Total 147 121 -26 -18% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 38 42 4 11% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 124 80 -44 -35% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 13 14 1 8% ▲ Theft From Shops 100 87 -13 -13% ▼ Theft Person 14 12 -2 -14% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 6 6 0 0% ◄ Other Theft 202 206 4 2% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 3 0 -3 -100% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 500 447 -53 -11% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 10 21 11 110% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 5 3 -2 -40% ▼ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 24 21 -3 -13% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 10 13 3 30% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 49 58 9 18% ▲ Drug Trafficking 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 91 57 -34 -37% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 93 58 -35 -38% ▼ Going Equipped 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Other Notifiable 15 17 2 13% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 16 17 1 6% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 1037 1001 -36 -3% ▼

Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Crime category % Violence Against The Person Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 31% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 25% Burglary Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 14% Criminal Damage Burglary 12% Drugs Criminal Damage 6% Robbery Drugs 6% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Barkingside

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Barkingside Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 25 37 12 48% ▲ Assault With Injury 46 52 6 13% ▲ Common Assault 40 59 19 48% ▲ Offensive Weapon 1 2 1 100% ▲ Harassment 46 65 19 41% ▲ Other Violence 11 8 -3 -27% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 169 223 54 32% ▲ Rape 3 6 3 100% ▲ Other Sexual 2 8 6 300% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 5 14 9 180% ▲ Personal Property 26 17 -9 -35% ▼ Business Property 2 3 1 50% ▲ Robbery Total 28 20 -8 -29% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 102 96 -6 -6% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 12 14 2 17% ▲ Burglary Total 114 110 -4 -4% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 27 30 3 11% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 89 53 -36 -40% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 16 10 -6 -38% ▼ Theft From Shops 8 6 -2 -25% ▼ Theft Person 23 31 8 35% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 1 5 4 400% ▲ Other Theft 83 82 -1 -1% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Theft & Handling Total 247 218 -29 -12% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 2 1 100% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 2 1 100% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 5 8 3 60% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 6 8 2 33% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 20 13 -7 -35% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 12 20 8 67% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 43 49 6 14% ▲ Drug Trafficking 4 2 -2 -50% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 63 34 -29 -46% ▼ Other Drugs 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Drugs Total 68 36 -32 -47% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 13 15 2 15% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 13 15 2 15% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 688 687 -1 0% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 32% Burglary Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 18% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 16% Criminal Damage Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 14% Drugs Criminal Damage 7% Robbery Drugs 5% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 3% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Bridge

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Bridge Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 14 16 2 14% ▲ Assault With Injury 37 33 -4 -11% ▼ Common Assault 43 76 33 77% ▲ Offensive Weapon 3 1 -2 -67% ▼ Harassment 47 58 11 23% ▲ Other Violence 2 6 4 200% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 146 190 44 30% ▲ Rape 6 2 -4 -67% ▼ Other Sexual 6 11 5 83% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 12 13 1 8% ▲ Personal Property 20 12 -8 -40% ▼ Business Property 10 5 -5 -50% ▼ Robbery Total 30 17 -13 -43% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 97 125 28 29% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 38 29 -9 -24% ▼ Burglary Total 135 154 19 14% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 43 51 8 19% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 70 66 -4 -6% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 10 16 6 60% ▲ Theft From Shops 14 13 -1 -7% ▼ Theft Person 9 9 0 0% ◄ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 3 4 1 33% ▲ Other Theft 108 72 -36 -33% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 2 2 0 0% ◄ Theft & Handling Total 259 233 -26 -10% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 15 11 -4 -27% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 3 4 1 33% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 34 31 -3 -9% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 10 11 1 10% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 62 57 -5 -8% ▼ Drug Trafficking 5 0 -5 -100% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 27 21 -6 -22% ▼ Other Drugs 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 32 22 -10 -31% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 11 5 -6 -55% ▼ Other Notifiable Offences Total 11 5 -6 -55% ▼ Total Notifiable Offences 687 691 4 1% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 27% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 22% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 19% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 14% Drugs Criminal Damage 8% Robbery Drugs 3% Sexual Offences Robbery 2% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Chadwell

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Chadwell Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 1 3 2 200% ▲ Wounding/GBH 25 21 -4 -16% ▼ Assault With Injury 69 59 -10 -14% ▼ Common Assault 66 81 15 23% ▲ Offensive Weapon 4 3 -1 -25% ▼ Harassment 63 89 26 41% ▲ Other Violence 13 17 4 31% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 241 273 32 13% ▲ Rape 3 3 0 0% ◄ Other Sexual 4 11 7 175% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 7 14 7 100% ▲ Personal Property 25 15 -10 -40% ▼ Business Property 1 1 0 0% ◄ Robbery Total 26 16 -10 -38% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 188 147 -41 -22% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 51 22 -29 -57% ▼ Burglary Total 239 169 -70 -29% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 42 34 -8 -19% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 98 60 -38 -39% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 7 5 -2 -29% ▼ Theft From Shops 7 10 3 43% ▲ Theft Person 8 10 2 25% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 8 6 -2 -25% ▼ Other Theft 75 65 -10 -13% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 1 3 2 200% ▲ Theft & Handling Total 246 193 -53 -22% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 3 3 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 3 3 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 12 16 4 33% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 6 7 1 17% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 39 37 -2 -5% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 15 12 -3 -20% ▼ Criminal Damage Total 72 72 0 0% ◄ Drug Trafficking 2 3 1 50% ▲ Possession Of Drugs 73 41 -32 -44% ▼ Other Drugs 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Drugs Total 76 44 -32 -42% ▼ Going Equipped 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Other Notifiable 13 10 -3 -23% ▼ Other Notifiable Offences Total 15 11 -4 -27% ▼ Total Notifiable Offences 922 795 -127 -14% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 34% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 21% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 12% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 12% Drugs Criminal Damage 9% Robbery Drugs 6% Sexual Offences Robbery 2% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Church End

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Church End Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 16 14 -2 -13% ▼ Assault With Injury 34 29 -5 -15% ▼ Common Assault 31 36 5 16% ▲ Offensive Weapon 1 3 2 200% ▲ Harassment 49 67 18 37% ▲ Other Violence 4 1 -3 -75% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 135 150 15 11% ▲ Rape 2 3 1 50% ▲ Other Sexual 4 6 2 50% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 6 9 3 50% ▲ Personal Property 12 22 10 83% ▲ Business Property 3 1 -2 -67% ▼ Robbery Total 15 23 8 53% ▲ Burglary in A Dwelling 68 69 1 1% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 36 30 -6 -17% ▼ Burglary Total 104 99 -5 -5% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 50 45 -5 -10% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 92 104 12 13% ▲ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 13 12 -1 -8% ▼ Theft From Shops 57 53 -4 -7% ▼ Theft Person 18 24 6 33% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 6 6 0 0% ◄ Other Theft 156 111 -45 -29% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 1 1 0 0% ◄ Theft & Handling Total 393 356 -37 -9% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Fraud & Forgery Total 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 5 4 -1 -20% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 6 2 -4 -67% ▼ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 22 24 2 9% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 6 14 8 133% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 39 44 5 13% ▲ Drug Trafficking 4 1 -3 -75% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 39 26 -13 -33% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 43 27 -16 -37% ▼ Going Equipped 1 1 0 0% ◄ Other Notifiable 13 12 -1 -8% ▼ Other Notifiable Offences Total 14 13 -1 -7% ▼ Total Notifiable Offences 751 722 -29 -4% ▼

Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Crime category % Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 27% Violence Against The Person Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 22% Burglary Violence Against The Person 21% Criminal Damage Burglary 14% Drugs Criminal Damage 6% Robbery Drugs 4% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 3% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Clayhall

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Clayhall Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 12 18 6 50% ▲ Assault With Injury 24 28 4 17% ▲ Common Assault 28 55 27 96% ▲ Offensive Weapon 3 5 2 67% ▲ Harassment 35 46 11 31% ▲ Other Violence 9 8 -1 -11% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 111 160 49 44% ▲ Rape 0 6 6 n/a ▲ Other Sexual 2 15 13 650% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 2 21 19 950% ▲ Personal Property 19 30 11 58% ▲ Business Property 0 8 8 n/a ▲ Robbery Total 19 38 19 100% ▲ Burglary in A Dwelling 126 126 0 0% ◄ Burglary in Other Buildings 22 19 -3 -14% ▼ Burglary Total 148 145 -3 -2% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 53 46 -7 -13% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 94 84 -10 -11% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 24 16 -8 -33% ▼ Theft From Shops 7 12 5 71% ▲ Theft Person 11 6 -5 -45% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 4 4 0 0% ◄ Other Theft 55 67 12 22% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 1 2 1 100% ▲ Theft & Handling Total 249 237 -12 -5% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 12 10 -2 -17% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 22 24 2 9% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 10 13 3 30% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 45 47 2 4% ▲ Drug Trafficking 1 3 2 200% ▲ Possession Of Drugs 62 53 -9 -15% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 63 56 -7 -11% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 12 15 3 25% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 12 15 3 25% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 649 719 70 11% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 22% Burglary Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 20% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Burglary 20% Drugs Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 13% Criminal Damage Drugs 8% Robbery Criminal Damage 7% Sexual Offences Robbery 5% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 3% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Clementswood

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Clementswood Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 73 104 31 42% ▲ Assault With Injury 141 174 33 23% ▲ Common Assault 155 198 43 28% ▲ Offensive Weapon 15 10 -5 -33% ▼ Harassment 156 192 36 23% ▲ Other Violence 41 41 0 0% ◄ Violence Against The Person Total 581 719 138 24% ▲ Rape 8 13 5 63% ▲ Other Sexual 22 27 5 23% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 30 40 10 33% ▲ Personal Property 96 57 -39 -41% ▼ Business Property 9 5 -4 -44% ▼ Robbery Total 105 62 -43 -41% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 56 58 2 4% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 58 46 -12 -21% ▼ Burglary Total 114 104 -10 -9% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 42 46 4 10% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 141 79 -62 -44% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 8 9 1 13% ▲ Theft From Shops 203 214 11 5% ▲ Theft Person 125 148 23 18% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 33 34 1 3% ▲ Other Theft 351 317 -34 -10% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 15 6 -9 -60% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 918 853 -65 -7% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 3 2 200% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 3 2 200% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 20 17 -3 -15% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 20 33 13 65% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 47 59 12 26% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 50 56 6 12% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 137 165 28 20% ▲ Drug Trafficking 8 4 -4 -50% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 176 129 -47 -27% ▼ Other Drugs 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 184 134 -50 -27% ▼ Going Equipped 1 5 4 400% ▲ Other Notifiable 41 47 6 15% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 42 52 10 24% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 2112 2132 20 1% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 34% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 34% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Criminal Damage 8% Drugs Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 6% Burglary Drugs 6% Robbery Burglary 5% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 3% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Cranbrook

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Cranbrook Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 14 28 14 100% ▲ Assault With Injury 46 62 16 35% ▲ Common Assault 54 84 30 56% ▲ Offensive Weapon 4 3 -1 -25% ▼ Harassment 51 62 11 22% ▲ Other Violence 8 16 8 100% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 177 255 78 44% ▲ Rape 4 3 -1 -25% ▼ Other Sexual 6 8 2 33% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 10 11 1 10% ▲ Personal Property 35 44 9 26% ▲ Business Property 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Robbery Total 37 44 7 19% ▲ Burglary in A Dwelling 87 95 8 9% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 17 16 -1 -6% ▼ Burglary Total 104 111 7 7% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 36 39 3 8% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 119 74 -45 -38% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 8 19 11 138% ▲ Theft From Shops 20 20 0 0% ◄ Theft Person 25 22 -3 -12% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 5 5 0 0% ◄ Other Theft 146 161 15 10% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 361 340 -21 -6% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 5 4 400% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 5 4 400% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 16 12 -4 -25% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 6 4 -2 -33% ▼ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 21 26 5 24% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 10 12 2 20% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 53 54 1 2% ▲ Drug Trafficking 4 3 -1 -25% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 143 124 -19 -13% ▼ Other Drugs 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 147 128 -19 -13% ▼ Going Equipped 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Other Notifiable 12 17 5 42% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 13 17 4 31% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 903 965 62 7% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 26% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 22% Drugs Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 14% Burglary Drugs 13% Criminal Damage Burglary 12% Robbery Criminal Damage 6% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 5% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 1% Overview of crime in Fairlop

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Fairlop Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 19 28 9 47% ▲ Assault With Injury 51 73 22 43% ▲ Common Assault 46 70 24 52% ▲ Offensive Weapon 5 6 1 20% ▲ Harassment 67 86 19 28% ▲ Other Violence 10 7 -3 -30% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 198 270 72 36% ▲ Rape 3 0 -3 -100% ▼ Other Sexual 5 20 15 300% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 8 20 12 150% ▲ Personal Property 44 20 -24 -55% ▼ Business Property 5 4 -1 -20% ▼ Robbery Total 49 24 -25 -51% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 109 67 -42 -39% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 17 18 1 6% ▲ Burglary Total 126 85 -41 -33% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 29 36 7 24% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 93 41 -52 -56% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 4 4 0 0% ◄ Theft From Shops 42 28 -14 -33% ▼ Theft Person 31 17 -14 -45% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 8 10 2 25% ▲ Other Theft 109 93 -16 -15% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 3 1 -2 -67% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 319 230 -89 -28% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 2 1 100% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 2 1 100% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 20 7 -13 -65% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 4 6 2 50% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 24 46 22 92% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 22 23 1 5% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 70 82 12 17% ▲ Drug Trafficking 6 5 -1 -17% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 58 31 -27 -47% ▼ Other Drugs 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Drugs Total 65 36 -29 -45% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 11 16 5 45% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 11 16 5 45% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 847 765 -82 -10% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 35% Burglary Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 19% Criminal Damage Burglary 11% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Criminal Damage 11% Drugs Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 11% Robbery Drugs 5% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 3% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Fullwell

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Fullwell Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 18 19 1 6% ▲ Assault With Injury 58 53 -5 -9% ▼ Common Assault 69 56 -13 -19% ▼ Offensive Weapon 3 3 0 0% ◄ Harassment 92 70 -22 -24% ▼ Other Violence 4 7 3 75% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 244 208 -36 -15% ▼ Rape 6 4 -2 -33% ▼ Other Sexual 6 14 8 133% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 12 18 6 50% ▲ Personal Property 37 18 -19 -51% ▼ Business Property 0 4 4 n/a ▲ Robbery Total 37 22 -15 -41% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 115 94 -21 -18% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 17 13 -4 -24% ▼ Burglary Total 132 107 -25 -19% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 45 35 -10 -22% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 66 57 -9 -14% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 7 6 -1 -14% ▼ Theft From Shops 39 23 -16 -41% ▼ Theft Person 17 21 4 24% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 4 3 -1 -25% ▼ Other Theft 72 53 -19 -26% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 4 0 -4 -100% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 254 198 -56 -22% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 15 22 7 47% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 2 2 0 0% ◄ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 25 38 13 52% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 14 13 -1 -7% ▼ Criminal Damage Total 56 75 19 34% ▲ Drug Trafficking 3 2 -1 -33% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 43 51 8 19% ▲ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 46 53 7 15% ▲ Going Equipped 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Other Notifiable 9 28 19 211% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 11 28 17 155% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 793 709 -84 -11% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 29% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Burglary 15% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 14% Criminal Damage Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 14% Drugs Criminal Damage 11% Other Notifiable Offences Drugs 7% Robbery Other Notifiable Offences 4% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 3% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Goodmayes

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Goodmayes Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 31 35 4 13% ▲ Assault With Injury 54 80 26 48% ▲ Common Assault 57 71 14 25% ▲ Offensive Weapon 7 5 -2 -29% ▼ Harassment 63 76 13 21% ▲ Other Violence 12 21 9 75% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 224 289 65 29% ▲ Rape 7 10 3 43% ▲ Other Sexual 14 11 -3 -21% ▼ Sexual Offences Total 21 21 0 0% ◄ Personal Property 51 40 -11 -22% ▼ Business Property 1 2 1 100% ▲ Robbery Total 52 42 -10 -19% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 78 129 51 65% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 25 19 -6 -24% ▼ Burglary Total 103 148 45 44% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 47 61 14 30% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 65 68 3 5% ▲ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 3 14 11 367% ▲ Theft From Shops 6 4 -2 -33% ▼ Theft Person 25 14 -11 -44% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 9 9 0 0% ◄ Other Theft 82 83 1 1% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 4 1 -3 -75% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 241 254 13 5% ▲ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 17 16 -1 -6% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 2 4 2 100% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 54 44 -10 -19% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 17 16 -1 -6% ▼ Criminal Damage Total 90 80 -10 -11% ▼ Drug Trafficking 5 3 -2 -40% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 100 63 -37 -37% ▼ Other Drugs 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Drugs Total 106 66 -40 -38% ▼ Going Equipped 1 2 1 100% ▲ Other Notifiable 16 16 0 0% ◄ Other Notifiable Offences Total 17 18 1 6% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 854 919 65 8% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 31% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 16% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 16% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 12% Drugs Criminal Damage 9% Robbery Drugs 7% Sexual Offences Robbery 5% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Hainault

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Hainault Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 19 27 8 42% ▲ Assault With Injury 69 85 16 23% ▲ Common Assault 43 69 26 60% ▲ Offensive Weapon 3 2 -1 -33% ▼ Harassment 66 89 23 35% ▲ Other Violence 11 12 1 9% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 211 284 73 35% ▲ Rape 9 9 0 0% ◄ Other Sexual 10 11 1 10% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 19 20 1 5% ▲ Personal Property 22 14 -8 -36% ▼ Business Property 4 7 3 75% ▲ Robbery Total 26 21 -5 -19% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 94 101 7 7% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 15 19 4 27% ▲ Burglary Total 109 120 11 10% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 56 52 -4 -7% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 48 38 -10 -21% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 12 10 -2 -17% ▼ Theft From Shops 24 10 -14 -58% ▼ Theft Person 6 6 0 0% ◄ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 4 5 1 25% ▲ Other Theft 82 69 -13 -16% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 4 3 -1 -25% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 236 193 -43 -18% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 22 20 -2 -9% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 6 5 -1 -17% ▼ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 36 33 -3 -8% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 19 31 12 63% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 83 89 6 7% ▲ Drug Trafficking 5 5 0 0% ◄ Possession Of Drugs 48 41 -7 -15% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 53 46 -7 -13% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 11 16 5 45% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 11 16 5 45% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 748 789 41 5% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 36% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 15% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 13% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 12% Drugs Criminal Damage 11% Robbery Drugs 6% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 3% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Loxford

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Loxford Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Wounding/GBH 51 67 16 31% ▲ Assault With Injury 90 112 22 24% ▲ Common Assault 124 139 15 12% ▲ Offensive Weapon 10 13 3 30% ▲ Harassment 105 154 49 47% ▲ Other Violence 35 17 -18 -51% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 416 502 86 21% ▲ Rape 4 9 5 125% ▲ Other Sexual 50 84 34 68% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 54 93 39 72% ▲ Personal Property 72 53 -19 -26% ▼ Business Property 0 2 2 n/a ▲ Robbery Total 72 55 -17 -24% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 110 74 -36 -33% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 25 20 -5 -20% ▼ Burglary Total 135 94 -41 -30% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 37 45 8 22% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 129 94 -35 -27% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 10 9 -1 -10% ▼ Theft From Shops 27 34 7 26% ▲ Theft Person 55 31 -24 -44% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 15 6 -9 -60% ▼ Other Theft 176 181 5 3% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 6 1 -5 -83% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 455 401 -54 -12% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 3 3 0 0% ◄ Fraud & Forgery Total 3 3 0 0% ◄ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 25 19 -6 -24% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 12 12 0 0% ◄ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 64 47 -17 -27% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 28 43 15 54% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 129 121 -8 -6% ▼ Drug Trafficking 3 15 12 400% ▲ Possession Of Drugs 181 130 -51 -28% ▼ Other Drugs 1 1 0 0% ◄ Drugs Total 185 146 -39 -21% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 31 42 11 35% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 31 42 11 35% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 1480 1457 -23 -2% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 34% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 17% Drugs Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 10% Criminal Damage Drugs 10% Burglary Criminal Damage 8% Sexual Offences Burglary 6% Robbery Sexual Offences 6% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 4% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 3% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Mayfield

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Mayfield Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 22 19 -3 -14% ▼ Assault With Injury 64 51 -13 -20% ▼ Common Assault 66 64 -2 -3% ▼ Offensive Weapon 4 4 0 0% ◄ Harassment 48 79 31 65% ▲ Other Violence 12 11 -1 -8% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 216 228 12 6% ▲ Rape 8 4 -4 -50% ▼ Other Sexual 11 12 1 9% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 19 16 -3 -16% ▼ Personal Property 25 17 -8 -32% ▼ Business Property 1 1 0 0% ◄ Robbery Total 26 18 -8 -31% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 115 113 -2 -2% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 16 10 -6 -38% ▼ Burglary Total 131 123 -8 -6% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 61 46 -15 -25% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 95 58 -37 -39% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 10 13 3 30% ▲ Theft From Shops 5 4 -1 -20% ▼ Theft Person 11 8 -3 -27% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 3 4 1 33% ▲ Other Theft 42 54 12 29% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 1 3 2 200% ▲ Theft & Handling Total 228 190 -38 -17% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 1 0 0% ◄ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 1 0 0% ◄ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 21 26 5 24% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 0 2 2 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 37 35 -2 -5% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 15 9 -6 -40% ▼ Criminal Damage Total 73 72 -1 -1% ▼ Drug Trafficking 10 5 -5 -50% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 87 49 -38 -44% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 97 54 -43 -44% ▼ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 18 16 -2 -11% ▼ Other Notifiable Offences Total 18 16 -2 -11% ▼ Total Notifiable Offences 809 718 -91 -11% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 32% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 17% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 16% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 10% Drugs Criminal Damage 10% Robbery Drugs 8% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Monkhams

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Monkhams Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 4 9 5 125% ▲ Assault With Injury 17 30 13 76% ▲ Common Assault 10 22 12 120% ▲ Offensive Weapon 3 2 -1 -33% ▼ Harassment 14 34 20 143% ▲ Other Violence 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 50 98 48 96% ▲ Rape 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Other Sexual 0 4 4 n/a ▲ Sexual Offences Total 1 4 3 300% ▲ Personal Property 14 17 3 21% ▲ Business Property 3 0 -3 -100% ▼ Robbery Total 17 17 0 0% ◄ Burglary in A Dwelling 81 74 -7 -9% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 40 25 -15 -38% ▼ Burglary Total 121 99 -22 -18% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 26 35 9 35% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 64 104 40 63% ▲ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 8 10 2 25% ▲ Theft From Shops 20 16 -4 -20% ▼ Theft Person 8 6 -2 -25% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 4 6 2 50% ▲ Other Theft 46 52 6 13% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 178 230 52 29% ▲ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 4 6 2 50% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 2 3 1 50% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 9 25 16 178% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 10 15 5 50% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 25 49 24 96% ▲ Drug Trafficking 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 18 25 7 39% ▲ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 20 25 5 25% ▲ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 4 5 1 25% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 4 5 1 25% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 417 527 110 26% ▲

Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Crime category % Burglary Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 28% Violence Against The Person Burglary 19% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 19% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 15% Drugs Criminal Damage 9% Robbery Drugs 5% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 3% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Newbury

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Newbury Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 25 27 2 8% ▲ Assault With Injury 64 49 -15 -23% ▼ Common Assault 40 71 31 78% ▲ Offensive Weapon 5 7 2 40% ▲ Harassment 58 91 33 57% ▲ Other Violence 13 12 -1 -8% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 205 257 52 25% ▲ Rape 4 2 -2 -50% ▼ Other Sexual 5 12 7 140% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 9 14 5 56% ▲ Personal Property 43 37 -6 -14% ▼ Business Property 4 1 -3 -75% ▼ Robbery Total 47 38 -9 -19% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 107 134 27 25% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 19 22 3 16% ▲ Burglary Total 126 156 30 24% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 59 59 0 0% ◄ Theft From Motor Vehicle 98 70 -28 -29% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 12 12 0 0% ◄ Theft From Shops 10 5 -5 -50% ▼ Theft Person 17 16 -1 -6% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 0 2 2 n/a ▲ Other Theft 125 120 -5 -4% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 1 2 1 100% ▲ Theft & Handling Total 322 286 -36 -11% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Fraud & Forgery Total 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 16 27 11 69% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 2 3 1 50% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 40 44 4 10% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 11 24 13 118% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 69 98 29 42% ▲ Drug Trafficking 2 3 1 50% ▲ Possession Of Drugs 88 55 -33 -38% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 90 58 -32 -36% ▼ Going Equipped 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Other Notifiable 14 22 8 57% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 16 22 6 38% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 886 930 44 5% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 28% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Burglary 17% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 16% Criminal Damage Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 15% Drugs Criminal Damage 11% Robbery Drugs 6% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 4% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Roding

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Roding Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 9 14 5 56% ▲ Assault With Injury 27 37 10 37% ▲ Common Assault 41 46 5 12% ▲ Offensive Weapon 2 4 2 100% ▲ Harassment 42 56 14 33% ▲ Other Violence 10 6 -4 -40% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 131 163 32 24% ▲ Rape 4 1 -3 -75% ▼ Other Sexual 6 7 1 17% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 10 8 -2 -20% ▼ Personal Property 16 15 -1 -6% ▼ Business Property 7 4 -3 -43% ▼ Robbery Total 23 19 -4 -17% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 98 101 3 3% ▲ Burglary in Other Buildings 38 30 -8 -21% ▼ Burglary Total 136 131 -5 -4% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 45 54 9 20% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 86 57 -29 -34% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 12 12 0 0% ◄ Theft From Shops 1 2 1 100% ▲ Theft Person 5 9 4 80% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 7 5 -2 -29% ▼ Other Theft 94 92 -2 -2% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 1 1 0 0% ◄ Theft & Handling Total 251 232 -19 -8% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 0 3 3 n/a ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 0 3 3 n/a ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 20 16 -4 -20% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 2 6 4 200% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 20 21 1 5% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 20 15 -5 -25% ▼ Criminal Damage Total 62 58 -4 -6% ▼ Drug Trafficking 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Possession Of Drugs 25 23 -2 -8% ▼ Other Drugs 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 25 25 0 0% ◄ Going Equipped 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Other Notifiable 8 10 2 25% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 10 10 0 0% ◄ Total Notifiable Offences 648 649 1 0% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Burglary Violence Against The Person 25% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Burglary 20% Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 19% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 17% Drugs Criminal Damage 9% Robbery Drugs 4% Other Notifiable Offences Robbery 3% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Seven Kings

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Seven Kings Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 57 65 8 14% ▲ Assault With Injury 116 129 13 11% ▲ Common Assault 137 155 18 13% ▲ Offensive Weapon 7 7 0 0% ◄ Harassment 79 119 40 51% ▲ Other Violence 30 25 -5 -17% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 426 500 74 17% ▲ Rape 11 7 -4 -36% ▼ Other Sexual 17 25 8 47% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 28 32 4 14% ▲ Personal Property 56 36 -20 -36% ▼ Business Property 2 4 2 100% ▲ Robbery Total 58 40 -18 -31% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 106 90 -16 -15% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 34 25 -9 -26% ▼ Burglary Total 140 115 -25 -18% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 51 33 -18 -35% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 99 69 -30 -30% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 10 14 4 40% ▲ Theft From Shops 92 109 17 18% ▲ Theft Person 22 25 3 14% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 9 13 4 44% ▲ Other Theft 235 207 -28 -12% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 4 6 2 50% ▲ Theft & Handling Total 522 476 -46 -9% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 4 3 300% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 4 3 300% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 23 29 6 26% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 20 33 13 65% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 38 38 0 0% ◄ Other Criminal Damage 43 45 2 5% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 124 145 21 17% ▲ Drug Trafficking 10 5 -5 -50% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 84 57 -27 -32% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 94 62 -32 -34% ▼ Going Equipped 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Other Notifiable 24 25 1 4% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 26 26 0 0% ◄ Total Notifiable Offences 1419 1400 -19 -1% ▼

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 36% Criminal Damage Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 26% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Criminal Damage 10% Burglary Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 8% Drugs Burglary 8% Robbery Drugs 4% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Snaresbrook

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Snaresbrook Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 13 7 -6 -46% ▼ Assault With Injury 15 37 22 147% ▲ Common Assault 27 34 7 26% ▲ Offensive Weapon 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Harassment 34 45 11 32% ▲ Other Violence 3 3 0 0% ◄ Violence Against The Person Total 93 126 33 35% ▲ Rape 1 4 3 300% ▲ Other Sexual 4 12 8 200% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 5 16 11 220% ▲ Personal Property 14 17 3 21% ▲ Business Property 3 6 3 100% ▲ Robbery Total 17 23 6 35% ▲ Burglary in A Dwelling 74 63 -11 -15% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 42 44 2 5% ▲ Burglary Total 116 107 -9 -8% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 46 59 13 28% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 105 64 -41 -39% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 25 15 -10 -40% ▼ Theft From Shops 20 30 10 50% ▲ Theft Person 9 12 3 33% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 10 14 4 40% ▲ Other Theft 98 83 -15 -15% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 2 2 0 0% ◄ Theft & Handling Total 315 279 -36 -11% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 3 6 3 100% ▲ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 5 7 2 40% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 39 18 -21 -54% ▼ Other Criminal Damage 8 20 12 150% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 55 51 -4 -7% ▼ Drug Trafficking 1 1 0 0% ◄ Possession Of Drugs 26 21 -5 -19% ▼ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 27 22 -5 -19% ▼ Going Equipped 2 0 -2 -100% ▼ Other Notifiable 8 18 10 125% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 10 18 8 80% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 639 642 3 0% ▲

Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Crime category % Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 22% Violence Against The Person Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 21% Burglary Violence Against The Person 20% Criminal Damage Burglary 17% Robbery Criminal Damage 8% Drugs Robbery 4% Other Notifiable Offences Drugs 3% Sexual Offences Other Notifiable Offences 3% Fraud & Forgery Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Valentines

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Valentines Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 1 1 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 48 59 11 23% ▲ Assault With Injury 100 85 -15 -15% ▼ Common Assault 104 138 34 33% ▲ Offensive Weapon 11 8 -3 -27% ▼ Harassment 132 125 -7 -5% ▼ Other Violence 17 33 16 94% ▲ Violence Against The Person Total 412 449 37 9% ▲ Rape 13 19 6 46% ▲ Other Sexual 16 16 0 0% ◄ Sexual Offences Total 29 35 6 21% ▲ Personal Property 79 53 -26 -33% ▼ Business Property 4 2 -2 -50% ▼ Robbery Total 83 55 -28 -34% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 89 83 -6 -7% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 44 52 8 18% ▲ Burglary Total 133 135 2 2% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 32 49 17 53% ▲ Theft From Motor Vehicle 115 83 -32 -28% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 6 13 7 117% ▲ Theft From Shops 181 224 43 24% ▲ Theft Person 48 60 12 25% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 11 11 0 0% ◄ Other Theft 157 151 -6 -4% ▼ Handling Stolen Goods 8 1 -7 -88% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 558 592 34 6% ▲ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 2 1 100% ▲ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 2 1 100% ▲ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 28 21 -7 -25% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 13 14 1 8% ▲ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 38 46 8 21% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 26 31 5 19% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 105 112 7 7% ▲ Drug Trafficking 4 5 1 25% ▲ Possession Of Drugs 144 120 -24 -17% ▼ Other Drugs 1 1 0 0% ◄ Drugs Total 149 126 -23 -15% ▼ Going Equipped 1 1 0 0% ◄ Other Notifiable 42 31 -11 -26% ▼ Other Notifiable Offences Total 43 32 -11 -26% ▼ Total Notifiable Offences 1513 1538 25 2% ▲

Violence Against The Person Crime category % Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Violence Against The Person 29% Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 29% Burglary Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 9% Drugs Burglary 9% Criminal Damage Drugs 8% Robbery Criminal Damage 7% Sexual Offences Robbery 4% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery 0% Overview of crime in Wanstead

Jun-13 - Jun-14 - Wanstead Variance % Change May-14 May-15 Murder 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Wounding/GBH 16 18 2 13% ▲ Assault With Injury 34 23 -11 -32% ▼ Common Assault 34 27 -7 -21% ▼ Offensive Weapon 1 3 2 200% ▲ Harassment 25 32 7 28% ▲ Other Violence 5 2 -3 -60% ▼ Violence Against The Person Total 115 105 -10 -9% ▼ Rape 3 3 0 0% ◄ Other Sexual 8 10 2 25% ▲ Sexual Offences Total 11 13 2 18% ▲ Personal Property 35 17 -18 -51% ▼ Business Property 2 3 1 50% ▲ Robbery Total 37 20 -17 -46% ▼ Burglary in A Dwelling 121 93 -28 -23% ▼ Burglary in Other Buildings 42 24 -18 -43% ▼ Burglary Total 163 117 -46 -28% ▼ Theft/Taking Of Motor Vehicle 72 43 -29 -40% ▼ Theft From Motor Vehicle 146 114 -32 -22% ▼ Motor Vehicle Interference & Tampering 23 30 7 30% ▲ Theft From Shops 2 5 3 150% ▲ Theft Person 13 14 1 8% ▲ Theft/Taking Of Pedal Cycles 14 13 -1 -7% ▼ Other Theft 151 188 37 25% ▲ Handling Stolen Goods 3 1 -2 -67% ▼ Theft & Handling Total 424 408 -16 -4% ▼ Counted Per Victim 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Fraud & Forgery 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Fraud & Forgery Total 1 0 -1 -100% ▼ Criminal Damage to a Dwelling 13 7 -6 -46% ▼ Criminal Damage To Other Buildings 3 1 -2 -67% ▼ Criminal Damage To Motor Vehicle 31 37 6 19% ▲ Other Criminal Damage 6 12 6 100% ▲ Criminal Damage Total 53 57 4 8% ▲ Drug Trafficking 2 1 -1 -50% ▼ Possession Of Drugs 53 71 18 34% ▲ Other Drugs 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Drugs Total 55 72 17 31% ▲ Going Equipped 0 0 0 n/a ▲ Other Notifiable 3 8 5 167% ▲ Other Notifiable Offences Total 3 8 5 167% ▲ Total Notifiable Offences 862 800 -62 -7% ▼

Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) Crime category % Theft & Handling(MVcrime) Theft&Handling(Excl.MVcrime) 28% Burglary Theft & Handling(MVcrime) 23% Violence Against The Person Burglary 15% Drugs Violence Against The Person 13% Criminal Damage Drugs 9% Robbery Criminal Damage 7% Sexual Offences Robbery 3% Other Notifiable Offences Sexual Offences 2% Fraud & Forgery Other Notifiable Offences 1% Fraud & Forgery 0%

Questionnaire 34 Report

We followed up a survey by Age UK, our national organisation which showed that 53 percent of people aged over 65 believe they have been targeted by fraudsters, and of those who responded to a scam, 70% had lost money. The research suggested that a third of older people who responded to a scam may have lost £1000 or more. Age UK has published a new report: ‘Only the tip of the iceberg: fraud against older people.’ The report highlights the tactics used by fraudsters and also aims to raise awareness of the effects of being a victim, both on physical and mental health as well as relationships and finance.

We wanted to help raise awareness of these issues in Redbridge, and worked on the questions with the local police to highlight some of the scams that are relevant to our Borough and in particular to older people. We provided information on a separate sheet that people could keep, with contact telephone numbers of who to contact if they do suspect they have been ‘scammed’ as well as Age UK booklets on Scams, Protecting Yourself and Internet Security.

Methodology

We sent the questionnaire out to 172 members on the Voices of Experience database, from which 76 were returned, 44%. We visited a number of sheltered schemes where a further 31 questionnaires were completed, and also local Black and Minority Ethnic community groups completed 20. This makes a total of 127 questionnaires completed.

Avoiding Scams and protecting yourself from rogue tradesmen.

Q1 asked: Have you ever been pressured into buying something on the doorstep that you didn’t really want or found out later that the item was not what you thought it was?

Questionnaire group

1% 4% 8% Yes No Don't know 87% No resp

BME

Over a third of respondents from 37% Yes this group have been victims of No this type of scam. More 63% information is needed to ascertain Don't know why this group is particularly No resp vulnerable to these sorts of crimes.

None of the residents we spoke to during visits to sheltered schemes had been pressured into buying on the doorstep. It is clear that the entry system is an excellent deterrent in preventing this sort of crime. Thankfully, only a small minority of our questionnaire group have Q2 asked: Have you ever been tricked by a bogus been tricked into letting someone caller who has conned their way into your home in into their home. This is possibly order to steal from you? thanks to the excellent work carried out by the Bogus Caller Partnership which has done such Questionnaire Group excellent work in raising 3% 3% awareness of bogus callers and introducing ‘No cold calling’ zones Yes throughout Redbridge.

No Again, none of the residents we 94% No resp spoke to in the sheltered schemes had been tricked by bogus callers, although a

couple of people in the scheme not present at the discussion BaME Groups had been tricked by bogus police officers.

11% A much lower percentage of our BaME respondents allowed bogus Yes callers into their home, than those No who were tricked on the doorstep, 89% but it is still of concern that 11% did so. Further awareness raising would be beneficial.

Q3 asked: Do you regularly receive ‘junk mail’ through the post?

All Groups This is a big issue of concern for all groups. We informed people who 1% 1% we did speak to that they could 13% register with the Mail Preference Yes service to halt at least some of the mail. No Not sure 85% No resp

We asked: If so, have you ever ordered products or services from the mail you received only to find out later it was a scam?

Questionnaire Group

4%4%

Yes No 92% No resp It is interesting to note that more of the residents in sheltered schemes, without the protection offered against doorstep traders, were caught out in this way. Sheltered schemes During conversations with many 16% of these residents who had been a victim of a postal scam, the offers Yes had all appeared too good to be 84% No true, and of course they were! It is hoped that the information provided to all of the groups will help to prevent them from

becoming a victim of this type of crime in the future. BaME Groups

16%

Yes

84% No

Q4 asked: Have you ever been talked into buying something over the phone which you later discovered was a scam?

Questionnaire group

1% 4%

Yes No don't know

95%

Sheltered schemes 3%

Yes No The fact that over a third of our BaME respondents have fallen victim to this kind of scam is of 97% great concern. It seems that much more needs to be done with this group to warn them about the BaME Groups dangers of responding to unsolicited phone calls. Perhaps this is something that the 37% Bogus Caller Partnership could assist with and we will refer this Yes 63% issue to them. No

Q5 asked: Have you ever been the victim of Identity Theft?

Questionnaire Group Again this chart shows that our 4% 9% BaME respondents are the most at risk group for being the victims of Yes Identity Theft. No This type of crime has also claimed the highest number of don't know 87% questionnaire group members from any of the types of scam we have shown here.

The figures suggest that there is Sheltered schemes less awareness of how people do fall victim to Identity theft, particularly as older people may 6% be using the internet to buy products, or carry out banking Yes transactions without knowing No how to install software that 94% prevents phishing.

This is probably the fastest growing scam with the fraudsters constantly finding new ways to BaME Groups con people out of their money, often by the time their victim finds out it is too late to prevent it. The 16% ongoing effect on people’s health, both mental and physical, can be Yes quite considerable. 84% No

Q6 asked: If you have been a victim of any of these crimes, did you decide not to report it because you felt embarrassed about what happened?

From those respondents who had been a victim of Identity theft, most did report it either to the police, their bank, or both. Only 1 victim failed to report it, because he/she felt too embarrassed to do so. Q7 asked: Do you feel safe at home?

Questionnaire Group Reassuringly most of our respondents feel safe at home; 1% the suggestions they gave that 1% might make them feel safer Yes are shown below. 42% Mostly 56% No no resp

BaME Groups

More police/safer neighbourhood 6 Teams 53% 47% Yes Having a Burglar alarm 5 Mostly More secure door/windows 3 Good neighbours 2 Lifeline 1 Electronic security system 1 A dog 1 Make sure carers have ID cards 1 Having someone else there 1 Neighbourhood Watch 1 Sheltered schemes

10%

Yes Mostly 90%

Statistical Bulletin

Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014

Coverage: England and Wales Date: 22 January 2015 Geographical Area: Local Authority and County Theme: Crime and Justice

Correction

After identifying an error in published tables a minor revision has been made to this release. The error related to data on the proportion of people who have been victims of plastic card fraud for the last two years in the time series (Oct-12 to Sep-13 and Oct-13 to Sep-14). Revisions have been made to figure 14 in the statistical bulletin (also contained in reference table 01. Bulletin Tables - Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014) and to the short story: A stocktake of crime statistics in England and Wales.

23 April 2015 at 11:00 am

Key points

• Latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that, for the offences it covers, there were an estimated 7.0 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 16 and over) in England and Wales. This represents an 11% decrease compared with the previous year’s survey, and is the lowest estimate since the CSEW began in 1981.

• The CSEW covers a broad range of victim based crimes and includes crimes which do not come to the attention of the police. Decreases were evident for almost all crime types compared with the previous year; including vehicle-related theft and criminal damage (both falling by 15%) and other household theft (down 9%).

• In contrast, police recorded crime shows no overall change from the previous year, with 3.7 million offences recorded in the year ending September 2014.

• The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording is likely to have prompted improved compliance with national standards, leading to more crimes being recorded than previously. This

Office for National Statistics | 1 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

is thought to have particularly affected the police recorded figures for violence against the person (up 16%), public order offences (up 10%) and sexual offences (up 22%).

• The numbers of rapes (24,043) and other sexual offences (48,934) are the highest recorded by the police since 2002/03. As well as improvements in recording, this is thought to reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes.

• There was an increase in the volume of fraud recorded (5% year on year), though it is difficult to judge to what extent this was affected by the transfer in responsibility of recording fraud offences from individual police forces to Action Fraud, or reflected an increase in public reports or a rise in actual criminality. It is thought that levels of fraud are substantially under-reported and thus these figures simply provide a measure of such offences brought to the attention of the authorities.

Understanding Crime Statistics

This quarterly release presents the most recent crime statistics from two main sources: the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW; previously known as the British Crime Survey), and police recorded crime. Neither of these sources can provide a picture of total crime.

Crime Survey for England and Wales

The CSEW is a face-to-face victimisation survey in which people resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of a selected number of offences in the 12 months prior to the interview. It covers both children aged 10-15 and adults aged 16 and over, but does not cover those living in group residences (such as care homes, student halls of residence and prisons), or crimes against commercial or public sector bodies. For the population and offence types it covers, the CSEW is a valuable source for providing robust estimates on a consistent basis over time.

It is able to capture all offences experienced by those interviewed, not just those that have been reported to, and recorded by, the police. It covers a broad range of victim-based crimes experienced by the resident household population. However, there are some serious but relatively low volume offences, such as homicide and sexual offences, that are not included in its main estimates. The survey also currently excludes fraud and cyber crime though there is ongoing development work to address this gap – see the methodological note 'Work to extend the Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime'. This infographic sets out what is and is not covered by the CSEW.

Police recorded crime

Police recorded crime figures cover selected offences that have been reported to and recorded by the police. They are supplied by the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales, plus the British Transport Police, via the Home Office, to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The coverage of police recorded crime is defined by the Notifiable Offence List (NOL)1, which includes a broad range of offences, from murder to minor criminal damage, theft and public order offences. The NOL excludes less serious offences that are dealt with exclusively at magistrates’ courts.

Office for National Statistics | 2 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Police recorded crime is the primary source of sub-national crime statistics and for relatively serious, but low volume, crimes that are not well measured by a sample survey. It covers victims (including, for example, residents of institutions and tourists) and sectors (for example commercial bodies) excluded from the CSEW sample. While the police recorded crime series covers a wider population and a broader set of offences than the CSEW, it does not include crimes which do not come to the attention of the police or that are not recorded by them.

Statistics based on police recorded crime data do not currently meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics (see Recent assessments of crime statistics and accuracy later on in this section).

This bulletin also draws on data from other sources to provide a more comprehensive picture of crime and disorder, including incidents of anti-social behaviour recorded by the police and other transgressions of the law that are dealt with by the courts but not covered in the recorded crime collection.

Further information on the datasets is available in the Data sources – coverage and coherence section of this Statistical Bulletin and the CSEW Technical report (839.6 Kb Pdf).

The User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales provides information for those wanting to obtain more detail on crime statistics. This includes information on the datasets used to compile the statistics and is a useful reference guide with explanatory notes regarding updates, issues and classifications.

For the expert user, the Quality and Methodology report sets out information about the quality of crime statistics and the roles and responsibilities of the different departments involved in the production and publication of crime statistics.

A more interactive guide is available to provide new users with information on crime statistics.

A short video is available to give users an introduction to crime statistics, by giving an overview of the main data sources used to produce the statistics.

Recent assessments of crime statistics and accuracy

Following an assessment of ONS crime statistics by the UK Statistics Authority, published in January 2014, the statistics based on police recorded crime data have been found not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics. The full assessment report can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website. Data from the CSEW continue to be badged as National Statistics.

In their assessment report the UK Statistics Authority set out 16 requirements to be addressed in order for the statistics to meet National Statistics standards. ONS are working in collaboration with the Home Office Statistics Unit and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to address these requirements. A summary of progress so far is available on the Crime statistics methodology page.

Office for National Statistics | 3 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

In November 2014 ONS launched a user engagement exercise to help expand our knowledge of users’ needs in light of concerns raised about the quality of police recorded crime. The exercise has now closed and responses are currently being analysed and will be published in due course.

As part of the inquiry by the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) into crime statistics, allegations of under-recording of crime by the police were made. During 2014, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) carried out a national inspection of crime data integrity. The final report on findings from the HMIC inspections, ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’, was published on 18 November 2014.

Based on an audit of a large sample of records, HMIC concluded that, across England and Wales as a whole an estimated one in five offences (19%) that should have been recorded as crimes were not. The greatest levels of under-recording were seen for violence against the person offences (33%) and sexual offences (26%), however there was considerable variation in the level of under- recording across the different offence types investigated (for example, burglary; 11%) and these are reported on further in the relevant sections.

The audit sample was not large enough to produce force level compliance rates. However, the HMIC inspected the crime recording process in each force and have reported on their findings in separate crime data integrity force reports.

Further information on the accuracy of the statistics is also available in the Accuracy of the statistics section of this Statistical Bulletin.

Time periods covered

The latest CSEW figures presented in this release are based on interviews conducted between October 2013 and September 2014, measuring experiences of crime in the 12 months before the interview. It therefore covers a rolling reference period with, for example, respondents interviewed in October 2013 reporting on crimes experienced between October 2012 and September 2013 and those interviewed in September 2014 reporting on crimes taking place between September 2013 and August 2014. For that reason, the CSEW tends to lag short-term trends.

Recorded crime figures relate to crimes recorded by the police during the year ending September 20142 and therefore are not subject to the time lag experienced by the CSEW. Recorded crime figures presented in this release are those notified to the Home Office and that were recorded in the Home Office database on 1 December 2014.

Nine months of the data reported here overlap with the data contained in the previous bulletin and as a result the estimates in successive bulletins are not from independent samples. Therefore, year on year comparisons are made with the previous year; that is, the 12 months period ending September 2013 (rather than those published last quarter). To put the latest dataset in context, data are also shown for the year ending March 2009 (around five years ago) and the year ending March 2004 (around ten years ago). Additionally, for the CSEW estimates, data for the year ending December 1995, which was when crime peaked in the CSEW (when the survey was conducted on a calendar year basis), are also included.

Office for National Statistics | 4 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Changes following survey re-weighting

Revised survey weights and a back-series have been produced for the CSEW following the release of the new-2011 Census-based population estimates. The programme of work to produce the revised weights and key estimates for all survey years back to 2001/02 is now complete and both CSEW and police recorded crime use post 2011 Census population figures. Micro datasets for the entire affected back-series are planned for release in Spring 2015. Further information can be found in the methodological note ‘Presentational and methodological improvements to National Statistics on the Crime Survey for England and Wales’.

Notes for Understanding Crime Statistics:

1. The Notifiable Offence List includes all indictable and triable-either-way offences (offences which could be tried at a crown court) and a few additional closely related summary offences (which would be dealt with by magistrates' courts). For information on the classifications used for notifiable crimes recorded by the police, see Appendix 1 of the User Guide. 2. Police recorded crime statistics are based on the year in which the offence was recorded rather than the year in which it was committed. However, such data for any given period will include some historic offences that occurred in a previous year to the one in which it is reported to the police.

Summary

Latest headline figures from the CSEW and police recorded crime

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) covers a broad range of victim-based crimes experienced by the resident household population although there are some serious but relatively low volume offences, such as homicide and sexual offences, that are not included in its headline estimates. The survey also currently excludes fraud and cyber crime though there is ongoing development work to address this gap – see the methodological note ‘Work to extend the Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime’. For more information on what is and is not included, see this infographic.

Latest figures from the CSEW show there were an estimated 7.0 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 16 and over) in England and Wales for the year ending September 2014 (Table 1). This represents an 11% decrease from 7.9 million incidents compared with the previous year’s survey and continues the long downward trend seen since the mid-1990s. The latest estimate is the lowest since the survey began in 1981. The total number of CSEW incidents is estimated to be 32% lower than the 2008/09 survey, and 63% lower than its peak level in 1995.

Crime covered by the CSEW rose steadily from 1981, before peaking in 1995. After peaking, the CSEW showed marked falls up until the 2004/05 survey year. Since then, the underlying trend has continued downwards, but with some fluctuation from year to year (Figure 1).

An animated version of Figure 1 is also available.

Office for National Statistics | 5 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 1: Trends in police recorded crime and CSEW, 1981 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Sources: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics / Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refer to crimes experienced in the calendar year (January to December); b) from 2001/02 onwards the estimates relate to crimes experienced in the 12 months before interview, based on interviews carried out in that financial year (April to March); and c) the last two data points relate to interviews carried out in the rolling 12 month periods for the latest available two years (October to September). 4. Some forces have revised their data and police recorded crime totals may not therefore agree with those previously published.

Download chart

XLS format (80 Kb)

The CSEW time series shown in Figure 1 does not includes crimes committed against children aged 10 to 15. The survey was only extended to include such children from January 2009 and data from this module of the survey is not directly comparable with the main survey. The CSEW estimated that 721,000 crimes1 were experienced by children aged 10 to 15 in the year ending September 2014.

Office for National Statistics | 6 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Of this number, 52% were categorised as violent crimes2 (375,000), while most of the remaining crimes were thefts of personal property (304,000; 42%). Incidents of criminal damage to personal property experienced by children were less common (42,000; 6% of all crimes). The proportions of violent, personal property theft and criminal damage crimes experienced by children aged 10 to 15 are similar to the previous year (54%, 39% and 7% respectively).

Police recorded crime is restricted to offences that have been reported to and recorded by the police and thus does not provide a total count of all crimes that take place. The police recorded 3.7 million offences in the year ending September 2014, a similar number to that recorded in the previous year (Table 2)3. This is a change from the downward trend seen since 2003/04 in police recorded crime figures. Although the rate of reduction has slowed over the last three years, the latest figures are 21% lower than in 2008/09 and 38% lower than the peak in 2003/04.

Like CSEW crime, police recorded crime also increased during most of the 1980s, reaching a peak in 1992, and then fell each year until 1998/99. Expanded coverage of offences in the recorded crime collection, following changes to the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) in 1998, and the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002, saw increases in the number of crimes recorded by the police while the CSEW count fell. Following the bedding in of these changes, trends from the two series tracked each other well from 2002/03 until 2006/07. While both series continued to show a downward trend between 2007/08 and 2012/13, the gap between the two series widened with police recorded crime showing a faster rate of reduction (32% compared with 19% for the CSEW for a comparable basket of crimes)4. However, for the most recent year this pattern has changed with the recorded crime series showing no percentage change while the survey estimates have continued to fall.

A likely factor behind the changing trend in recorded crime is the recent renewed focus on the quality of recording by the police in the light of the inspections of forces by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) inquiry into crime statistics, and the UK Statistics Authority’s decision to remove the National Statistics designation from recorded crime. This renewed focus is thought to have led to improved compliance with the NCRS leading to a greater proportion of crimes reported to the police being recorded than previously.

Victim-based crime5 accounted for 84% of all police recorded crime and fell by 1% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year, with 3.1 million offences recorded. Within victim-based crime, there were decreases across most of the police recorded crime categories. The notable exceptions to this were violence against the person, which was up by 16% (an additional 96,000 offences), sexual offences up by 22% (13,000 offences) and shoplifting up by 3% (9,000 offences).

Other crimes against society6 accounted for 11% of all police recorded crime (with 399,469 offences recorded) and showed an increase of 1% compared with the previous year. Trends in such offences often reflect changes in police workload and activity rather than levels of criminality. Within this crime type, offences involving possession of weapons rose by 4%, public order offences rose by 10% and miscellaneous crimes against society rose by 12%. Drug offences decreased by 7% to

Office for National Statistics | 7 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

186,657 offences. Public order offences account for the largest volume rise and anecdotal evidence from forces suggests that this is being driven by a tightening of recording practices.

The remaining 6% of recorded crimes were fraud offences. There were 212,699 fraud offences recorded by the police and Action Fraud in the year ending September 2014 (an increase of 5% on the previous year). However, trends in fraud should be interpreted with caution. It is unclear to what extent there has been a genuine increase in such crimes or whether the move to the centralised recording of such offences has led to improved reporting and recording of fraud offences; see the ‘Total fraud offences recorded by Action Fraud’ section for further details.

In addition, fraud data are also collected from industry bodies by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). In the year ending September 2014, there were 391,221 reports of fraud to the NFIB from industry bodies, the vast majority of which were related to banking and credit industry fraud. For more information on these data sources, see the ‘Fraud’ section of this bulletin.

Overall level of crime – Other sources of crime statistics

Around 2.0 million incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) were recorded by the police for the year ending September 2014. These are incidents which were not judged to require recording as a notifiable offence within the Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime. The number of ASB incidents in the year ending September 2014 decreased by 10% compared with the previous year. However, it should be noted that a review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC, 2012) found that there was a wide variation in the quality of decision making associated with the recording of ASB. As a result, ASB incident data should be interpreted with caution.

In the year ending June 2014 (the latest period for which data are available) there were 957,000 convictions in magistrates’ courts for non-notifiable offences (down 5% from the year ending June 2013), which are not covered in police recorded crime or the CSEW (for example: being drunk and disorderly; committing a speeding offence). There were 31,000 Penalty Notices for Disorder issued in relation to non-notifiable offences7.

The CSEW does not cover crimes against businesses and police recorded crime can only provide a partial picture (as not all offences come to the attention of the police). The 2012 and 2013 Commercial Victimisation Surveys, respectively, estimated that there were 9.2 million and 6.8 million incidents of crime against businesses8 in England and Wales in the four sectors covered by each of the two surveys. The sectors covered in the two surveys differed (‘Wholesale and retail’, ‘Accommodation and food’, ‘Manufacturing’ and ‘Transportation and storage’ in 2012; ‘Wholesale and retail’, ‘Accommodation and food’, ‘Arts, entertainment and recreation’ and ‘Agriculture, forestry and fishing’ in 2013); thus the two estimates are not directly comparable.

Trends in victim-based crime – CSEW

The CSEW provides coverage of most victim-based crimes, although there are necessary exclusions from its main estimates, such as homicide and sexual offences. For more information on what is and is not included, see this infographic.

Office for National Statistics | 8 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Estimates of violent crime from the CSEW have shown large falls between 1995 and the 2004/05 survey. In recent years the rate of reduction has slowed and while the latest estimate is 11% lower compared with the previous year, it was not statistically significant.

CSEW domestic burglary follows a similar pattern to that seen for overall crime, peaking in the mid-1990s survey and then falling steeply until the 2004/05 CSEW. The underlying trend in domestic burglary remained fairly flat between the 2004/05 and 2010/11 surveys. Since then estimates have fallen and incidents of domestic burglary for the year ending September 2014 are 40% lower than those in the 2003/04 survey. The apparent year on year fall of 8% was not statistically significant.

Levels of vehicle-related theft estimated by the CSEW show a 15% fall compared with the previous year, and follow a consistent downward trend since the mid-1990s, explained in-part by improvements in vehicle security. The latest estimates indicate that a vehicle-owning household was around five times less likely to become a victim of such crime than in 1995.

There was a 9% decrease in CSEW other household theft compared with the previous year. This decrease sees estimated levels of other household theft return to levels similar to that seen in the 2007/08 survey, following a period of year on year increases between the 2007/08 and 2011/12 surveys. Peak levels of other household theft were recorded in the mid-1990s and the latest estimate is half the level seen in 1995.

The CSEW estimates that there were around 848,000 incidents of other theft of personal property in the survey year ending September 2014. The apparent 9% decrease, was not statistically significant. The underlying trend has been fairly flat since 2004/05 following marked declines from the mid-1990s; the current estimate is under half the level seen in 1995.

Latest CSEW findings for bicycle theft show little change in the level of incidents in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (the apparent 1% increase was not statistically significant). Over the long term, incidents of bicycle theft are now 40% lower than in 1995.

Criminal damage estimated by the CSEW decreased by 15% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year, continuing the downward trend seen since 2008/09.

CSEW estimates for robbery and theft from the person were not significantly different from the previous year (the apparent respective 27% and 9% decreases were not statistically significant). However these must be treated with caution and interpreted alongside police recorded crime as short term trends in these CSEW crimes are typically prone to fluctuation due to a small number of victims interviewed in any one year. Further information on these crimes is provided in the relevant sections of this bulletin.

Office for National Statistics | 9 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 1: Number of CSEW incidents for year ending September 2014 and percentage change [1,2]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over/households October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Offence Oct-13 Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 group3 to Sep-144

Number of incidents (thousands), percentage change and significance5 Violence 1,312 -66 * -41 * -26 * -11 with 611 -73 * -49 * -36 * -26 * injury without 702 -55 * -30 * -14 7 injury Robbery 127 -62 * -53 * -52 * -27 Theft 4,195 -64 * -36 * -25 * -9 * offences Theft 504 -26 * -17 * -28 * -9 from the person Other 848 -59 * -34 * -21 * -9 theft of personal property Unweighted34,554 base - number of adults Domestic 789 -67 * -40 * -20 * -8 burglary Domestic 560 -68 * -40 * -22 * -11 burglary in a dwelling Domestic 229 -65 * -39 * -17 * 0 burglary in a non- connected building

Office for National Statistics | 10 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Offence Oct-13 Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 group3 to Sep-144 to a dwelling Other 777 -50 * -13 * -10 * -9 * household theft Vehicle- 878 -79 * -57 * -39 * -15 * related theft Bicycle 398 -40 * 10 -23 * 1 theft Criminal 1,393 -58 * -42 * -48 * -15 * damage Unweighted34,513 base - number of households ALL 7,027 -63 * -38 * -32 * -11 * CSEW CRIME

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. More detail on further years can be found in Appendix Table A1. 3. For more information about the crime types included in this table, see Section 5 of the User Guide. 4. Base sizes for data since year ending September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012. 5. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.

Download table

XLS format (79.5 Kb)

Trends in victim-based crime – Police recorded crime

Figure 2 shows selected police recorded crime offences and focuses on those categories with notable changes in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year.

Office for National Statistics | 11 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 2: Selected victim-based police recorded crime offences: volumes and percentage change between year ending September 2013 and year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

There was a 1% decrease in victim-based crimes in the year ending September 2014 to 3.1 million offences. To put this volume into context, this is equivalent to 55 recorded offences per 1,000 population (though this should not be read as a victimisation rate as multiple offences could be reported by the same victim) – see Table 3. There were decreases in theft from the person (down 24%), vehicle offences (down 6%), criminal damage and arson (down 4%) and robbery (down 14%). There were increases in violence against the person (up 16%), sexual offences (up 22%) and shoplifting (up 3%).

The 16% increase in violence against the person offences recorded by the police is likely to be driven by improved compliance with the NCRS; the CSEW, for example, showed an 11% decrease over the same period. The volume of crimes (699,832 offences) equates to approximately 12 offences recorded per 1,000 population in the year ending September 2014. The increase in total violence against the person offences was largest in the subcategory violence without injury, which showed an increase of 20% compared with the previous year. The violence with injury subcategory showed a smaller increase of 12% over the same period.

In the year ending September 2014 the police recorded 507 homicides, 47 fewer than in the previous year9. This latest annual count of homicides is at its lowest since 1977 (482 offences). The number of homicides increased from around 300 per year in the early 1960s to over 800 per year in the early years of this century, which was at a faster rate than population growth over that period10. Over the past decade however, the volume of homicides has decreased while the population of England and Wales has continued to grow.

Office for National Statistics | 12 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Offences involving firearms have fallen 7% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year, continuing the falls seen since their peak in 2005/06. The number of offences that involved a knife or sharp instrument fell by 2% over the same period11.

Robberies fell 14% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year, from 61,843 offences to 53,080 offences. This is equivalent to around 1 offence recorded per 1,000 population and is the lowest level since the introduction of the NCRS in 2002/03 (when 110,271 offences were recorded). With the exception of a notable rise in the number of robberies in 2005/06 and 2006/07, there has been a general downward trend in robbery offences since 2002/03. The overall decrease has been driven by falls in most of the large metropolitan force areas, where robbery offences tend to be concentrated (nearly half of all robbery offences were recorded in London alone). In volume-terms, the most notable drop in robbery offences over the last year was in the Metropolitan Police force area (25%; 8,116 offences).

Sexual offences recorded by the police increased by 22% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year, to a total of 72,977 across England and Wales, the highest level since the introduction of the NCRS in 2002/03. Within this, the number of offences of rape increased by 31% and the number of other sexual offences increased by 19%. These increases are likely to be due to an improvement in crime recording by the police for these offences and an increase in the willingness of victims to come forward and report these crimes to the police; see the ‘Sexual offences’ section for more information.

While previous releases have showed that the rise in sexual offences was being largely driven by a rise in the number of historical offences, additional analysis of data supplied by around half the forces show recent offences now account for the majority of the increase (78% of the increase was due to offences committed within the last 12 months12).

Total theft offences recorded by the police in the year ending September 2014 showed a 5% decrease compared with the previous year, continuing the year on year decrease seen since 2002/03. The majority of the categories in this offence group (‘Burglary’, ‘Vehicle offences’, ‘Theft from the person’, ‘Bicycle theft’ and ‘All other theft offences’) showed decreases compared with the previous year. The only exception to this was shoplifting, which increased by 3% compared with the previous year (from 313,700 offences to 322,904).

Theft from the person offences recorded by the police in the year ending September 2014 showed a 24% decrease compared with the previous year. This is a reversal of recent trends, which showed year-on-year increases between 2008/09 and 2012/13. This decrease is driven by a large drop in offences from December 2013 onwards, thought to be associated with improved mobile phone security features; see the ‘Theft offences - Other theft of property’ section for more information.

Fraud offences

Responsibility for recording fraud offences has transferred from individual police forces to Action Fraud. This transfer occurred between April 2011 and March 2013. In the year ending September 2014, there were 212,699 fraud offences recorded by Action Fraud in England and Wales13. This represents a volume increase of 5% compared with the previous year and an increase of 194% compared with 2008/09. These reported increases over the past 12 months should be seen in the

Office for National Statistics | 13 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

context of the recent move to centralised recording of fraud. During the transition to Action Fraud, level of recorded fraud showed steady increases. It should be noted that since all forces completed the transfer of recording to Action Fraud (April 2013), the levels of fraud have remained fairly steady (see Table QT1 (227.5 Kb Excel sheet)).

In addition, there were 391,221 reports of fraud to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau from industry bodies. For more information, see the ‘Fraud’ section.

CSEW data on plastic card fraud show that, for the year ending September 2014 survey, 5.0% of plastic card owners were victims of card fraud in the last year, no change on 4.8% in the year ending September 2013. Before that, there had been small reductions in levels of plastic card fraud over the last few years, following a rise between the 2005/06 and 2008/09 surveys.

Office for National Statistics | 14 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 2: Number of police recorded crimes for year ending September 2014 and percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Number and percentage change Offence October 2013 to September 2014 compared group with: Oct-13 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Sep-14 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-13

VICTIM- 3,108,828 -43 -24 -1 BASED CRIME Violence 699,832 -12 -1 16 against the person offences Homicide 507 -44 -24 -8 Violence 347,879 -24 -17 12 with injury5 Violence 351,446 3 22 20 without injury6 Sexual 72,977 21 45 22 offences Rape 24,043 81 84 31 Other 48,934 4 32 19 sexual offences Robbery 53,080 -49 -34 -14 offences Robbery 5,778 -43 -38 -4 of business property Robbery 47,302 -49 -33 -15 of personal property Theft offences 1,785,473 -45 -23 -5 Burglary 426,323 -48 -27 -6 Domestic 204,136 -49 -28 -8 burglary

Office for National Statistics | 15 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Offence October 2013 to September 2014 compared group with: Oct-13 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Sep-14 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-13 Non- 222,187 -47 -25 -4 domestic burglary Vehicle 357,774 -64 -40 -6 offences Theft of a 74,588 -74 -49 -3 motor vehicle Theft from a 255,976 -58 -36 -10 vehicle Interfering 27,210 -70 -43 27 with a motor vehicle Theft from 84,365 -38 -6 -24 the person Bicycle theft 94,446 -10 -9 -3 Shoplifting 322,904 6 1 3 All other 499,661 -44 -21 -6 theft offences7 Criminal 497,466 -59 -47 -4 damage and arson

OTHER 399,469 -5 -26 1 CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY Drug offences 186,657 30 -23 -7 Trafficking 29,016 18 -3 -1 of drugs Possession 157,641 33 -26 -8 of drugs Possession 20,942 -46 -41 4 of weapons offences

Office for National Statistics | 16 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Offence October 2013 to September 2014 compared group with: Oct-13 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Sep-14 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-13 Public order 143,768 -9 -30 10 offences Miscellaneous 48,102 -40 -14 12 crimes against society

TOTAL 212,699 25 194 5 FRAUD OFFENCES8

TOTAL 3,720,996 -38 -21 0 RECORDED CRIME - ALL OFFENCES INCLUDING FRAUD8

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. More detail on further years can be found in Appendix Table A4. 5. Includes attempted murder, intentional destruction of viable unborn child, causing death by dangerous driving/ careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, more serious wounding or other act endangering life (including grievous bodily harm with and without intent), causing death by aggravated vehicle taking and less serious wounding offences. 6. Includes threat or conspiracy to murder, harassment, other offences against children and assault without injury (formerly common assault where there is no injury). 7. All other theft offences now includes all 'making off without payment' offences recorded since 2002/03. Making off without payment was previously included within the fraud offence group, but following a change in the classification for 2013/14, this change has been applied to previous years of data to give a consistent time series. 8. Action Fraud have taken over the recording of fraud offences on behalf of individual police forces. The process began in April 2011 and was rolled out to all police forces by March 2013. Due to this change, caution should be applied when comparing data over this transitional period and with earlier years. New offences were introduced under the Fraud Act 2006, which came into force on 15 January 2007.

Office for National Statistics | 17 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (39 Kb)

Table 3: Total police recorded crime - rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Rate per 1,000 population Total recorded 114 86 66 65 crime - all offences including fraud Victim-based 103 75 55 55 crime5 Other crimes 8 10 7 7 against society Total fraud 3 1 4 4 offences

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. Victim-based crime now includes all 'making off without payment' offences recorded since 2002/03. Making off without payment was previously included within the fraud offence group, but following a change in the classification for 2013/14, this change has been applied to previous years of data to give a consistent time series.

Download table

XLS format (33 Kb)

Notes for Summary

1. The survey of children aged 10 to 15 only covers personal level crime (so excludes household level crime) and, as with the adult survey, does not include sexual offences.

2. The majority (75%) of violent crimes experienced in the year ending September 2014 resulted in minor or no injury, so in most cases the violence is low level.

Office for National Statistics | 18 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

3. Police recorded crimes are notifiable offences which are all crimes that could possibly be tried by a jury (these include some less serious offences, such as minor theft that would not usually be dealt with in this way) plus a few additional closely related offences, such as assault without injury.

4. See the ‘Analysis of Variation in Crime trends’ methodological note and Section 4.2 of the User Guide for more details.

5. Victim-based crimes are those offences with a specific identifiable victim. These cover the police recorded crime categories of violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, theft offences, and criminal damage and arson.

6. ‘Other crimes against society’ cover offences without a direct victim, and includes drug offences, possession of weapon offences, public order offences and miscellaneous crimes against society.

7. Non-notifiable offences are offences dealt with exclusively by magistrates' courts or by the police issuing of a Penalty Notice for Disorder or a Fixed Penalty Notice. Along with non-notifiable offences dealt with by the police (such as speeding), these include many offences that may be dealt with by other agencies – for example: prosecutions by TV Licensing; or by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for vehicle registration offences.

8. This is a premises based survey in which respondents were asked if the business at their current premises had experienced any of a range of crime types in the 12 months prior to interview and, if so, how many incidents of crime had been experienced.

9. Homicide includes the offences of murder, manslaughter, corporate manslaughter and infanticide. Figures from the Homicide Index for the time period April 2012 to March 2013, which take account of further police investigations and court outcomes, were published in the ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’ release on 13 February 2014. Data for the period April 2013 to March 2014 will be published in the 2013/14 version due to be released on 12 February 2015.

10. Figures from the Homicide Index are less likely to be affected by changes in police recording practices made in 1998 and 2002 so it is possible to examine longer-term trends.

11. Only selected violent offences can be broken down by whether a knife or sharp instrument was used. These are: homicide; attempted murder; threats to kill; assault with injury and assault with intent to cause serious harm; robbery; rape; and sexual assault.

12. The standard recorded crime collection does not provide information on the date when the offence occurred and this analysis is based on just over half of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales that provided additional information on sexual offences to the Home Office Data Hub.

13. Action Fraud had taken over the recording of all fraud offences from police forces by the end of 2012/13, but showed a -6 count of fraud offences in the year ending September 2014. This is a

Office for National Statistics | 19 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

consequence of the transition process, and these cases have subsequently been removed from the police recorded data and transferred to Action Fraud.

Violent crime

Violent crime in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is referred to as “Violence”, and includes wounding and assault. There are additional breakdowns for violence with and without injury, as well as on the offender-victim relationship. Violent crime in police recorded data is referred to as “Violence against the person” and includes homicide, violence with injury, and violence without injury. Violent offences that have no identifiable victim are classified as other offences, such as public disorder. The underlying trend from the survey clearly indicates that violent crime is falling, although, as with the 11% decrease in the year ending September 2014, year on year decreases have not always been statistically significant (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Trends in CSEW violence, 1981 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refer to crimes experienced in the calendar year (January to December); b) from 2001/02 onwards the estimates relate to crimes experienced in the 12 months before interview, based on interviews carried out in that financial year (April to March); and c) the last two data points relate to interviews carried out in the rolling 12 month periods for the latest available two years (October to September). 3. The numbers of incidents are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales.

Download chart

XLS format (75 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 20 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Latest CSEW estimates show there were 1.3 million violent incidents in England and Wales (Figure 3). Violent incidents comprised 19% of all CSEW crime, making them an important driver of overall trends.

With regard to the latest estimate, the number of violent incidents has decreased 66% from the peak of violent crime in 1995 (Table 4b). To put these figures in context, around 2 in every 100 adults were a victim of violent crime in the last year based on the year ending September 2014 survey, compared with around 5 in 100 adults in the 1995 survey (Table 4a). However, it is important to note that victimisation rates vary considerably across the population and by geographic area. Such variations in victimisation rates are further explored in ONS thematic reports, which are published annually1.

The longer term reduction in violent crime as shown by the CSEW is supported by evidence from several health data sources, for example, research conducted by the Violence and Society Research Group at Cardiff University (Sivarajasingam et al., 2014). Findings from their annual survey, covering a sample of hospital emergency departments and walk-in centres in England and Wales, showed an overall decrease of 12% in serious violence-related attendances in 2013 compared with 2012. In addition, the most recent provisional National Health Service (NHS) data on assault admissions to hospitals in England show that for the 12 months to the end of March 2014 there were 31,243 hospital admissions for assault, a reduction of 5% compared with figures for the preceding 12 months2.

The CSEW violence offences can be broken down further into ‘Violence with injury’ and ‘Violence without injury’. The subcategory of ‘Violence with injury’ shows a substantial decrease of 26% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year, driving the overall decrease in all violence; it is the lowest estimate since the survey began. The apparent increase of 7% in ‘Violence without injury’ was not statistically significant.

Office for National Statistics | 21 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 4a: CSEW violence - number, rate and percentage of incidents [1,2]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 Number of Thousands incidents Violence 3,837 2,213 1,774 1,474 1,312 with injury 2,270 1,204 959 820 611 without 1,567 1,009 815 654 702 injury Incidence rate per 1,000 adults Violence 94 53 41 33 29 with injury 56 29 22 18 13 without 39 24 19 15 15 injury Percentage Percentage of adults who were victims once or more Violence 4.8 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.8 with injury 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 without 2.1 1.6 1.3 0.9 1.0 injury Unweighted 16,337 37,891 46,220 35,829 33,559 base - number of adults

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Base sizes for data since the years ending September 2013 and September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012.

Download table

XLS format (77.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 22 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 4b: CSEW violence - percentage change and statistical significance [1,2]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Number Percentage change and significance3 of incidents Violence -66 * -41 * -26 * -11 with -73 * -49 * -36 * -26 * injury -55 * -30 * -14 7 without injury Incidence rate per 1,000 adults Violence -69 * -46 * -29 * -12 with -76 * -54 * -39 * -26 * injury -60 * -37 * -18 6 without injury

PercentagePercentage point change and significance3.4 of adults who were victims once or more Violence -3.0 * -1.6 * -0.9 * -0.2 with -2.1 * -1.1 * -0.7 * -0.3 * injury -1.2 * -0.6 * -0.3 * 0.0 without injury

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3.

Office for National Statistics | 23 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk. 4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to rounding.

Download table

XLS format (77 Kb)

Estimates of violence against 10 to 15 year olds as measured by the CSEW can be found in the section ‘Crime experienced by children aged 10 to 15’.

The overall level of violence against the person recorded by the police in the year ending September 2014 showed a 16% increase compared with the previous year (Tables 5a and 5b), with 40 of the 43 forces reporting rises. The largest volume increase was reported by the Metropolitan Police Service (an additional 23,218 offences).

It is known that violent offences are more prone to subjective judgement about whether to record a crime. The ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’ report published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) found that violence against the person offences had the highest under-recording rates across police forces in England and Wales. Nationally, an estimated one of three (33%) violent offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not. Therefore, action taken by police forces to generally improve their compliance with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) given the renewed focus on the accuracy of crime recording by the police – over the period December 2013 to August 2014 when the inspections took place – is likely to have resulted in the increase in the number of offences recorded in contrast with the comparator year (October 2012 to September 2013). Evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service3 supports this point, which shows an increase in the number of reports of violence being recorded as crimes. See the ‘Accuracy of the statistics’ section for more information.

Another factor behind the rise is the increase in the reporting of domestic abuse and subsequent recording of these offences by the police. An HMIC inspection expressed concerns about the police response to domestic abuse but noted the majority of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) were now showing a strong commitment to tackling it. The report noted just under half of PCCs had made a commitment to increase the reporting of this type of offence. It is thought that this renewed focus may have led to more victims coming forward and allegations treated more sensitively.

The latest rise in violence against the person recorded by the police is in contrast to the falls shown by the Crime Survey and figures on attendances at Accident and Emergency departments due to violent assaults, cited previously. This supports the view that the apparent rise in violence against the person offences recorded by the police reflects changes in recording practices, rather than levels of crime.

Compared with 2008/09, the volume of violence against the person offences recorded by the police has fallen by 1%. The rates for violence against the person have dropped from 13 recorded offences per 1,000 population in 2008/09 to 12 recorded offences per 1,000 population in the year ending September 2014 (Table 5a).

Office for National Statistics | 24 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

In contrast to other violent crime, there is unlikely to be under-recording of homicides by the police. In the year ending September 2014 the police recorded 507 homicides, 47 fewer homicides than in the previous year (Table 5a)4. This latest annual count of homicides is at its lowest since 1977 (482 offences). Historically, the number of homicides increased from around 300 per year in the early 1960s to over 800 per year in the early years of this century5, and this had increased at a faster rate than population growth. Since then however, the number of homicides recorded each year has continued to fall to the current level, while the population of England and Wales has continued to grow. In 2003/04, there were 17 homicides per million population6; since then homicide rates have reduced by almost half, with 9 homicides per million population recorded during the year to September 2014.

As with homicide, the other two categories of police recorded offences for violence against the person have also declined over the past decade. However, in the latest data ‘Violence with injury’ showed a 12% rise, compared with the previous year, and ‘Violence without injury’ increased by 20% over the same period. Within violence with injury, the police recorded a rise in the category of causing death by dangerous driving; this rose from 236 in the year ending September 2013 to 319 offences in the current year. For more detailed information on trends and the circumstances of violence against the person, see ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’; the 2013/14 release is due to be published on 12 February 2015.

Harassment is included within the violence against the person category and in the year ending September 2014 the police recorded 69,404 such offences. From 1st April 2014, stalking, which previously would generally have been recorded within harassment, was separated into its own crime classification following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In the year ending September 2014, for the six months that stalking has been a separate offence category, the police recorded 1,682 such offences. As this newly separated stalking offence only contains two quarter’s worth of data (offences recorded between 1st April and 30th September 2014) it is likely that there will be rises in future releases as more quarters are included. Because these offences would have previously been recorded within (but not separately identifiable in) the harassment category, this should be borne in mind when looking at trends in harassment (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)).

Office for National Statistics | 25 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 5a: Police recorded violence against the person - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Violence against 799,247 709,008 604,123 699,832 the person offences

Homicide5 904 664 554 507 Violence 457,731 420,643 311,700 347,879 against the person - with injury6 Violence 340,612 287,701 291,869 351,446 against the person - without injury7 Violence against 15 13 11 12 the person rate per 1,000 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. Includes the offences of murder, manslaughter, corporate manslaughter and infanticide. 6. Includes attempted murder, intentional destruction of viable unborn child, causing death by dangerous driving/ careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, more serious wounding or other act endangering life (including grievous bodily harm with and without intent), causing death by aggravated vehicle taking, assault with injury, assault with intent to cause serious harm and less serious wounding offences. 7. Includes threat or conspiracy to murder, harassment, other offences against children and assault without injury (formerly common assault where there is no injury).

Download table

XLS format (33 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 26 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 5b: Police recorded violence against the person - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Violence against the -12 -1 16 person offences

Homicide5 -44 -24 -8 Violence against the -24 -17 12 person - with injury6 Violence against the 3 22 20 person - without injury7

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. Includes the offences of murder, manslaughter, corporate manslaughter and infanticide. 6. Includes attempted murder, intentional destruction of viable unborn child, causing death by dangerous driving/ careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, more serious wounding or other act endangering life (including grievous bodily harm with and without intent), causing death by aggravated vehicle taking, assault with injury, assault with intent to cause serious harm and less serious wounding offences. 7. Includes threat or conspiracy to murder, harassment, other offences against children and assault without injury (formerly common assault where there is no injury).

Download table

XLS format (33 Kb)

Notes for Violent crime

1. For more information on violent crime see ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’; the 2013/14 version is due to be released on 12 February 2015.

2. Based on the latest National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics and hospital admissions due to assault (dated 15 July 2014). These do not include figures for Wales and relate to activity in English NHS hospitals.

3. In evidence given by the Metropolitan Police Service to the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee on 13 November 2014 it was reported that the proportion of incidents of violence that were converted into recorded crimes rose from 40% to 75% between 2012 and 2014.

Office for National Statistics | 27 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

4. Homicide includes the offences of murder, manslaughter, corporate manslaughter and infanticide.

5. Figures from the Homicide Index are less likely to be affected by changes to in police recording practice made in 1998 and 2002 so it is possible to examine longer-term trends.

6. While most rates of recorded crime are given per 1,000 population, due to the relatively low number of offences recorded, and to aid interpretation, homicide rates are given per million population.

Robbery

Robbery is an offence in which force or the threat of force is used either during or immediately prior to a theft or attempted theft.

The ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’ report published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) found that nationally, an estimated 14% of robbery offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not; this level of under-recording is below the national average of 19%. See the ‘Accuracy of the statistics’ section for more information.

Although not all robberies will be reported to the police, owing to the small number of robbery victims interviewed in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), the number of robberies recorded by the police provides a more robust indication of trends.

Robbery is a relatively low volume offence accounting for less than 2% of all police recorded crime in the year ending September 2014. These offences are concentrated in a small number of metropolitan forces with nearly half (45%) of all offences recorded in London, and a further 20% in the Greater Manchester, West Midlands and West Yorkshire police force areas combined (Table P1 (155 Kb Excel sheet)).

Office for National Statistics | 28 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 4: Trends in police recorded robberies, 2002/03 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

The latest figures show police recorded robberies decreased by 14% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (Tables 6a and 6b). With the exception of a notable rise in the number of robberies in 2005/06 and 2006/07 there has been a general downward trend since 2002/03 in England and Wales. The latest figure shows the number of robbery offences falling to 53,080, the lowest level since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in 2002/03 (Figure 4).

In the year ending September 2014, 89% of robberies recorded by the police were of personal property. The police recorded 47,302 of these offences, down 15% compared with the previous year. Robbery of business property (which makes up the remaining 11% of total robbery offences) fell by 4% compared with the previous year continuing the recent downward trend. In the year ending September 2014, around one in five robberies (20%) recorded by the police involved a knife or other sharp instrument, the same level as recorded in the previous year (Table 9b).

Office for National Statistics | 29 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 6a: Police recorded robbery - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Robbery 103,736 80,130 61,843 53,080 offences Robbery of 10,110 9,350 6,019 5,778 business property Robbery of 93,626 70,780 55,824 47,302 personal property Robbery rate per 2 1 1 1 1,000 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (32 Kb)

Table 6b: Police recorded robbery - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Robbery offences -49 -34 -14 Robbery of business -43 -38 -4 property Robbery of personal -49 -33 -15 property

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Office for National Statistics | 30 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

The geographic concentration of robbery offences means that trends across England and Wales tend to reflect what is happening in a small number of metropolitan areas where robbery offences are concentrated, in particular the Metropolitan Police force area. The latest figures for the Metropolitan Police force area show that the number of robberies for the year ending September 2014 was 23,876, a decrease of 25% from the previous year (Tables P1-P2 (155 Kb Excel sheet)). This continues the downward trend first identified in the year ending March 2013 (11% fall), following increases in the three preceding years. Falls in robbery offences were also seen in other large metropolitan police force areas (Table P2 (155 Kb Excel sheet)), most notably West Yorkshire (down by 10% to 1,756 offences), as well as a smaller fall in the West Midlands (down by 5% to 5,132 offences).

The small number of robbery victims interviewed in any one year means that CSEW estimates have large confidence intervals and are prone to fluctuation. Thus, while the level of incidents in the year ending September 2014 survey appeared to be 27% lower compared with the previous year, this reduction was not statistically significant. However, the current volume is less than half (62% lower) that of the level seen in the 1995 overall crime peak (Tables 7a and 7b).

Office for National Statistics | 31 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 7a: CSEW robbery - number, rate and percentage of incidents [1,2,3]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-134 Sep-144 Thousands Number 339 271 262 174 127 of robbery incidents Robbery 8 7 6 4 3 incidence rate per 1,000 adults Percentage Percentage 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 of adults that were victims of robbery once or more Unweighted 16,337 37,891 46,220 35,829 33,559 base - number of adults

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Figures are based on analysis of a small number of victims and should be interpreted with caution. 4. Base sizes for data since the years ending September 2013 and September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012.

Download table

XLS format (77.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 32 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 7b: CSEW robbery - percentage change and statistical significance [1,2,3]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Percentage change and significance4 Number -62 * -53 * -52 * -27 of robbery incidents Robbery -66 * -57 * -54 * -27 incidence rate per 1,000 adults

Percentage point change and significance4,5 Percentage -0.4 * -0.3 * -0.3 * -0.1 of adults that were victims of robbery once or more

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Figures are based on analysis of a small number of victims and should be interpreted with caution. 4. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk. 5. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to rounding.

Download table

XLS format (78 Kb)

Sexual offences

It is difficult to obtain reliable information on the volume of sexual offences as it is known1 that a high proportion of offences are not reported to the police and changes in recorded figures may reflect changes in reporting or recording rates rather than actual victimisation. For these reasons, caution should be used when interpreting trends in these offences (for more information see ‘An Overview

Office for National Statistics | 33 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

of Sexual Offending in England and Wales’ or ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’).

Police recorded crime figures showed an increase of 22% in all sexual offences for the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (up from 59,608 to 72,977; Table 8a). This is the highest ever level recorded since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002. Increases in offences against both adults and children have contributed to this rise. The largest percentage increases by force area were experienced in Durham2 and South Yorkshire (both up by 72%; Table P2).

Police recorded rape increased by 31% (to 24,043 offences) compared with the previous year following previous increases over the past five years, and is now also at the highest level since the NCRS was introduced in 2002/03; other sexual offences increased by 19% (48,934 offences). The latest rises in total sexual offences, rape and other sexual offences are the largest year on year increases since the introduction of the NCRS in 2002/03.

There are likely to be two main factors in the rise in police recorded rape and sexual offences; an improvement in crime recording by the police for these offences and an increase in the willingness of victims to come forward and report these crimes to the police.

The rises in the volume of sexual offences recorded by the police should be seen in the context of a number of high-profile reports and inquiries, including:

• The investigation by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)3 in 2012, which highlighted the need to improve the recording and investigation of sexual offences. • There have been concerns about the recording of sexual offences, for example in evidence presented to the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) inquiry4 and arising from other high profile cases. This is likely to have resulted in police forces reviewing and improving their recording processes. • The creation of the ‘Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse’, which was set up to consider whether, and the extent to which, public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse in England and Wales. • The Crime-recording: making the victim count’ report published by HMIC found that sexual offences had been substantially under-recorded by police forces in England and Wales. Nationally, an estimated one of four (26%) sexual offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not. Therefore, action taken by police forces to generally improve their compliance with the NCRS given the renewed focus on the accuracy of crime recording, is likely to have resulted in an increase in the number of offences recorded. See the ‘Accuracy of the statistics’ section for more information.

The increase in people coming forward to report sexual offences is likely to be due to a wider ‘Operation Yewtree’ effect, where victims of sexual offences that are not directly connected to Yewtree are now reporting these offences to the police. Further insight into the wider ‘Yewtree effect’ can be provided by looking at the Home Office Data Hub, a record level dataset of police recorded offences5. Previous releases have shown historical offences were a large contributor to the increase

Office for National Statistics | 34 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

in sexual offences. However, historical offences are now making a substantially smaller contribution to the overall rise, while the contribution made by recent or ‘current’ offences has increased6. The forces for which data are available show that the majority of the increase in sexual offences was due to an increase in offences that occurred within the previous 12 months (78%).

Figure 5: Trends in police recorded sexual offences, 2002/03 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced in May 2004, altered the definition and coverage of sexual offences.

Download chart

XLS format (32 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 35 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 8a: Police recorded sexual offences - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sexual 60,412 50,185 59,608 72,977 offences Rape 13,272 13,096 18,360 24,043 Other 47,140 37,089 41,248 48,934 sexual offences Sexual 1 1 1 1 offences rate per 1,000 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Table 8b: Police recorded sexual offences - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Sexual offences 21 45 22 Rape 81 84 31 Other sexual 4 32 19 offences

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Office for National Statistics | 36 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (31 Kb)

Crime Survey for England and Wales

Due to the small number of sexual offences identified in the main Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) crime count, estimates of the volume of incidents are too unreliable to report. Since 2004/05, the CSEW has included a self-completion questionnaire module on intimate violence which does provide a measure of the proportion of people who have been victims of sexual offences and supplements the information presented here7. Detailed findings from this module for 2012/13 are available in ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’, with analysis for 2013/14 due to be published on 12 February 2015.

Notes for Sexual offences

1. As frequently indicated in the findings from the CSEW self-completion module on intimate violence, for example, presented in Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13.

2. This rise is acknowledged to be due to the recording of large numbers of historical offences, particularly in relation to the Medomsley Detention Centre. It is believed over 200 inmates were physically or sexually abused during their time at the detention centre, between the late 1960s and mid-1980s. See Durham Constabulary for further information.

3. See HMIC and HMCPSI, 2012 for further information.

4. See the Commission of an independent review into rape investigation and the transcript for the Public Administration Select Committee hearing on Crime Statistics, 19 November 2013.

5. The Home Office Data Hub includes additional information provided by police forces, such as when an offence took place, as well as when it was recorded by the police.

6. Based on analysis of just over half of the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales.

7. See Chapter 5 of the User Guide for more information regarding intimate violence.

Offences involving knives and sharp instruments

Some of the more serious types of offence in the recorded crime data (violent, robbery and sexual offences) can be broken down by whether or not a knife or sharp instrument was involved1,2.

In the year ending September 2014, the police recorded 25,721 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument, 2% fewer than in the previous year (26,236, Table 9a). Of the offence groups where data are collected, there were increases in most offence groups, in particular assault with injury and assault with intent to cause serious harm (up 7%). These increases, however, were offset by a

Office for National Statistics | 37 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

reduction in robbery offences involving the use of a knife or sharp instrument (down 14% compared with the previous year3).

The relatively low number of certain offences, such as rape and sexual assault, that involve the use of a knife or sharp instrument means the volume of these offences are subject to apparent large percentage changes, and should be interpreted with caution. The number of rapes involving knives or sharp instruments recorded by the police increased by 18% (to 273 offences in the year ending September 2014 from 231 in the previous year) and the number of sexual assaults increased by 37% (to 122 offences in the year ending September 2014 from 89 in the previous year).

Between 2010/11 (the earliest period for which data are directly comparable) and 2012/13, across all offence groups where it is possible to identify whether a knife or sharp instrument was used, the numbers of offences recorded by the police have shown reductions. Following on from 2012/13, to the year ending September 2014, with the exceptions of homicide and robbery offences, there have been increases in the numbers of offences where it is possible to identify whether a knife or sharp instrument was used recorded by the police. However, for the latest time period, due to the large decrease in numbers of robbery offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police in comparison to other offence groups, the total number of offences has fallen by 2%.

Office for National Statistics | 38 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 9a: Number and percentage change of selected violent and sexual offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police [1,2,3,4,5]

England and Wales

Selected Number of selected offences involving a knife or sharp instrument % change offence year Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to type ending Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-13 to year ending Sep-14

Attempted 240 246 198 248 225 243 8 murder Threats to 1,462 1,183 1,188 1,317 1,267 1,558 23 kill Assault 14,144 12,774 11,491 11,911 11,626 12,483 7 with injury and assault with intent to cause serious harm6 Robbery 16,454 16,427 13,201 11,928 12,604 10,858 -14 Rape 259 237 190 267 231 273 18 Sexual 94 72 90 101 89 122 37 assault7

Total 32,653 30,939 26,358 25,772 26,042 25,537 -2 selected offences

Homicide8 237 211 195 202 194 184 -5

Total 32,890 31,150 26,553 25,974 26,236 25,721 -2 selected offences

Office for National Statistics | 39 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Selected Number of selected offences involving a knife or sharp instrument % change offence year Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to type ending Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-13 to year ending Sep-14 including homicide

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. Police recorded knife and sharp instrument offences data are submitted via an additional special collection. Proportions of offences involving the use of a knife or sharp instrument presented in this table are calculated based on figures submitted in this special collection. Other offences exist that are not shown in this table that may include the use of a knife or sharp instrument. 5. Surrey police force includes unbroken bottle and glass offences in their returns, which are outside the scope of this special collection however it is not thought that offences of this kind constitute a large enough number to impact on the national figure. 6. Changes to offence codes in April 2012 mean the category of assault with injury and assault with intent to cause serious harm is not directly comparable with previous years. See Appendix table A4 for more details. 7. Sexual assault includes indecent assault on a male/female and sexual assault on a male/female (all ages). 8. Homicide offences are those currently recorded by the police as at 1st September 2014 and are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available. They include the offences of murder, manslaughter, infantIcide and, as of 2012/13, corporate manslaughter. These figures are taken from the detailed record level Homicide Index (rather than the main police collection for which forces are only required to provide an overall count of homicides, used in Table A4). There may therefore be differences in the total homicides figure used to calculate these proportions and the homicide figure presented in Table A4.

Download table

XLS format (35 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 40 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 9b: Proportion of selected violent and sexual offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police [1,2,3,4,5]

England and Wales

Selected Proportion of selected offences involving a knife or sharp instrument offence Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to type Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Sep-13 Sep-14

Attempted 46 51 49 50 48 48 murder Threats to 15 15 16 15 16 15 kill Assault 4 4 4 4 4 4 with injury and assault with intent to cause serious harm6 Robbery 22 22 20 21 20 20 Rape 2 1 1 1 1 1 Sexual 0 0 0 0 0 0 assault7

Total 7 7 6 6 6 6 selected offences

Homicide8 37 39 35 38 35 39

Total 7 7 6 6 6 6 selected offences including homicide

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.

Office for National Statistics | 41 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. Police recorded knife and sharp instrument offences data are submitted via an additional special collection. Proportions of offences involving the use of a knife or sharp instrument presented in this table are calculated based on figures submitted in this special collection. Other offences exist that are not shown in this table that may include the use of a knife or sharp instrument. 5. Surrey police force includes unbroken bottle and glass offences in their returns, which are outside the scope of this special collection however it is not thought that offences of this kind constitute a large enough number to impact on the national figure. 6. Changes to offence codes in April 2012 mean the category of assault with injury and assault with intent to cause serious harm is not directly comparable with previous years. See Appendix table A4 for more details. 7. Sexual assault includes indecent assault on a male/female and sexual assault on a male/female (all ages). 8. Homicide offences are those currently recorded by the police as at 1st September 2014 and are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available. They include the offences of murder, manslaughter, infantIcide and, as of 2012/13, corporate manslaughter. These figures are taken from the detailed record level Homicide Index (rather than the main police collection for which forces are only required to provide an overall count of homicides, used in Table A4). There may therefore be differences in the total homicides figure used to calculate these proportions and the homicide figure presented in Table A4.

Download table

XLS format (35 Kb)

Of the selected violent offences covered in Table 9b, around 6% involved a knife or sharp instrument in the year ending September 2014; this was the same proportion as that seen in the previous year. Over a third of homicides (39%) and just under a half of attempted murders (48%) involved a knife or sharp instrument, similar to twelve months ago (35% and 48% respectively).

Between 2010/11 and the year ending September 2014, the proportion of offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police has remained relatively flat across all offence groups.

Further analysis on offences involving knives and sharp instruments recorded in 2012/13 has been published in ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’, with analysis for 2013/14 due to be published on 12 February 2015.

An additional source of information about incidents involving knives and sharp instruments is provided by provisional National Health Service (NHS) hospital admission statistics4. Admissions for assault with a sharp instrument peaked at 5,720 in 2006/07. Admissions have declined since that year, and in the year ending March 2014 there were 3,654 admissions, a 5% decrease on the previous year. Admissions for assault with a sharp instrument in 2013/14 were the lowest since 2002/035.

Notes for Offences involving knives and sharp instruments

1. A sharp instrument is any object that pierces the skin (or in the case of a threat, is capable of piercing the skin), for example a broken bottle.

Office for National Statistics | 42 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

2. Until April 2010, West Midlands Police force included unbroken bottle and glass offences in their statistics, but now exclude these offences in line with other forces.

3. Changes to offence codes in April 2012 mean the individual categories of actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm are not directly comparable over the time period. However, these changes are not expected to affect the totals of actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm offences involving a knife or sharp instrument. See Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet) for more details.

4. It should be noted that while it is a requirement to record every hospital admission, completing the field for external cause is not always done. They also do not include any figures from Wales.

5. Based on the latest National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics and hospital admissions due to assault (dated 15 July 2014). These do not include figures for Wales and relate to activity in English NHS hospitals. A graph based on financial years is available in the latest ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences’ release.

Offences involving firearms

Similar to the breakdown of offences involving knives or sharp instruments, statistics for the year ending September 2014 are available for police recorded crimes involving the use of firearms other than air weapons. Firearms are taken to be involved in an offence if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat. For detailed information on trends and the circumstances of offences involving firearms, including air weapons, recorded in 2012/13 see ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’, with analysis for 2013/14 due to be published on 12 February 2015.

Figures for the year ending September 2014 show 4,740 offences involving firearms were recorded in England and Wales, a 7% decrease compared with the previous year (5,102, Tables 10a and 10b).

Figure 6 shows the trend from 2002/03 and demonstrates that since 2005/06 there has been a substantial decrease in the number of offences involving firearms recorded by the police. The volume of such offences has fallen by 42% since 2008/09 (Table 10b). This reduction in offences involving firearms is, in percentage terms, a larger reduction than that seen in overall violent crime.

Office for National Statistics | 43 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 6: Trends in police recorded crimes involving the use of firearms other than air weapons, 2002/03 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format (30.5 Kb)

Table 10a: Police recorded offences involving firearms - number of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Firearm offences 10,338 8,199 5,102 4,740

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 43 forces in England and Wales (excluding the British Transport Police). 4. Firearms data are provisional. Excludes offences involving the use of air weapons and offences recorded by British Transport Police. Includes crimes recorded by police where a firearm has been fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person or used as a threat.

Office for National Statistics | 44 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (27.5 Kb)

Table 10b: Police recorded offences involving firearms - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Firearm offences -54 -42 -7

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 43 forces in England and Wales (excluding the British Transport Police). 4. Firearms data are provisional. Excludes offences involving the use of air weapons and offences recorded by British Transport Police. Includes crimes recorded by police where a firearm has been fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person or used as a threat.

Download table

XLS format (27 Kb)

Theft offences

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded crime both measure various theft offences. Both series cover the headline categories of domestic burglary, vehicle-related theft, theft from the person, and bicycle theft. Theft of property from outside people’s homes (for example, garden furniture and tools) and theft of unattended property as measured by the CSEW are incorporated within the police recorded crime category ‘Other theft’. Additionally, shoplifting offences, which are not included in the CSEW, are recorded by the police1.

There are substantial overlaps between theft offences in the two data series; however, the CSEW shows a larger volume as it includes incidents not reported to the police. Police recorded theft is broader, covering a wider variety of offences and victims; for example, police recorded theft includes theft against commercial victims and offences of handling stolen goods whereas the survey does not. Theft offences recorded by the police and the CSEW do not include robbery as these are presented as a separate offence (see the ‘Robbery’ section).

Incidents of theft experienced by 10 to 15 year olds can be found in the ‘Crime experienced by children aged 10 to 15’ section of this bulletin.

Office for National Statistics | 45 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Total theft offences (acquisitive crime) accounted for 60% of all incidents estimated by the CSEW (an estimated 4.2 million incidents) and almost half (48%) of all police recorded crime (1.8 million offences) in the year ending September 2014.

The long-term trend in CSEW theft reflects the long-term trend in total CSEW crime. Latest estimates point to a further decline, with total theft offences decreasing by 9% from the previous year (from 4.6 million to 4.2 million incidents, which is the lowest number recorded since the survey began in 1981) (Appendix table A1 (515 Kb Excel sheet)).

Since 2002/03, the number of police recorded theft offences has shown year on year decreases and is 45% lower in the year ending September 2014 than in 2003/04 (Figure 7). The latest figures show a 5% decrease compared with the previous year (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)). As theft offences make up almost half of all police recorded crime, it is an important driver of the overall trend. However, this decrease has been offset by increases in other offences which have resulted in no change in overall police recorded crime compared with the previous year.

Figure 7: Trends in police recorded theft offences, 2002/03 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format (32 Kb)

Further analysis on theft offences, based on the 2013/14 CSEW, was published on 27 November 2014 as part of ‘Focus on: Property Crime, 2013/14’. More detail regarding possible hypotheses for

Office for National Statistics | 46 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

the fall in property crimes can be found in ‘Trends in Crime: a Short Story, 2011/12’ published on 19 July 2012.

The next few sections discuss the different types of theft offences in more detail: burglary, vehicle- related thefts and other theft of property.

Notes for Theft offences

1. For more information see Section 5.2 of the User Guide.

Theft offences – Burglary

The CSEW for the year ending September 2014 estimated 789,000 incidents of domestic burglary, little change compared with the previous year, as the apparent 8% decrease was not statistically significant (Tables 11a and 11b). CSEW domestic burglary follows a similar pattern to that seen for overall crime, and despite some fluctuations the trend has remained fairly flat between 2004/05 and 2010/11 (Figure 8). Estimates for the year ending September 2014 are 40% lower than those in 2003/04 and 67% lower than those in the 1995 survey.

Figure 8: Trends in CSEW domestic burglary, 1981 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics

Office for National Statistics | 47 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refer to crimes experienced in the calendar year (January to December); b) from 2001/02 onwards the estimates relate to crimes experienced in the 12 months before interview, based on interviews carried out in that financial year (April to March); and c) the last two data points relate to interviews carried out in the rolling 12 month periods for the latest available two years (October to September). 3. The numbers of incidents are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales.

Download chart

XLS format (75.5 Kb)

The reduction is reflected in the percentage of households that had been victims of domestic burglary in the last year, with around 3 in 100 households being victims in the year ending September 2014 survey compared with around 9 in 100 households in the 1995 survey. Therefore, households are now around three times less likely to be a victim of burglary than in 1995 (Tables 11a and 11b). It is widely accepted that improvements to home security has been an important factor in the reduction seen in domestic burglary offences; other potential factors are discussed in the ‘Existing theories on why property crime has fallen’ section of the Focus on: Property Crime, 2013/14.

Over time, the sub-categories of CSEW ‘Domestic burglary in a dwelling’ and ‘Domestic burglary in a non-connected building to a dwelling’ have followed similar patterns to that of domestic burglary overall. Latest figures show no change in ‘Domestic burglary in a non-connected building to a dwelling’ in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year. The apparent 11% decrease in ‘Domestic burglary in a dwelling’ over the same period was not statistically significant.

Office for National Statistics | 48 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 11a: CSEW burglary - number, rate and percentage of incidents [1,2]

England and Wales Households Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 Number of Thousands incidents Domestic 2,389 1,307 991 856 789 burglary Domestic 1,735 935 717 628 560 burglary in a dwelling Domestic 654 372 275 228 229 burglary in a non-connected building to a dwelling Incidence rate per 1,000 adults Domestic 115 59 43 36 33 burglary Domestic 84 42 31 26 23 burglary in a dwelling Domestic 31 17 12 10 10 burglary in a non-connected building to a dwelling Percentage of Percentage households that were

Office for National Statistics | 49 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 victims once or more Domestic 8.7 4.5 3.4 2.8 2.7 burglary Domestic 6.4 3.2 2.5 2.1 1.9 burglary in a dwelling Domestic 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 burglary in a non-connected building to a dwelling Unweighted 16,310 37,890 46,254 35,791 33,515 base - number of households

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Base sizes for data since the years ending September 2013 and September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012.

Download table

XLS format (76 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 50 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 11b: CSEW burglary - percentage change and statistical significance [1,2]

England and Wales Households October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Number of Percentage change and significance3 incidents Domestic -67 * -40 * -20 * -8 burglary Domestic -68 * -40 * -22 * -11 burglary in a dwelling Domestic -65 * -39 * -17 * 0 burglary in a non- connected building to a dwelling Incidence rate per 1,000 adults Domestic -71 * -45 * -24 * -9 burglary Domestic -72 * -45 * -26 * -12 burglary in a dwelling Domestic -70 * -44 * -21 * -1 burglary in a non- connected building to a dwelling

Percentage Percentage change and significance3,4 of households that were victims

Office for National Statistics | 51 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 once or more Domestic -6.0 * -1.8 * -0.7 * -0.2 burglary Domestic -4.5 * -1.3 * -0.6 * -0.2 burglary in a dwelling Domestic -1.8 * -0.6 * -0.2 * 0.0 burglary in a non- connected building to a dwelling

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk. 4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to rounding.

Download table

XLS format (78.5 Kb)

The ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’ report published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) found that nationally, an estimated 11% of burglary offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not; this level of under-recording is below the national average of 19%. See the ‘Accuracy of the statistics’ section for more information.

The police recorded crime statistics measure both domestic burglaries (for example those against inhabited dwellings) and non-domestic burglaries (for example, those against businesses)1. When compared with the previous year, domestic burglary decreased by 8% (from 222,299 to 204,136 offences) while non-domestic burglary decreased by 4% (from 231,156 to 222,187 offences) in the year ending September 2014 (Tables 12a and 12b). The latest level of burglary recorded by the police is around half the level recorded in 2003/04 (48% lower).

Office for National Statistics | 52 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 12a: Police recorded burglary - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Burglary 820,013 581,584 453,455 426,323 offences Domestic 402,345 284,431 222,299 204,136 burglary Non-domestic 417,668 297,153 231,156 222,187 burglary Burglary rate per 16 11 8 7 1,000 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (32 Kb)

Table 12b: Police recorded burglary - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Burglary offences -48 -27 -6 Domestic burglary -49 -28 -8 Non-domestic -47 -25 -4 burglary

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Office for National Statistics | 53 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (32 Kb)

Notes for Theft offences – Burglary

1. Non-domestic burglary covers burglary in a building other than a dwelling, and includes burglaries of sheds and outhouses which do not have an entrance to the home. See Section 5.2 of the User Guide for more details regarding this crime type.

Theft offences – Vehicle

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) covers offences against vehicles owned by any member of the household interviewed (including company cars). Estimates of CSEW vehicle-related theft for the year ending September 2014 fell by 15% compared with the previous year (Table 13a and 13b)1.

Over the longer term, the CSEW indicates a consistent downward trend in levels of vehicle-related theft, with the latest estimates being 79% lower than in 1995. As shown in Figure 9, the rate of reduction in vehicle offences since the mid-1990s has been striking. It is widely accepted that improvements to vehicle security has been an important factor in the reduction seen in vehicle offences; other potential factors are discussed in the ‘Existing theories on why property crime has fallen’ section of the Focus on: Property Crime, 2013/14.

The latest estimates indicate that a vehicle-owning household was around five times less likely to become a victim of vehicle-related theft in the year ending September 2014 survey than in 1995, with around 4 in 100 vehicle-owning households being victims in the year ending September 2014 survey compared with around 20 in 100 households in the 1995 survey (Table 13a). There were an estimated 878,000 vehicle-related thefts in the year ending September 2014, which is the lowest number recorded since the survey began in 1981.

Office for National Statistics | 54 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 9: Trends in CSEW vehicle-related theft, 1981 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refer to crimes experienced in the calendar year (January to December); b) from 2001/02 onwards the estimates relate to crimes experienced in the 12 months before interview, based on interviews carried out in that financial year (April to March); and c) the last two data points relate to interviews carried out in the rolling 12 month periods for the latest available two years (October to September). 3. The numbers of incidents are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales.

Download chart

XLS format (76.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 55 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 13a: CSEW vehicle offences - number, rate and percentage of incidents [1,2]

England and Wales Vehicle-owning households Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 Thousands Number of 4,266 2,063 1,447 1,035 878 vehicle-related theft incidents Vehicle-related 280 123 80 56 48 theft incidence rate per 1,000 vehicle-owning households Percentage Percentage of 19.7 9.6 6.4 4.6 4.0 vehicle-owning households that were victims of vehicle-related theft once or more Unweighted 11,721 29,457 36,882 28,191 26,332 base - vehicle owners

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Base sizes for data since the years ending September 2013 and September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012.

Download table

XLS format (75 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 56 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 13b: CSEW vehicle offences - percentage change and statistical significance [1,2]

England and Wales Vehicle-owning households October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Percentage change and significance3 Number -79 * -57 * -39 * -15 * of vehicle- related theft incidents Vehicle- -83 * -61 * -41 * -15 * related theft incidence rate per 1,000 vehicle- owning households

Percentage point change and significance3,4 Percentage -15.7 * -5.6 * -2.4 * -0.6 * of vehicle- owning households that were victims of vehicle- related theft once or more

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk. 4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to rounding.

Office for National Statistics | 57 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (75.5 Kb)

The police recorded crime category of vehicle offences covers both private and commercial vehicles and shows a fall of 6% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (Tables 14a and 14b). This follows substantial decreases in this offence group, with a fall of 64% compared with 2003/04, similar to the trend found in the CSEW. The most recent data show that two of the three categories of police recorded vehicle offences have continued to fall, including theft of a motor vehicle, which fell by 3% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (Table 14b).

The reductions in vehicle-related theft indicated by the CSEW and police recorded crime are in contrast to the number of motor vehicles licensed in Great Britain, which has increased by 38%, from 25.4 million at the end of 1995 to 35.0 million at the end of 2013 (Vehicle Licensing Statistics, 2013)2.

Table 14a: Police recorded vehicle offences - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14

Vehicle offences5 985,006 591,853 382,444 357,774 Theft of a 291,858 147,238 76,804 74,588 motor vehicle Theft from a 603,256 396,976 284,174 255,976 vehicle Vehicle 89,892 47,639 21,466 27,210 interference Vehicle offences 19 11 7 6 rate per 1,000 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. Includes theft of motor vehicle, theft from a vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and interfering with a motor vehicle.

Office for National Statistics | 58 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Table 14b: Police recorded vehicle offences - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Vehicle offences5 -64 -40 -6 Theft of a motor -74 -49 -3 vehicle Theft from a vehicle -58 -36 -10 Vehicle interference -70 -43 27

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. Includes theft of motor vehicle, theft from a vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and interfering with a motor vehicle.

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Notes for Theft offences – Vehicle

1. See Section 5.2 of the User Guide for more details regarding this crime type.

2. Based on the total number of licensed vehicles (including both private and commercial vehicles) in England, Scotland and Wales taken from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database.

Theft offences – Other theft of property

In addition to burglary and vehicle-related thefts, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded crime both measure other theft of property, although they cover slightly different offences. In the CSEW this comprises: theft from the person; other theft of personal property; bicycle theft; and other household theft. In police recorded crime there are categories for: theft from the

Office for National Statistics | 59 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

person; bicycle theft; shoplifting; and all other theft offences. The coverage of these offences are described in the sections below. There are further offence breakdowns available for all other theft offences listed in Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet).

Theft from the person – CSEW and police recorded crime

Theft from the person involves offences where there is theft of property, while the property is being carried by, or on the person of, the victim. These include snatch thefts (where an element of force may be used to snatch the property away) and stealth thefts (where the victim is unaware of the offence being committed, for example, pick-pocketing). Unlike robbery, these offences do not involve violence or threats to the victim.

In the CSEW, the majority of incidents of theft from the person are made up of stealth thefts (260,000 out of all 504,000 (52%) theft from the person offences in the year ending September 2014, for more information see Appendix table A1 (515 Kb Excel sheet)). Numbers of snatch thefts are much smaller, accounting for 13% of all theft from the person offences, while attempted snatch and stealth thefts make up the remaining 36%.

The apparent 9% decrease in theft from the person based on interviews in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year was not statistically significant (Tables 15a and 15b). Estimates of the volume of theft from the person offences are low and subject to fluctuations from year to year in the survey. The CSEW shows an unusually high estimate measured by the 2008/09 survey when there was a significant increase, followed by a significant decrease in 2009/10 (Figure 10). Other than this, CSEW estimates of theft from the person have remained fairly flat.

The police recorded crime category theft from the person accounts for around 2% of overall police recorded crime. Latest figures showed a 24% decrease in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (Tables 16a and 16b). This is in contrast to recent trends, where these offences have been increasing in each of the last three years, thought to be driven by theft of smartphones. The latest decrease is driven by a large fall in theft from the person offences in the latter three quarters – January to September 2014. This may in part be explained by improvements to mobile security and theft prevention1.

Further analysis of theft from the person figures by police force area shows a mixed picture, with some forces continuing to show increases while most show decreases. However, as with robbery, theft from the person offences are concentrated in the metropolitan areas, with 40% occurring in the Metropolitan Police force area alone in the year ending September 2014. The previous overall increases were largely driven by what was happening in London, where theft of smartphones and other portable devices were thought to be behind some of this rise2. The latest figures for the Metropolitan Police force area show a decrease of 32% compared with the previous year (Table P2 (155 Kb Excel sheet)). In addition, the British Transport Police, who cover crimes that occur on railways and on railway platforms and stations, account for 7% of the total thefts from the person offences in the year ending September 2014, and show a 36% decrease compared with the previous year.

Other household theft – CSEW

Office for National Statistics | 60 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

This offence group consists of items stolen from outside the victim’s home, and thefts in the victim’s dwelling by someone entitled to be there, for example a tradesperson3. Overall, the year ending September 2014 survey estimated that there were 777,000 incidents of other household theft (Tables 15a and 15b), making up 11% of all CSEW crime.

The CSEW showed a 9% fall in other household theft based on interviews in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year. This statistically significant decrease sees estimated levels of other household theft at similar levels to those seen in the 2007/08 survey following a period of year on year increases between 2007/08 and 2011/12. The current decrease, combined with decreases seen between 1995 and 2007/08, means that the latest figure is now 50% lower than in the 1995 survey (Figure 10).

The large majority of other household thefts are accounted for by theft from outside a dwelling (92%). Generally these incidents involve theft of garden furniture or household items/furniture taken from outside people’s homes4, and are largely opportunistic in nature. Theft from a dwelling has seen a much greater fall, compared with the previous year, than theft from outside a dwelling (29% and 7% respectively), although neither of these decreases are statistically significant. The latest estimate for theft from a dwelling is 70% lower than the 1995 survey estimate (Appendix table A1 (515 Kb Excel sheet)).

Figure 10: Trends in CSEW other household theft and theft from the person, 1981 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics. 2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refer to crimes experienced in the calendar year (January to December); b) from 2001/02 onwards the estimates relate to crimes experienced in the 12 months before interview, based on interviews carried out in that financial year (April to March); and c) the last two data points relate to interviews carried out in the rolling 12 month periods for the latest available two years (October to September).

Office for National Statistics | 61 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

3. The numbers of incidents are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales.

Download chart

XLS format (74.5 Kb)

Other theft of personal property – CSEW

Other theft of personal property offences are those which involve items stolen from victims while away from the home but not being carried on the person (such as theft of unattended property in pubs, restaurants, entertainment venues or workplaces). The CSEW estimates that there were around 848,000 incidents of other theft of personal property in the survey year ending September 2014. The apparent 9% decrease compared with the previous survey year was not statistically significant (Table 15b). The underlying trend has been fairly flat in recent years – between 2004/05 and 2013/14 estimates have fluctuated slightly but generally stayed around 1.0 million offences. Looking at the longer term trend, other theft of personal property saw marked declines from the mid-1990s and the current estimate is under half the level seen in the 1995 survey (59% lower).

Bicycle theft – CSEW and police recorded crime

There was no change in the level of bicycle theft with the apparent 1% increase not being statistically significant (Tables 15a and 15b).This is one of the lower volume CSEW offence groups and can show large fluctuations from year to year. Appendix table A1 (515 Kb Excel sheet) shows that, like other household theft, these incidents showed a marked decline between 1995 and the 1999 survey, with both small increases and decreases thereafter. The variability means that emerging trends have to be interpreted with caution. The year ending September 2014 CSEW indicates that around 3% of bicycle owning households were victims of bicycle theft in the previous 12 months, down from 6% in the 1995 survey.

Bicycle thefts recorded by the police showed a small decrease of 3% in the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (Tables 16a and 16b), remaining at a similar level seen since 2011/12, following the large increase seen in this year compared with 2010/11. The current level (94,446 offences) is the lowest since the NCRS was first introduced in 2002/03.

Shoplifting – police recorded crime

Shoplifting accounted for 9% of all police recorded crime in the year ending September 2014. The police recorded 322,904 shoplifting offences in this period, a 3% increase compared with the previous year. The volume of shoplifting recorded was the highest since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) in 2002/03. The longer term trend in shoplifting recorded by the police is different from that seen for other theft offences. While most theft offences saw steady declines over much of the last decade, levels of recorded shoplifting showed comparatively little change over this time.

Across England and Wales there were 9,204 more shoplifting offences in the year ending September 2014 when compared with the previous year. Twenty-three of the 43 territorial police

Office for National Statistics | 62 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

force areas reported an increase in shoplifting in the year ending September 2014 (Table P2 (155 Kb Excel sheet)). Several forces recorded large percentage increases, including Durham (24%) and Derbyshire (18%). The Metropolitan Police force area recorded a comparatively small percentage increase of 6%.

The low rate of reporting to the police presents challenges in interpreting trends in police recorded shoplifting. There are a number of factors that should be considered, including:

• A real increase in the number of shoplifting offences being committed5. Findings from the recent surveys of the retail sector have been mixed. The 2013 CVS showed no statistically significant change in the estimated level of shoplifting compared with the 2012 survey, while a British Retail Consortium (BRC) survey indicated that their members were experiencing higher levels of shoplifting. • An increase in reporting, whereby retailers may adopt new strategies or approaches to deal with shoplifters (such as one announced by the Cooperative supermarket chain6), which in turn means the police record more shoplifting offences. • Changes to police recording practices - while there is no specific evidence to suggest there has been a recent change in the recording of shoplifting offences, it is not possible to rule this out. Shoplifting is less likely than other types of offence to be affected by changes in police recording practices.

The 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) provides a measure of shoplifting (referred to in the survey as ‘theft by customers’) which includes crimes not reported to the police. The 2013 survey estimated that there were 3.3 million incidents of theft by customers in the wholesale and retail sector; this is over ten times the number of shoplifting offences recorded by the police. This reflects the fact that most incidents of shoplifting do not come to the attention of the police. As such, recorded crime figures for this type of offence are highly dependent on whether the businesses report the incidents to the police.

All other theft offences – police recorded crime

The remainder of police recorded theft offences fall into the category ’All other theft offences‘, which include offences such as blackmail, theft by an employee, and ‘Making off without payment’ (for example, driving away from a petrol station without paying). Within this overall category, there is also an ‘Other theft’ offence sub-category, which comprises mostly of the theft of unattended items (including both personal property such as wallets or phones, and property from outside peoples’ homes, such as garden furniture). ‘Other theft’ accounts for three-quarters (74%) of the overall ’All other theft offences‘ category (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)).

The most recent police recorded data showed a 6% decrease in all other theft offences, with 499,661 offences in the year ending September 2014 compared with 529,298 offences in the previous year. This decrease is in contrast with a recent upward trend in all other theft offences between 2009/10 and 2011/12 (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)), following a longer downward trend between 2003/04 and 2009/10 (Figure 11).

In the year ending September 2014 the police recorded 56,958 making off without payment offences, which was a 13% increase compared with the previous year. Previously there had been

Office for National Statistics | 63 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

a steep decline in this particular offence, with the latest numbers 57% lower than those in 2003/04 (132,624 offences) (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)).

Figure 11: Trends in police recorded all other theft offences, 2002/03 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime are not designated as National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format (32 Kb)

As well as theft of unattended items, the police recorded ‘Other theft’ subcategory also includes crimes against organisations which are not covered by the CSEW, such as theft of metal or industrial equipment from strategic infrastructure. ‘Other theft’ offences saw a 9% decrease for the year ending September 2014 compared with the previous year (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)). This follows a 13% increase between 2009/10 and 2011/12. This is likely to have been caused in part by a surge in metal theft over this period, which corresponds with a spike in metal prices. Evidence suggests that such offences are decreasing and should be seen in the context of new metal theft legislation. The legislation came into force in May 2013, which increased fines for existing offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, and introduced a new offence for dealers of paying for scrap metal in cash. For further information on metal theft, see the Home Office publication Metal theft, England and Wales, financial year ending March 2013 and Chapter 2 of Focus on: Property Crime, 2013/14.

Office for National Statistics | 64 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 15a: CSEW other theft of property - number, rate and percentage of incidents [1,2]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over/households Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 Number of Thousands incidents Theft from the 680 607 705 557 504 person Other theft 2,069 1,276 1,069 936 848 of personal property Other 1,570 897 862 857 777 household theft Bicycle theft 660 362 515 393 398 Incidence rate per 1,000 adults/ households Theft from the 17 15 16 12 11 person Other theft 51 31 25 21 19 of personal property Other 76 41 38 36 32 household theft Bicycle theft: 71 39 51 32 32 bicycle-owning households Percentage Percentage of adults/ households who were

Office for National Statistics | 65 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 victims once or more Theft from the 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.0 person Other theft 4.1 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.6 of personal property Unweighted 16,337 37,891 46,220 35,829 33,559 base - number of adults Other 5.1 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.6 household theft Unweighted 16,310 37,890 46,254 35,791 33,515 base - number of households Bicycle theft: 6.1 3.4 4.4 2.9 2.7 bicycle-owning households Unweighted 6,863 16,070 20,636 17,127 15,898 base - bicycle owners

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Base sizes for data since the years ending September 2013 and September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012.

Download table

XLS format (77 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 66 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 15b: CSEW other theft of property - percentage change and statistical significance [1,2]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over/households Ocotber 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Number Percentage change and significance4 of incidents Theft -26 * -17 * -28 * -9 from the person Other -59 * -34 * -21 * -9 theft of personal property Other -50 * -13 * -10 * -9 * household theft Bicycle -40 * 10 -23 * 1 theft Incidence rate per 1,000 adults/ households Theft -34 * -24 * -32 * -10 from the person Other -63 * -39 * -24 * -10 theft of personal property Other -57 * -21 * -14 * -10 * household theft Bicycle -55 * -18 * -38 * 0 theft: bicycle-

Office for National Statistics | 67 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Ocotber 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 owning households

PercentagePercentage point change and significance3,4 of adults/ households who were victims once or more Theft -0.6 * -0.3 * -0.4 * -0.1 from the person Other -2.5 * -1.0 * -0.5 * -0.2 theft of personal property Other -2.5 * -0.4 * -0.2 -0.3 * household theft Bicycle -3.4 * -0.7 * -1.7 * -0.1 theft: bicycle- owning households

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to rounding. 4. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.

Download table

XLS format (78 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 68 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 16a: Police recorded other theft - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Theft from the 137,154 89,652 110,365 84,365 person Bicycle theft 105,467 104,169 97,541 94,446 Shoplifting 303,235 320,739 313,700 322,904 All other theft 898,772 633,583 529,298 499,661 offences5,6 Rate per 1,000 population Theft from the 3 2 2 1 person Bicycle theft 2 2 2 2 Shoplifting 6 6 6 6 All other theft 17 12 9 9 offences5,6

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. All other theft offences now includes all 'making off without payment' offences recorded since 2002/03. Making off without payment was previously included within the fraud offence group, but following a change in the classification for 2013/14, this change has been applied to previous years of data to give a consistent time series. 6. For full range of offences included in all other theft see Appendix table A4

Download table

XLS format (33.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 69 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 16b: Police recorded other theft - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Theft from the person -38 -6 -24 Bicycle theft -10 -9 -3 Shoplifting 6 1 3 All other theft -44 -21 -6 offences5,6

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4. 5. All other theft offences now includes all 'making off without payment' offences recorded since 2002/03. Making off without payment was previously included within the fraud offence group, but following a change in the classification for 2013/14, this change has been applied to previous years of data to give a consistent time series. 6. For full range of offences included in all other theft see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (32.5 Kb)

Notes for Theft offences – Other theft of property

1. For more information, see the Home Office report 'Reducing mobile phone theft and improving security'.

2. Based on figures provided by the Metropolitan Police in relation to a freedom of information (FOI) request reported by London Evening Standard – 4 April 2013.

3. For more details on the offences that constitute CSEW other household theft see Section 5.2 and Appendix 2 of the User Guide.

4. For more details, see the Nature of Crime tables in ‘Focus on: Property Crime, 2013/14’.

5. For example, as reported in The Guardian, 23th January 2014.

6. As reported in the Nottingham Post, 18th December 2013.

Office for National Statistics | 70 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Criminal damage

Based on Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) interviews in the year ending September 2014, there were around 1.4 million incidents of criminal damage of personal and household property; this was a decrease of 15% from the previous year (Tables 17a and 17b). Figure 12 shows the long-term trend for criminal damage, which has followed a slightly different pattern compared with most other CSEW crime groups. Criminal damage peaked in 1993 with 3.4 million incidents followed by a series of modest falls (when compared with other CSEW offence types) until the 2003/04 survey (2.4 million offences). There was then a short upward trend until the 2006/07 CSEW (2.9 million offences), after which there were falls to its current level, the lowest since the survey began.

Figure 12: Trends in CSEW criminal damage, 1981 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refer to crimes experienced in the calendar year (January to December); b) from 2001/02 onwards the estimates relate to crimes experienced in the 12 months before interview, based on interviews carried out in that financial year (April to March); and c) the last two data points relate to interviews carried out in the rolling 12 month periods for the latest available two years (October to September). 3. The numbers of incidents are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales.

Download chart

XLS format (74.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 71 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Tables 17a and 17b highlight the recent downward trend in this offence group. There are statistically significant decreases when comparing the current figure with those from one, five and ten years ago. This trend is also reflected in the decline in percentage of households victimised. Around 4 in every 100 households were victims of criminal damage in the year ending September 2014 compared with around 10 in every 100 households in 1995.

Office for National Statistics | 72 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 17a: CSEW criminal damage - number, rate and percentage of incidents [1,2]

England and Wales Households Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 Number of Thousands incidents Criminal 3,300 2,421 2,656 1,639 1,393 damage Criminal 1,790 1,403 1,766 1,106 965 damage to a vehicle Arson and 1,510 1,018 890 533 428 other criminal damage Incidence rate per 1,000 households Criminal 159 110 116 69 58 damage Criminal 86 64 77 47 40 damage to a vehicle Arson and 73 46 39 22 18 other criminal damage Percentage of Percentage households that were

Office for National Statistics | 73 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Interviews from: Jan-95 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Dec-95 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-133 Sep-143 victims once or more Criminal 10.1 7.1 7.6 4.8 3.9 damage Criminal 6.2 4.5 5.4 3.4 2.8 damage to a vehicle Arson and 4.3 2.8 2.5 1.5 1.2 other criminal damage Unweighted 16,310 37,890 46,254 35,791 33,515 base - number of households

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Base sizes for data since the years ending September 2013 and September 2014 are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced in April 2012.

Download table

XLS format (77 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 74 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 17b: CSEW criminal damage - percentage change and statistical significance [1,2]

England and Wales Households October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13

Number Percentage change and significance3 of incidents Criminal -58 * -42 * -48 * -15 * damage Criminal -46 * -31 * -45 * -13 * damage to a vehicle Arson -72 * -58 * -52 * -20 * and other criminal damage Incidence rate per 1,000 households Criminal -63 * -47 * -50 * -16 * damage Criminal -53 * -37 * -48 * -14 * damage to a vehicle Arson -75 * -61 * -54 * -21 * and other criminal damage

PercentagePercentage point change and significance3.4 of households that were victims

Office for National Statistics | 75 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Jan-95 to Dec-95 Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 once or more Criminal -6.2 * -3.2 * -3.7 * -0.9 * damage Criminal -3.4 * -1.7 * -2.6 * -0.6 * damage to a vehicle Arson -3.2 * -1.6 * -1.4 * -0.3 * and other criminal damage

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix tables A1, A2, A3. 3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk. 4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to rounding.

Download table

XLS format (82.5 Kb)

The ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’ report published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) found that nationally, an estimated 14% of criminal damage and arson offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not; this level of under-recording is below the national average of 19%. See the ‘Accuracy of the statistics’ section for more information.

Police recorded crime also shows reductions in the similar offence group of criminal damage and arson (although this also includes victims beyond the household population, like businesses) . In the year ending September 2014 there were 497,466 offences recorded, a fall of 4% from the previous year (Tables 18a and 18b). Reductions were seen across all types of criminal damage recorded by the police (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)). Criminal damage and arson offences have seen a marked fall since 2006/07 whereas previously the pattern had been fairly flat since 2002/03; this follows a similar trend to the CSEW.

Office for National Statistics | 76 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 18a: Police recorded criminal damage and arson offences - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Criminal damage 1,209,912 930,327 518,368 497,466 and arson Arson 57,546 34,827 19,398 18,373 Criminal 1,152,366 895,500 498,970 479,093 damage Criminal damage 23 17 9 9 and arson rate per 1,000 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Table 18b: Police recorded criminal damage and arson offences - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Criminal damage and -59 -47 -4 arson Arson -68 -47 -5 Criminal damage -58 -46 -4

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Office for National Statistics | 77 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Other crimes against society

Other crimes against society are offences recorded by the police which do not generally have a specific identifiable victim. They make up around 11% of all police recorded crime. Trends in such offences tend to reflect changes in police workload and activity rather than in levels of criminality.

The group of offences is made of the following categories:

• Drug offences; • Possession of weapons offences; • Public order offences; and • Miscellaneous crimes against society.

Other crimes against society showed an increase of 1% compared with the previous year, with 399,469 offences recorded in the year ending September 2014 (Tables 19a and 19b). Figure 13 shows the trend over time and how each separate offence category contributes to the overall total.

Since 2003/04, the number of other crimes against society increased year on year until it peaked in 2007/08 (542,656 offences). The marked increases in the recording of these offences between 2004/05 and 2007/08 coincide with the priority placed on increasing the numbers of offences brought to justice associated with the previous Government’s 2005-2008 Public Service Agreement targets. This is particularly reflected in the trend for drug offences and public order offences (see relevant sections below for further details).

Between 2007/08 and 2012/13, the number of offences against society recorded decreased year on year, mainly driven by reductions in public order offences.

Office for National Statistics | 78 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 13: Trends in police recorded other crimes against society, 2002/03 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Drug offences

The police recorded 186,657 drug offences in the year ending September 2014, a decrease of 7% compared with the previous year. Figure 13 shows the trend over time for drug offences, where the number of drug offences steadily rose from 2004/05 until 2008/09 (peaking at 243,536 offences). They remained fairly consistent at around 230,000 each year until 2011/12, after which they began to fall. Despite recent decreases, the number of drug offences recorded in the year ending September 2014 remains 30% higher than the number recorded in 2003/04 (Table 19b).

The number of drug offences recorded by the police is heavily dependent on police activities and priorities and changes over time may reflect changes in the policing of drug crime rather than real changes in its incidence. The increases in the recording of drug offences between 2004/05 and

Office for National Statistics | 79 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

2008/09 coincide with the priority placed Public Service Agreement targets. For example, in the past decade the police have been granted powers to:

• issue warnings on the street (rather than at a police station) for possession of cannabis offences (April 2004); and • issue penalty notices for disorder for possession of cannabis (January 2009).

In the year ending September 2014, possession of cannabis offences accounted for 66% of all police recorded drug offences; this proportion has remained broadly similar since 2005/06 (between 66% and 70%).

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) can also be used to investigate trends in drug use. Relevant figures from the survey are compiled and published in an annual report by the Home Office: ‘Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2013 to 2014 Crime Survey for England and Wales’. The general trends from the 2013/14 report show that overall illicit drug use in the last year among 16 to 59 year olds has increased in comparison to the previous year, but is back to the same level as in 2011/12. For further information from the CSEW on drug use see the ‘Drug Misuse’ publication.

Public order offences

Public order offences cover circumstances where an offender is behaving in a way that causes, or would be likely to cause, alarm, distress or disorder. If there is an identifiable victim against who physical violence is used (or attempted) then this will be recorded as a violent offence, though public order offences may include some offences where injury is threatened. The offences in this category include public fear, alarm or distress, which has been moved from the violence offence group. Affray is also included in this offence group, a person is guilty of affray if he/she uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his/her conduct is such as would cause a “person of reasonable firmness” present at the scene to fear for his/her personal safety.

The latest figures (143,768 offences) show a 10% increase in public order offences compared with the previous year (Table 19b). The majority of this category (59% in the year ending September 2014) was made up of public fear, alarm or distress offences, which showed an 8% increase compared with the previous year; a rise that is likely to reflect improvements in recording practices. Racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences also increased (by 12%) in the year ending September 2014, and other offences against the State or public order have increased by 13% on the previous year. Public order offences rose from 2002/03 and peaked in 2006/07 (236,661 offences) and have since shown year on year decreases until this year (Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet)). Like drug offences, the slight increase shown for this offence may reflect increased police activity and reporting, rather than increasing levels of criminality. Furthermore, as with violence crime, public order offences are more prone to changes in police recording practices.

Possession of weapons offences

This offence category covers only weapons possession offences, where there is no direct victim. Any circumstances in which a weapon has been used against a victim would be covered by other relevant victim-based offences. Information regarding offences where firearms or knives and

Office for National Statistics | 80 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

sharp instruments have been used can be found in the ‘Offences involving firearms’ and ‘Offences involving knives and sharp instruments’ sections of this release.

The police recorded 20,942 possession of weapon offences in the year ending September 2014, a 4% increase compared with the previous year (20,160, Table 19a and 19b). The number of possession of weapons offences rose from 2002/03 and peaked in 2004/05 (40,605 offences) and has since shown year on year decreases until 2013/14. The latest increase has been driven by a rise in the possession of knives and other sharp instruments (up 9%) and is consistent with a rise of 7% seen in assault with injury offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (Table 9a).

Miscellaneous crimes against society

‘Miscellaneous crimes against society’ comprises a variety of offences (see Appendix table A4 (515 Kb Excel sheet) for a full list). The largest volume offences include: handling stolen goods, threat to commit criminal damage and perverting the course of justice. This bulletin includes a new category of ‘Wildlife crime’, which was previously included in other notifiable offences, but since the Crime Statistics, year ending June 2014 release has been separated into its own category. ‘Wildlife crime’ is a low volume offence, because the vast majority of wildlife offences are non-notifiable (that is, not recorded by the police) and dealt with at magistrates' courts by other agencies, such as the National Crime Agency and the Border Force.

The police recorded 48,102 offences in the year ending September 2014, an increase of 12% compared with the previous year (Table 19b). The number of miscellaneous crimes against society offences has shown year on year decreases since 2003/04 until the increase observed in 2013/14.

The latest increase is in part driven by a large rise in the number of obscene publications and protected sexual material offences, which has increased by 36% to 5,401 offences in the year ending September 2014 when compared with the previous year (3,972 offences). This is largely due to an increase in offences related to the making and distribution of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs (including those of children) via the internet or through mobile technology. It is an offence for a person to take or distribute such indecent photographs. The police service is reporting that they are giving more attention to child sexual exploitation and this is likely to have led to more of these offences being identified.

There was also a rise in threats to commit criminal damage (which includes possession of articles with the intent to commit criminal damage, such as spray paint) which increased by 40% from 5,133 offences in the year ending September 2013 to 7,161 offences in the year ending September 2014 (Appendix table A4).

Office for National Statistics | 81 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 19a: Police recorded other crimes against society - number and rate of offences [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 OTHER CRIMES 420,595 539,153 395,181 399,469 AGAINST SOCIETY Drug offences 143,511 243,536 201,188 186,657 Trafficking of 24,628 29,885 29,184 29,016 drugs Possession of 118,883 213,651 172,004 157,641 drugs Possession 39,021 35,662 20,160 20,942 of weapons offences Public order 158,178 204,289 130,876 143,768 offences Miscellaneous 79,885 55,666 42,957 48,102 crimes against society Rate per 1,000 population OTHER CRIMES 8 10 7 7 AGAINST SOCIETY Drug offences 3 4 4 3 Possession 1 1 0 0 of weapons offences Public order 3 4 2 3 offences Miscellaneous 2 1 1 1 crimes against society

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police).

Office for National Statistics | 82 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (32.5 Kb)

Table 19b: Police recorded other crimes against society - percentage change [1,2,3,4]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 OTHER CRIMES -5 -26 1 AGAINST SOCIETY Drug offences 30 -23 -7 Trafficking of drugs 18 -3 -1 Possession of drugs 33 -26 -8 Possession of -46 -41 4 weapons offences Public order offences -9 -30 10 Miscellaneous crimes -40 -14 12 against society

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. For detailed footnotes and further years see Appendix table A4.

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Fraud

The extent of fraud is difficult to measure because it is a deceptive crime, often targeted at organisations rather than individuals. Some victims of fraud may be unaware they have been a victim of crime, or that any fraudulent activity has occurred. Others may be reluctant to report the offence to the authorities feeling embarrassed that they have fallen victim. Fraud is an offence not currently included in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) headline estimates and the level of fraud reported via administrative sources is thought to significantly understate the true level of such crime.

Office for National Statistics | 83 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

The National Statistician’s Review of Crime Statistics for England and Wales identified fraud as one of the more important gaps in crime statistics and recommended that data from additional sources should be provided alongside existing available data in quarterly crime statistics publications. This section draws on a range of sources including police recorded crime, Action Fraud, the CSEW and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). No individual source provides a good measure of the overall extend of fraud offences, but together they help to provide a fuller picture. For more information on the different sources of fraud data, see Section 5.4 of the User Guide.

Recent changes to measuring police recorded fraud

There have been a number of changes to the presentation of fraud which were first introduced in the quarterly bulletin released in July 2013. Since that time, to reflect changes in operational arrangements for reporting and recording of fraud, data presented in the police recorded crime series include offences recorded by Action Fraud, a public facing national reporting centre that records incidents reported directly to them from the public and other organisations. Data from Action Fraud are collated by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), a government funded initiative run by the City of London police who lead national policing on fraud.

Since 1 April 2013, Action Fraud has taken responsibility for the central recording of fraud offences previously recorded by individual police forces1. To allow for piloting and development of the Action Fraud service this transfer had a phased introduction between April 2011 and March 2013. For example, by the end of December 2012, 24 police force areas had transferred responsibility with the remaining transferring by the end of March 20132.

From 1 April 2014, all fraud figures included within overall police recorded crime have been sourced from Action Fraud3. However, the comparator year (year ending September 2013) encompasses a mixture of data collections with two quarters of the data collected by the police and Action Fraud and two quarters solely by Action Fraud. As the proportion of fraud offences recorded by individual forces has diminished (and that by Action Fraud has grown), it is not possible to make like for like comparisons between fraud offences recorded during the year ending September 2014 and those in previous years.

Although Action Fraud receives reports of fraud from victims across the UK, data presented in this bulletin cover fraud offences where the victim resides in England or Wales only, based on the victim’s postcode. Currently, Action Fraud data are not included in sub-national tables.

Users of police force area level data should refer to Table 5c in the User Guide for details of when each local force transferred responsibility for recording to Action Fraud. This will allow users to interpret trends in fraud and total recorded crime over time. To provide users with a comparable time series at sub-national level our reference tables include a figure for all police recorded crime excluding fraud4.

Total fraud offences recorded by Action Fraud

In the year ending September 2014, 212,699 fraud offences were recorded in England and Wales (Table 20a), equivalent to 4 offences recorded per 1,000 population. This represents a volume

Office for National Statistics | 84 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

increase of 5% compared with the previous year (Table 20b). However, the move to centralised recording of fraud makes comparisons over time problematic. There are a number of factors that may have contributed to this increase including:

• the centralisation of recording fraud and a possible improvement in recording practices resulting from having a specialist team dealing with fraud; • a possible increased proportion of victims reporting fraud following publicity around the launch of Action Fraud; • availability of online reporting tools to facilitate reporting of fraud offences to Action Fraud; and • a possible increase in the volume of fraud.

It is not possible to separate out or quantify the scale of each possible factor. A clearer picture will emerge over the next one to two years once the new recording arrangements have matured. Quarterly analysis of fraud offences shows that during the transition to Action Fraud the level of recorded fraud showed steady increases (Table QT1 (227.5 Kb Excel sheet)). However, since the point by which all forces had transferred to Action Fraud (April 2013) levels have remained fairly steady (with the exception of one lower quarter – October to December 2013). It will only be in the year ending March 2015 (due to be published in July 2015) that all effects of the transition will no longer be a factor when considering the year on year changes.

Appendix table A5 (515 Kb Excel sheet) shows a more detailed breakdown of the fraud offences recorded by Action Fraud in the year ending September 2014, and indicates that the largest share of offences (43%) were accounted for by non-investment frauds (91,257 offences), almost half of which specifically relates to frauds involving online shopping and auctions (42,380 offences). There were only 14,941 offences involving cheque, plastic card and online bank accounts, which is likely to reflect the fact that many individuals who had experienced such crime will not report to Action Fraud if their financial services provider reimburses their losses. In contrast, reports from industry sources to NFIB show there were over 250,000 frauds involving cheque, plastic card and online bank accounts (Table 21). It is known that this significantly understates the level of such fraud as ‘Card not present’ fraud, for example use of the card online, over the phone or by mail order, is not included within such industry reports.

For more information on the types of offences within each of the Action Fraud categories see Section 5.4 of the User Guide and Appendix table A5 (515 Kb Excel sheet).

Office for National Statistics | 85 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 20a: Fraud offences recorded by the police and Action Fraud - number and rate of offences [1,2,3]

England and Wales

Apr-08 to Mar-09 Apr-12 to Mar-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Fraud offences 72,314 202,249 212,699 recorded by the police and Action Fraud4,5,6,7 Fraud rate per 1,000 1 4 4 population

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office and Action Fraud, National Fraud Authority 2. Police recorded crime and Action Fraud data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on all data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. Action Fraud have taken over the recording of fraud offences on behalf of individual police forces. This process began in April 2011 and was rolled out to all police forces by March 2013. The offences in this table therefore include those recorded by either the police or Action Fraud individually, or both, depending on the time period specified. 5. Due to the change in recording of fraud offences being taken over by Action Fraud, caution should be applied when comparing data over this transitional period and with earlier years. See the User Guide for more details including information on transfer date to Action Fraud for each force. 6. From 2012-13, forgery offences have been reclassified under miscellaneous crimes against society. 7. 'Making off without payment' was previously included in fraud. Since April 2013, it is included in all other theft offences.

Download table

XLS format (33.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 86 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 20b: Fraud offences recorded by the police and Action Fraud - percentage change [1,2,3]

England and Wales Percentage change October 2013 to September 2014 compared with: Apr-08 to Mar-09 Oct-12 to Sep-13 Fraud offences recorded 194 5 by the police and Action Fraud4,5,6,7

Table notes: 1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office and Action Fraud, National Fraud Authority 2. Police recorded crime and Action Fraud data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Police recorded crime statistics based on all data from all 44 forces in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police). 4. Action Fraud have taken over the recording of fraud offences on behalf of individual police forces. This process began in April 2011 and was rolled out to all police forces by March 2013. The offences in this table therefore include those recorded by either the police or Action Fraud individually, or both, depending on the time period specified. 5. Due to the change in recording of fraud offences being taken over by Action Fraud, caution should be applied when comparing data over this transitional period and with earlier years. See the User Guide for more details including information on transfer date to Action Fraud for each force. 6. From 2012-13, forgery offences have been reclassified under miscellaneous crimes against society. 7. 'Making off without payment' was previously included in fraud. Since April 2013, it is included in all other theft offences.

Download table

XLS format (34 Kb)

Fraud offences reported by industry bodies

In line with recommendations from the National Statistician’s review of crime statistics this bulletin draws on additional sources to provide further context. In addition to the fraud offences recorded by Action Fraud, which are included in the police recorded crime series shown above, the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) also collect data on fraud direct from industry bodies (Table 21).

The NFIB currently receive data from two industry bodies:

• CIFAS is a UK-wide fraud prevention service representing around 300 organisations from the public and private sectors. These organisations mainly share data on confirmed cases of fraud, particularly application, identity and first party frauds, via the CIFAS National Fraud Database. Data supplied by CIFAS to the NFIB are recorded in line with the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) for recorded crime.

Office for National Statistics | 87 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

• Financial Fraud Action UK (FFA UK) is the name under which the financial services industry co-ordinates its activity on fraud prevention. FFA UK works in partnership with The UK Cards Association, and collates information from the card payments industry in the UK on fraud relating to cheque, plastic card and online bank accounts, via their central Fraud Intelligence Sharing System (FISS) database. The data supplied by FFA UK also conforms to HOCR, however FISS is an intelligence tool rather than a fraud reporting tool, and its main purpose is to share intelligence about the criminals or entities relating to fraud offences rather than count the number of victims of fraud.

Both sets of industry data relate only to those organisations that are part of the respective membership networks (CIFAS, UK Cards Association), therefore coverage can also change as new members join or previous members withdraw. These data are subject to continuing development and ONS is giving consideration as to whether these can be designated as Official Statistics in the future.

In addition, users should also be aware that the NFIB data sourced from industry bodies cover the United Kingdom as a whole, while all other data in this bulletin refer to England and Wales.

In addition to the offences recorded by Action Fraud, the NFIB received 391,221 reports of fraud in the UK in the year ending September 2014 from industry bodies CIFAS and FFA UK (Table 21).

Of the fraud offences reported by those bodies, 80% were in the category of ‘banking and credit industry fraud’ (314,683). This category includes fraud involving plastic cards , cheques and online bank accounts which accounted for the majority of the offences recorded in the year ending September 2014. The category also covers payment-related frauds under the subcategory ‘Application Fraud’ which includes offences that occurred outside of the banking sector; for example, fraudulent applications made in relation to hire purchase agreements, as well as to insurance, telecommunications or retail companies, or public sector organisations.

Types of plastic card fraud recorded by the National Fraud Database include fraudulent applications for plastic cards (including ID fraud), fraudulent misuse of plastic card accounts, and takeover of plastic card accounts (for example changing the address and getting new cards issued). CIFAS do not currently collect data on ‘card not present’ fraud, where the cardholder and card are not present at the point of sale, for example, use of the card online, over the phone or by mail order. In addition they do not include data on fraud relating to lost or stolen cards and ATM fraud. This means that a high proportion of plastic card fraud is not included in the NFIB figures from industry bodies.

FFA UK data contain intelligence for Mail Not Received (MNR) fraud, Card ID fraud (includes Account Takeover and Application Fraud), Payment fraud (includes fraud relating to telephone banking and online banking), Cheque fraud (includes forged, altered and counterfeit) and Mule accounts (accounts used for laundering the proceeds of fraud). Like CIFAS, FFA UK do not currently feed through to the NFIB data on ‘card not present’ fraud, lost or stolen cards and ATM fraud5. This is thought to represent a significant volume of all plastic card fraud and thus the figures here understate the level of fraud known by industry bodies. However, information relating to plastic card fraud in terms of levels of financial fraud losses on UK cards is published annually by the FFA UK on behalf of the UK Cards Association6.

Office for National Statistics | 88 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

CIFAS and FFA UK provide separate feeds to NFIB via their individual databases, however a proportion of organisations are members of both industry bodies (CIFAS, UK Cards Association).

It is possible that there may be some double or triple counting between both these sources and the offences recorded via direct reports from victims to Action Fraud. For example, if police are called to a bank and apprehend an offender for a fraud offence, the police may record this crime with Action Fraud and the bank report the same crime to CIFAS and/or FFA UK as part of their processes. Experts believe this duplication to be so small as to have an insignificant effect on crime trends, but there is no simple cross-referencing method within NFIB to detect the scale of it.

Table 21: Fraud offences, reported by industry bodies to NFIB, year ending September 2014 [1,2,3]

United Kingdom Numbers

Fraud Type4 CIFAS FFA UK Total Banking and credit 191,177 123,506 314,683 industry fraud Cheque, Plastic 127,680 123,506 251,186 Card and Online Bank Accounts (not PSP)5 Application Fraud 59,215 0 59,215 (excluding Mortgages) Mortgage Related 4,282 0 4,282 Fraud Insurance Related 8,583 0 8,583 Fraud Telecom Industry Fraud 67,781 0 67,781 (Misuse of Contracts)6 Business Trading Fraud 134 0 134 Fraudulent Applications 40 0 40 for Grants from Charities Total 267,715 123,506 391,221

Table notes: 1. Source: National Fraud Intelligence Bureau7 2. Fraud data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. From 2012/13, this table presents fraud data collated by NFIB from CIFAS and Financial Fraud Action UK (FFA UK) only and does not include fraud offences recorded by Action Fraud, which are now represented alongside police recorded crime. Data presented here are therefore not comparable with past published NFIB figures. 4. For an explanation and examples of fraud offences within each category, see Section 5.4 of the User Guide.

Office for National Statistics | 89 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

5. A PSP is a payment service provider (for example Paypal, World Pay) that is not a bank, dealing in electronic money transfers. Fraud offences perpetrated using PSPs fall under 'Online shopping and auctions' (not collected by industry bodies). 6. The CIFAS Telecom Industry Fraud figure is substantially higher than that seen in the year ending September 2013 bulletin. This is due to a correction of an error that was caused by the NFIB system not correctly picking up certain CIFAS fraud types. 7. For more information on the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau see http://www.nfib.police.uk/

Download table

XLS format (78 Kb)

Measuring fraud using the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)

As described above, fraud is not currently included in the headline CSEW crime estimates. However, the CSEW includes supplementary modules of questions on victimisation across a range of fraud and cyber-crime offences, including plastic card and bank/building society fraud. These are currently reported separately from the headline estimates.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is currently conducting some work exploring extending the main victimisation module in the CSEW to cover elements of fraud and cyber-crime. For more information, see the methodological note ‘Work to extend the Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime’ and Section 5.4 of the User Guide.

Once the new questions are added to the survey it will lead to an increase in the volume of crime measured by it. To give an indication of the scale of including such crimes in the future, a separate piece of analysis was conducted of existing questions from the 2012/13 CSEW. However, this was based on some simple assumptions given the current absence of data on key elements, such as the number of times respondents fell victim within the crime reference period. The analysis showed that together, plastic card fraud and bank and building society fraud could contribute between 3.6 and 3.8 million incidents of crime to the total number of CSEW crimes in that year.

Plastic card fraud

As mentioned, the CSEW main crime estimates does not include plastic card fraud. However, elements of banking and payment related fraud are the focus of a module of questions in the CSEW, which asks respondents about their experience of plastic card fraud and can be reported on separately.

The year ending September 2014 CSEW showed that 5.0% of plastic card owners were victims of card fraud in the last year, no change from the 4.8% estimated in the year ending September 2013. Before that, there had been small reductions in levels of plastic card fraud over the last few years, following a rise between 2005/06 and 2009/10 surveys (Figure 14). The current increased level of victimisation remains higher than more established offences such as theft from the person and other theft of personal property (1.0% and 1.6% respectively, Table 15). Further analysis, based on the 2011/12 CSEW, was published on 9 May 2013 as part of ‘Focus on: Property Crime, 2011/12: Chapter 3 – Plastic card fraud’.

Office for National Statistics | 90 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 14: Proportion of CSEW plastic card users who had been a victim of plastic card fraud in the last year, 2005/06 to year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics

Download chart

XLS format (76 Kb)

Separate figures are available from Financial Fraud Action UK (FFA UK) who report on levels of financial fraud losses on UK cards. This totalled £450 million in 2013, a 16% increase compared with 2012 (£388m). Despite this increase, significant decreases in recent years prior to this mean that card fraud losses in 2013 were 26% lower than in 2008 (£610m) when losses were at their peak7.

The industry suggests that a combination of the use of fraud screening detection tools by retailers, banks and the cards industry, the introduction of chip and pin technology, enhanced user and industry awareness and improved prevention and detection initiatives have led to the previous decreases in plastic card fraud. More detailed information including a breakdown of plastic card fraud by type in the UK and abroad, is available from the UK Cards Association.

Notes for Fraud

1. Police forces continue to record forgery offences, which fall under ‘Other crimes against society’ and are not included under ‘Fraud offences’. See Section 5.4 of the User Guide for more information.

Office for National Statistics | 91 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

2. For more information regarding the date when each police force transferred responsibility to Action Fraud see Section 5.4: Fraud of the User Guide.

3. The completion of the transition to Action Fraud happened by the end of 2012/13. However, a small number of fraud offences were mistakenly recorded by police forces in early 2013/14. These were corrected in subsequent quarters, leading to the negative number of fraud offences seen in the latest year to June 2014.

4. Changes to the way in which police record crimes of fraud following the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006 mean that fraud figures from 2007/08 onwards are not directly comparable with figures for earlier years.

5. These frauds are reported separately to FFA UK via a fraud reporting mechanism which does not feed through to NFIB, and so do not appear in the figures we publish.

6. Fraud losses on UK-issued cards between 2003 and 2013 are reported in the ‘Fraud The Facts 2014’ publication.

7. Fraud losses on UK-issued cards between 2003 and 2013 are reported in the ‘Fraud The Facts 2014’ publication.

Crime experienced by children aged 10 to 15

Since January 2009, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) has asked children aged 10 to 15 resident in households in England and Wales about their experience of crime in the previous 12 months. Question changes during development of the questionnaire in the first three years of the survey should be considered when interpreting the figures. While data presented since the 2011/12 survey year should be comparable, it is difficult to discern a trend as the total number of incidents has shown small fluctuations across the available time series. For this reason no percentage change or statistical significance is presented for any year. Methodological differences also mean that direct comparisons cannot be made between the adult and child data (Millard and Flatley).

Overall level of crime

Based on CSEW interviews in the year ending September 2014, there were an estimated 721,000 crimes experienced by children aged 10 to 15 using the preferred measure1; of these 52% were categorised as violent crimes2 (375,000) while most of the remaining crimes were thefts of personal property (304,000; 42%) (Tables 22 to 24). Incidents of criminal damage to personal property experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were less common (42,000; 6% of all crimes experienced by this age group).

An estimated 11% of children aged 10 to 15 were victims of crimes covered by the CSEW in the past year. Of these, this includes 6% who have been a victim of a violent crime and 6% who had been a victim of personal theft. While there were more violent incidents than theft offences, violent incidents affected a similar proportion of 10 to 15 year olds as seen for theft offences. This is because they were more likely to have been repeated against the same victim.

Office for National Statistics | 92 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 22: CSEW offences experienced by children aged 10 to 15 - Preferred measure [1,2,3]

England and Wales Children aged 10 to 15 Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-13 to Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-134 Mar-144 Sep-144 Thousands: Number of incidents 918 1,066 817 810 721 Percentage: Percentage who were 11.6 15.1 12.2 12.1 11.0 victims once or more Unweighted base 3,849 3,930 2,879 2,933 2,578

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. Some estimates are based on a small number of children, hence caution should be applied; see User Guide tables UG6, UG7 and UG8 for the margin of error around the estimates. 3. The ‘Preferred measure’ takes into account factors identified as important in determining the severity of an incidence (such as level of injury, value of item stolen or damaged, relationship with the perpetrator) while the ‘Broad measure’ counts all incidents which would be legally defined as crimes and therefore may include low-level incidents between children. 4. Base sizes for data from year ending March 2012 onwards are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced.

Download table

XLS format (31.5 Kb)

Violent offences

The CSEW estimates that there were 375,000 violent offences against children aged 10 to 15 in the year ending September 2014 with just over two thirds (69%) of these resulting in injury to the victim. This equates to 6% of children aged 10 to 15 having had experienced violent crime in the last year; and 4% having had experienced violence with injury (Table 23). One per cent of children aged 10 to 15 were victims of robbery in the last year.

Office for National Statistics | 93 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 23: CSEW violent offences experienced by children aged 10 to 15 - Preferred measure [1,2,3]

England and Wales Children aged 10 to 15 Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-13 to Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-134 Mar-144 Sep-144 Number of incidents (thousands): Violence 602 591 479 445 375 Wounding 90 58 92 64 44 Assault with 337 307 212 218 199 minor injury Assault 118 139 107 110 82 without injury Robbery 58 87 68 53 50 Violence with 461 403 339 300 260 injury Violence 141 188 140 145 116 without injury5 Percentage who were victims once or more: Violence 6.8 7.7 6.1 6.5 5.6 Wounding 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 Assault with 3.7 3.6 2.9 3.3 2.9 minor injury Assault 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.4 without injury Robbery 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.9 Violence with 5.0 4.8 4.2 4.5 3.9 injury Violence 2.1 3.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 without injury5 Unweighted base 3,849 3,930 2,879 2,933 2,578

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. Some estimates are based on a small number of children, hence caution should be applied; see User Guide tables UG6, UG7 and UG8 for the margin of error around the estimates.

Office for National Statistics | 94 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

3. The ‘Preferred measure’ takes into account factors identified as important in determining the severity of an incidence (such as level of injury, value of item stolen or damaged, relationship with the perpetrator) while the ‘Broad measure’ counts all incidents which would be legally defined as crimes and therefore may include low-level incidents between children. 4. Base sizes for data from year ending March 2012 onwards are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced. 5. 'Violence with injury' includes wounding, assault with minor injury and robbery where injury was sustained. 'Violence without injury' includes assault without injury and robbery where no injury was sustained.

Download table

XLS format (34.5 Kb)

Property offences

There were an estimated 304,000 incidents of theft and 42,000 incidents of damage of personal property experienced by children aged 10 to 15 in the year ending September 2014 according to the CSEW. Around 64% of the thefts were classified as other theft of personal property (194,000 incidents) which includes thefts of property left unattended.

Six per cent of children aged 10 to 15 had experienced an incident of personal theft in the last year, with other theft of personal property most commonly experienced (4%). Theft from the person (for example, pick-pocketing) was not as common, with 1% of children reporting being victimised. One per cent of children had experienced criminal damage to personal property.

Office for National Statistics | 95 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 24: CSEW property offences experienced by children aged 10 to 15 - Preferred measure [1,2,3]

England and Wales Children aged 10 to 15 Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-13 to Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-134 Mar-144 Sep-144 Number of incidents (thousands): Personal theft 288 435 304 322 304 Theft from 35 55 42 49 60 the person Snatch theft 19 27 12 35 33 Stealth theft 16 28 30 13 28 Other theft 171 263 208 225 194 of personal property Theft from 25 40 22 18 26 the dwelling/ outside the dwelling5

Bicycle theft5 58 77 32 30 24

Criminal damage to 28 40 34 43 42 personal property5 Percentage who were victims once or more: Personal theft 5.4 8.1 6.5 6.2 5.8 Theft from 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.9 the person Snatch theft 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 Stealth theft 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.5 Other theft 3.1 4.9 4.4 4.4 3.9 of personal property Theft from 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 the dwelling/ outside the dwelling5

Bicycle theft5 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.5

Office for National Statistics | 96 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Apr-10 to Apr-11 to Apr-12 to Apr-13 to Oct-13 to Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-134 Mar-144 Sep-144

Criminal damage to 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 personal property5 Unweighted base 3,849 3,930 2,879 2,933 2,578

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. Some estimates are based on a small number of children, hence caution should be applied; see User Guide tables UG6, UG7 and UG8 for the margin of error around the estimates. 3. The ‘Preferred measure’ takes into account factors identified as important in determining the severity of an incidence (such as level of injury, value of item stolen or damaged, relationship with the perpetrator) while the ‘Broad measure’ counts all incidents which would be legally defined as crimes and therefore may include low-level incidents between children. 4. Base sizes for data from year ending March 2012 onwards are smaller than previous years, due to sample size reductions introduced. 5. These offences are designated as 'household' offences for adults on the CSEW (respondents reply on behalf of the household) but are presented here as 'personal' offences when the property stolen or damaged solely belonged to the child respondent. This broadens the scope of personal victimisation but may also result in double-counting of offences on the adult survey; the extent to which this happens will be evaluated in the future.

Download table

XLS format (35 Kb)

Notes for Crime experienced by children aged 10 to 15

1. More information about the preferred and broad measures of crime against children can be found in the User Guide. Tables for the broad measure of crime are available in the bulletin table spreadsheet, Tables 22-24.

2. The survey of children aged 10 to 15 only covers personal level crime (so excludes household level crime); the majority (75%) of violent crimes experienced in the year ending September 2014 resulted in minor or no injury, so in most cases the violence is low level.

Anti-social behaviour

Incidents recorded by the police

Figures recorded by the police relating to anti-social behaviour (ASB) can be considered alongside police recorded (notifiable) crime to provide a more comprehensive view of the crime and disorder that comes to the attention of the police. Any incident of ASB which results in a notifiable offence will be included in police recorded crime figures and as such the two sets of data do not overlap.

Office for National Statistics | 97 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

The police record ASB incidents in accordance with the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR); for further details, see Section 5.7 of the User Guide. These figures are not currently accredited National Statistics. In particular, a review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 2012 found significant variation in the recording of ASB incidents across police forces. It is also known that occasionally police forces may be duplicating some occurrences of a singular ASB incident where multiple reports by different callers have been made.

Following the HMIC review in 2012, it was additionally found that there was a wide variation in the quality of decision making associated with the recording of ASB1. HMIC found instances of:

• forces failing to identify crimes, instead wrongly recording them as ASB; • reported ASB not being recorded on force systems, for instance if the victim had reported it directly to the neighbourhood team or via email (as opposed to by telephone); • reported ASB being recorded as something else, such as suspicious behaviour; and • incidents that were not ASB being recorded as ASB.

Furthermore, data on ASB incidents before and after 2011/12 are not directly comparable, owing to a change in the classification used for ASB incidents. From April 2012, ASB incidents also include data from the British Transport Police so direct comparisons can only be made from 2012/13 onwards. The police recorded 2.0 million incidents of ASB in the year ending September 2014. This compares to the 3.7 million notifiable crimes recorded by the police over the same period (Figure 15). The number of ASB incidents recorded by the police and the British Transport Police in the year ending September 2014 decreased by 10% compared with the previous year.

Figures for the period 2007/08 to 2011/12 also show declines in the number of ASB incidents recorded by the police consistent with recent trends in total police recorded crime.

Figure 15: Police recorded crime and anti-social behaviour incidents, 2007/08 to year ending September 2014

Office for National Statistics | 98 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Notes: 1. Sources: Police recorded crime, Home Office / ASB incidents: 2007/08 - 2009/10 - National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA); 2010/11 - Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC); 2011/12 onwards - Home Office 2. Police recorded crime and ASB incident data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Following a different approach to recording ASB incidents data, figures from 2011/12 onwards are not directly comparable with previous years; see Chapter 5 of the User Guide for more information. 4. Figures include British Transport Police (BTP); figures are not available prior to April 2012.

Download chart

XLS format (30 Kb)

From 2011/12, a new set of three simplified categories for ASB was introduced (for further details, see Chapter 5 of the User Guide):

• ‘Nuisance’ – captures incidents where an act, condition, thing or person causes trouble, annoyance, irritation, inconvenience, offence or suffering to the local community in general rather than to individual victims; • ‘Personal’ – captures incidents that are perceived as either deliberately targeted at an individual or group, or having an impact on an individual or group rather than the community at large; and • ‘Environmental’ – captures incidents where individuals and groups have an impact on their surroundings, including natural, built and social environments.

All forces adopted these new definitions, though in the HMIC report it was found that 35% of all incidents reviewed were incorrectly categorised; this should be taken into account when considering ASB incident figures.

In the year ending September 2014, 67% of the ASB incidents categorised by the police were identified as ‘Nuisance’; 27% as ‘Personal’; and 6% as ‘Environmental’ (Figure 16). This distribution may reflect propensity of reporting rather than the actual distribution of ASB by type.

Office for National Statistics | 99 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Figure 16: Categories of anti-social behaviour incidents, year ending September 2014

Notes: 1. Source: Police recorded incidents, Home Office 2. ASB incident data are not designated as National Statistics. 3. Figures include British Transport Police.

Download chart

XLS format (26 Kb)

CSEW measures of anti-social behaviour

Questions about respondents’ actual experiences of ASB in their local area were added to the 2011/12 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) to expand on existing questions about perceived ASB. These questions asked whether the respondent had personally experienced or witnessed ASB in their local area and, if so, what types.

Twenty-eight per cent of adults in the year ending September 2014 indicated that they had personally experienced or witnessed at least one of the ASB problems asked about in their local area in the previous year (Table 25), which has not changed from the previous year. This included 10% of adults who experienced or witnessed drink related anti-social behaviour and 8% who witnessed or experienced groups hanging around on the streets.

Office for National Statistics | 100 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 25: CSEW experiences of anti-social behaviour, years ending September 2013 and September 2014 [1]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Statistically significant change, Oct-12 to Sep-13 to Oct-13 to Sep-14 Percentages Personally 28.3 28.0 experienced/witnessed anti-social behaviour in local area

Types of anti- social behaviour experienced/ witnessed2

Drink related behaviour 9.7 9.6 Groups hanging around 9.4 8.4 * on the streets Inconsiderate 5.6 5.4 behaviour3 Loud music or other 5.1 5.1 noise Litter, rubbish or dog- 4.1 4.2 fouling Vandalism, criminal 3.8 3.8 damage or graffiti People being 3.4 3.2 intimidated, verbally abused or harassed People using or dealing 2.9 3.3 * drugs Vehicle related 3.1 3.4 behaviour4 Nuisance neighbours 2.8 2.7

Office for National Statistics | 101 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Oct-12 to Sep-13 Oct-13 to Sep-14 Statistically significant change, Oct-12 to Sep-13 to Oct-13 to Sep-14 Begging, vagrancy or 0.9 0.9 homeless people Out of control or 0.6 0.7 dangerous dogs People committing 0.2 0.2 inappropriate or indecent sexual acts in public

Other anti-social 2.0 1.7 behaviour

Unweighted base 35,807 33,535

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. Respondents can experience more than one type of anti-social behaviour, so percentages will not sum to the total that experienced/witnessed anti-social behaviour in their local area. 3. Includes repeated/inappropriate use of fireworks; youths kicking/throwing balls in inappropriate areas; cycling/ skateboarding in pedestrian areas or obstructing pavements; people throwing stones/bottles/eggs, etc. 4. Includes inconvenient/illegal parking; abandoned vehicles; speeding cars/motorcycles; car revving; joyriding, etc.

Download table

XLS format (29.5 Kb)

The CSEW also contains a separate set of questions asking respondents about perceptions of problems with different types of ASB in their local area. Seven of these questions are used to provide an overall index of perceived ASB. In the year ending September 2014 CSEW, 11% of adults perceived there to be a high level of ASB in their local area, a decrease of one percentage point since the previous year (Table 26).

Since 2003/04 the CSEW has consistently estimated that around a quarter of adults perceive a problem in their local area with ‘People using or dealing drugs’ and almost a third believe ‘Rubbish or litter lying around’ as a problem in the local area. Other anti-social behaviour indicators have tended to show declines over this time period, with the most pronounced decline for the ‘Abandoned or burnt-out cars’ category, which peaked at 24% in 2002/03 and has subsequently fallen each year down to 2% in the year ending September 2014.

Office for National Statistics | 102 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 26: CSEW trends in the anti-social behaviour indicators, 1996 to year ending September 2014 [1,2]

England and Wales Adults aged 16 and over Jan-96 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Statistically Dec-96 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-13 Sep-14 significant change, Oct-12 to Sep-13 to Oct-13 to Sep-14 Percentages High level : 16.3 16.5 12.4 11.0 * of perceived anti-social behaviour3

Percentage saying there is a very/fairly big problem in their area Rubbish or 26.0 29.0 30.3 28.1 28.6 * litter lying around People using 20.9 25.1 27.5 25.7 23.7 * or dealing drugs Teenagers 23.5 27.2 30.2 20.5 18.3 * hanging around on the streets People : 19.1 26.2 20.1 18.3 * being drunk or rowdy in public places3 Vandalism, 24.3 28.1 26.8 17.0 16.0 graffiti and other deliberate damage to property Noisy 7.7 8.8 10.4 10.7 11.0 neighbours

Office for National Statistics | 103 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Jan-96 to Apr-03 to Apr-08 to Oct-12 to Oct-13 to Statistically Dec-96 Mar-04 Mar-09 Sep-13 Sep-14 significant change, Oct-12 to Sep-13 to Oct-13 to Sep-14 or loud parties Abandoned : 15.2 5.8 2.6 2.4 or burnt-out cars3

Unweighted 7,625 36,116 44,010 8,589 8,338 base4,5

Table notes: 1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 2. For further years data see Annual trend and demographic table D9. 3. The question on abandoned or burn-out cars was introduced in 2000 and the question on people being drunk or rowdy in public places was introduced in 2001. 4. Unweighted bases refer to the question relating to people using or dealing drugs. Other bases will be similar. 5. From April 2011 the number of respondents asked questions about their perceptions of problems in the local area was reduced (from a full sample) to a half sample and from April 2012 was reduced to a quarter sample.

Download table

XLS format (30 Kb)

It is difficult to directly compare the two CSEW measures (perceptions of and experiences of ASB) since the list of ASB categories used in the experience-based questions is more expansive than those asked of respondents in relation to their perceptions. In addition, they are measuring different things; actual experiences and perceptions. It is likely someone can experience an ASB incident without necessarily believing that it is part of a problem in their local area, if for example, it was a one-off or isolated occurrence. The frequency or number of incidents experienced coupled with the perceived extent and seriousness of a problem will also vary from person to person.

More detailed analysis on ASB as measured by the CSEW has been published in the 'Short Story on Anti-Social Behaviour, 2011/12' release.

Notes for Anti-social behaviour

Office for National Statistics | 104 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

1. See the HMIC report: ‘A step in the right direction: The policing of anti-social behaviour’ for further details.

Other non-notifiable crimes

The police recorded crime series is restricted to offences which are, or can be, tried at a Crown Court and a few additional closely related summary offences1. A range of non-notifiable offences may be dealt with by the police issuing an out of court disposal or by prosecution at a magistrates' court. Offences dealt with at magistrates courts may also include some offences that have been identified by other agencies – for example, prosecutions by TV Licensing or by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for vehicle registration offences.

Data on these offences provide counts of offences where action has been brought against an offender and guilt has either been ascertained in court, or the offender has admitted culpability through acceptance of a penalty notice. These offences generally only come to light through the relevant authorities actively looking to identify offending behaviour. These figures help fill a gap in the coverage of the main Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded crime statistics.

The most recent data available on non-notifiable crimes are for the year ending June 2014. Key findings include the following:

• Cases brought to magistrates’ courts in the year ending June 2014 resulted in close to 1.0 million convicted non-notifiable offences, down 5% from the year ending June 2013 and continuing the downward trend since 2002/03 (Tables 27a and 27b)2; and • 31,000 Penalty Notices for Disorder were issued for non-notifiable offences in the year ending June 2014 (Table 27a); around four in five of these were for being drunk and disorderly3.

Office for National Statistics | 105 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 27a: Non-notifiable crimes dealt with by the courts/Penalty Notices for Disorder - number and rate [1]

England and Wales

Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Jul-12 to Jun-13 Jul-13 to Jun-14 Non-notifiable 1,840 1,223 1,007 957 convictions (thousands)2 Incidence rate 35 22 18 17 (per 1,000 population)3,4

Non-notifiable : 59 38 31 Penalty Notices for Disorder (thousands)5,6,7 Incidence rate : 1 1 1 (per 1,000 population)3,4

Table notes: 1. Source: Ministry of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to June 2014 (Tables 2.1, 6.2, 6.3) 2. Figures for non-notifiable convictions apply to offenders aged 10 and over. 3. The year to June 2014 incidence rate is calculated using ONS mid-2012 census based population estimates. Other figures are also calculated using mid-year population estimates from previous years. 4. Numbers will be affected by the size of the resident population relative to the transient or visiting populations and may therefore over-represent the number of crimes relative to the real population of potential offenders. 5. Penalty Notices for Disorder, both higher and lower tier offences, issued to offenders aged 16 and over. 6. Piloted in 2002 and introduced nationally in 2004. 7. Includes British Transport Police from 2011.

Download table

XLS format (74.5 Kb)

Office for National Statistics | 106 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 27b: Non-notifiable crimes dealt with by the courts/Penalty Notices for Disorder - percentage change [1]

England and Wales Percentage change July 2013 to June 2014 compared with: Apr-03 to Mar-04 Apr-08 to Mar-09 Jul-12 to Jun-13 Non-notifiable -48 -22 -5 convictions2

Incidence rate3,4 -52 -25 -6

Non-notifiable : -47 -19 Penalty Notices for Disorder5,6,7

Incidence rate3,4 : -50 -19

Table notes: 1. Source: Ministry of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to June 2014 (Tables 2.1, 6.2, 6.3) 2. Figures for non-notifiable convictions apply to offenders aged 10 and over. 3. The year to June 2014 incidence rate is calculated using ONS mid-2012 census based population estimates. Other figures are also calculated using mid-year population estimates from previous years. 4. Numbers will be affected by the size of the resident population relative to the transient or visiting populations and may therefore over-represent the number of crimes relative to the real population of potential offenders. 5. Penalty Notices for Disorder, both higher and lower tier offences, issued to offenders aged 16 and over. 6. Piloted in 2002 and introduced nationally in 2004. 7. Includes British Transport Police from 2011.

Download table

XLS format (74 Kb)

The police and, increasingly, local authorities, have powers to issue penalty notices for a range of traffic offences; the police issued 1.3 million Fixed Penalty Notices (over half of which related to speeding) in 20124.

Notes for Other non-notifiable crimes

1. The Notifiable Offence List includes all indictable and triable-either-way offences (that is, offences which could be tried at a Crown Court) and a few additional closely related summary offences (which would be dealt with by a magistrates' court). For information on the classifications used for notifiable crimes recorded by the police, see Appendix 1 of the User Guide.

Office for National Statistics | 107 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

2. The latest figures available from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relate to all offences for the year ending June 2014 and thus lag the CSEW and police recorded series by three months but are included to give a fuller picture.

3. Figures from the MoJ’s Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to June 2014 (Tables 2.1, 6.2, 6.3).

4. Figures from the Home Office’s Police Powers and Procedures 2012/13 publication.

Commercial Victimisation Survey

In order to address the significant gap in crime statistics that existed for crimes against businesses, the National Statistician’s review of crime statistics (National Statistician, 2011), recommended the Home Office continue to implement its plans for a telephone survey of businesses.

The 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) provided information on the volume and type of crime committed against businesses in England and Wales across four sectors: ‘Manufacturing’; ‘Wholesale and retail’; ‘Transportation and storage’; and ‘Accommodation and food’. For more information, see the Home Office’s ‘Headline findings from the 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey’ and ‘Detailed findings from the 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey’.

The 2013 CVS covered a slightly different set of business sectors; it continued to include the ‘Accommodation and food’, and ‘Wholesale and retail’ sectors, but the ‘Manufacturing’ and ‘Transportation and storage’ sectors were replaced by the ‘Agriculture, forestry and fishing’ and the ‘Arts, entertainment and recreation’ sectors. For more information, see the Home Office’s ‘Headline findings from the 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey‘ and ‘Detailed findings from the 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey’.

The CVS is annual, not continuous. Headline figures for the number of crimes against businesses are included in this bulletin.

In the 2013 CVS there were an estimated total of 5,915,000 crimes experienced by business premises in the wholesale and retail sector, 23% lower than the estimated total of 7,708,000 crimes experienced by business premises in the wholesale and retail sector in the 2012 CVS, although this decrease was not statistically significant.

In the 2013 CVS there were an estimated total of 575,000 crimes experienced by business premises in the accommodation and food sector, down 42% from the estimated total of 985,000 crimes experienced by business premises in the accommodation and food sector in the 2012 CVS.

Victimisation was most prominent in ‘Wholesale and retail’ premises (53% of premises experienced crime in the 2012 CVS and 45% in the 2013 CVS) and least prominent in ‘Manufacturing’ (2012 CVS) and ‘Agriculture, forestry and fishing’ (2013 CVS) premises (30% of both types of premises had experienced crime in the year prior to interview).

Office for National Statistics | 108 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Table 28: Crime experienced by businesses, by industry sector, 2012 and 2013 CVS [1]

England and Wales

All CVS crime2 All CVS crime (rate All CVS crime (% (numbers of per 1,000 premises) of premises that incidents, 000s) experienced crime)

2012 Wholesale and retail 7,708 19,701 53 Accommodation and food 985 7,361 43 Transportation and storage 324 5,824 40 Manufacturing 164 1,500 30 2013 Wholesale and retail 5,915 17,261 45 Accommodation and food 575 4,565 42 Arts, entertainment and recreation 196 4,660 45 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 133 1,475 30

Table notes: 1. Source: 2012 and 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey, Home Office 2. Data may not sum to totals shown due to rounding.

Download table

XLS format (76 Kb)

Data sources – coverage and coherence

Crime Survey for England and Wales

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a face-to-face survey in which people resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 12 months prior to the interview. It covers both children aged 10-15 and adults aged 16 and over, but does not

Office for National Statistics | 109 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

cover those living in group residences (such as care homes, student halls of residence and prisons), or crimes against commercial or public sector bodies. Respondents are interviewed in their own homes by trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire that is administered on a laptop computer using specialist survey software. The questions asked do not use technical terms or legal definitions but are phrased in plain English language.

The information collected during the interview is then reviewed later by a team of specialist coders employed by the survey contractors (currently TNS-BMRB) who determine whether or not what was reported amounts to a crime in law and, if so, what offence has been experienced. This ‘offence coding’ aims to reflect the Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime which govern how the police record offences reported to them. The CSEW is able to capture all offences experienced by those interviewed, not just those that have been reported to, and recorded by, the police. It covers a broad range of victim-based crimes experienced by the resident household population. However, there are some serious but relatively low volume offences, such as homicide and sexual offences, that are not included in its main estimates. The survey also currently excludes fraud and cyber crime though there is ongoing development work to address this gap – see the methodological note 'Work to extend the Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime'. This infographic sets out what is and is not covered by the CSEW.

Since it began, the CSEW has been conducted by an independent (from government or the police) survey research organisation using trained interviewers to collect data from sampled respondents. The interviewers have no vested interest in the results of the survey. For the crime types and population groups it covers, the CSEW has a consistent methodology and is unaffected by changes in levels of public reporting to the police, recording practice or police activity. As such, the survey is widely seen to operate as an independent reality-check of the police figures. The independence of the survey has been further strengthened by the transfer of responsibility from the Home Office to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in April 2012.

The CSEW has a higher number of reported volumes than police recorded crime as the survey is able to capture all offences by those interviewed, not just those that have been reported to the police and then recorded. However, it does cover a narrower range of offences than the recorded crime collection.

The CSEW has necessary exclusions from its main count of crime (for example, homicide, crimes against businesses and other organisations, and drug possession). The survey also excludes sexual offences from its main crime count given the sensitivities around reporting this in the context of a face-to-face interview. However, at the end of the main interview there is a self-completion element (also via a computer) where adults aged 16 to 59 are asked about their experience of domestic and sexual violence and these results are reported separately1.

Since the survey started in 1982 (covering crime experienced in 1981) a core module of victimisation questions has asked about a range of offences experienced either by the household (such as burglary) or by the individual respondent (such as robbery). The offences covered by this core module have remained unchanged since the survey started.

The offence of fraud, whether committed in traditional or newer ways (such as over the internet), is not part of this core module. Other offences which are committed via cyberspace (such as

Office for National Statistics | 110 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

harassment) are also not covered by the existing questions. However, supplementary modules of questions are included in the survey in an attempt to better understand the nature of these newer types of crime. In addition, methodological work is ongoing to explore the feasibility of adding questions to the core module to cover newer types of crime2.

The survey is based on a sample of the population, and therefore estimates have a margin of quantifiable (and non quantifiable) error associated with them. The latter includes: when respondents have recalled crimes in the reference period that actually occurred outside that period (‘telescoping’); and crimes that did occur in the reference period that were not mentioned at all (either because respondents failed to recall a fairly trivial incident or, conversely, because they did not want to disclose an incident, such as a domestic assault). Some may have said they reported a crime to the police when they did not (a ‘socially desirable’ response); and, some incidents reported during the interview could be miscoded (‘interviewer/coder error’).

In 2009, the CSEW was extended to cover children aged 10 to 15, and this release also incorporates results from this element of the survey. The main analysis and commentary however is restricted to adults and households due to the long time series for which comparable data are available.

The CSEW has a nationally representative sample of around 35,000 adults and 3,000 children (aged 10 to 15 years) per year. The response rates for the survey in 2013/14 were 75% and 68% respectively. The survey is weighted to adjust for possible non-response bias and to ensure the sample reflects the profile of the general population. For more details of the methodology see the CSEW technical report.

Police recorded crime and other sources of crime statistics

Police recorded crime figures are supplied by the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales, plus the British Transport Police, via the Home Office, to ONS. The coverage of police recorded crime is defined by the Notifiable Offence List3, which includes a broad range of offences, from murder to minor criminal damage, theft and public order offences. However, there are some, mainly less serious offences, that are excluded from the recorded crime collection. These ‘non-notifiable’ crimes include many incidents that might generally be considered to be anti-social behaviour but that may also be crimes in law (including by-laws) such as littering, begging and drunkenness. Other non-notifiable offences include driving under the influence of alcohol, parking offences and TV licence evasion. These offences are not covered in either of the main two series and are separately reported on in this release to provide additional context.

Police recorded crime is the primary source of sub-national crime statistics and for relatively serious, but low volume, crimes that are not well measured by a sample survey. It covers victims (including, for example, residents of institutions and tourists as well as the resident population) and sectors (for example commercial bodies) excluded from the CSEW sample. Recorded crime has a wider coverage of offences, for example covering homicide, sexual offences, and crimes without a specific, identifiable victim (referred to as ‘Other crimes against society’) not included in the main CSEW crime count. Police recorded crime also provides good measures of well-reported crimes but does not cover any crimes that are not reported to or discovered by the police. It is also affected by changes in reporting and recording practices. Like any administrative data, police recorded crime will

Office for National Statistics | 111 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

be affected by the rules governing the recording of data, by the systems in place, and by operational decisions in respect of the allocation of resources.

As well as the main police recorded crime series, there are additional collections providing detail on offences involving the use of knives and firearms, which are too low in volume to be measured reliably by the CSEW.

This quarterly statistical bulletin also draws on data from other sources to provide a more comprehensive picture. These include incidents of anti-social behaviour recorded by the police (which fall outside the coverage of notifiable offences), non-notifiable crimes dealt with by the courts (again outside the coverage of recorded crime or the CSEW), crime reports from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and the results of the 2012 and 2013 Commercial Victimisation Surveys (based on a nationally representative sample of business premises in four industrial sectors in each of the two years).

More details of these sources can be found in the User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales. Information on UK and international comparisons can be found in the International and UK comparisons section.

Strengths and limitations of the CSEW and police recorded crime

Office for National Statistics | 112 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Crime Survey for England and Wales Police recorded crime Strengths Strengths Large nationally representative sample survey Has wider offence coverage and population which provides a good measure of long-term coverage than the CSEW trends for the crime types and the population it covers (that is, those resident in households) Good measure of offences that are well-reported to the police Consistent methodology over time Is the primary source of local crime statistics and Covers crimes not reported to the police and for lower-volume crimes (e.g. homicide) is not affected by changes in police recording practice; is therefore a better measure of long Provides whole counts (rather than estimates term trends that are subject to sampling variation)

Coverage of survey extended in 2009 to include Time lag between occurrence of crime and children aged 10 to 15 resident in households reporting results tends to be short, providing an indication of emerging trends Independent collection of crime figures

Limitations Limitations Survey is subject to error associated with Excludes offences that are not reported to, or not sampling and respondents recalling past events recorded by, the police and does not include less serious offences dealt with by magistrates' courts Excludes crimes against businesses and those (e.g. motoring offences) not resident in households (e.g. residents of institutions and visitors) Trends can be influenced by changes in recording practices or police activity Headline estimates exclude offences that are difficult to estimate robustly (such as sexual Not possible to make long-term comparisons due offences) or that have no victim who can be to fundamental changes in recording practice interviewed (e.g. homicides, and drug offences) introduced in 1998 and 2002/034

Excludes fraud and cyber crime There are concerns about the quality of recording – crimes may not be recorded consistently across police forces and so the true level of recorded crime may be understated

Notes for Data sources – coverage and coherence

1. For more detailed information, see ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13

2. For more information, see ‘Discussion paper on the coverage of crime statistics’

Office for National Statistics | 113 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

3. The Notifiable Offence List includes all indictable and triable-either-way offences (offences which could be tried at a crown court) and a few additional closely related summary offences (which would be dealt with by magistrates' courts). For information on the classifications used for notifiable crimes recorded by the police, see Appendix 1 of the User Guide.

4. See Section 3.3 of the User Guide.

Accuracy of the Statistics

Being based on a sample survey, Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimates are subject to a margin of error. Unless stated otherwise, all changes in CSEW estimates described in the main text are statistically significant at the 5% level. Since the CSEW estimates are based upon a sample survey, it is good practice to publish confidence intervals alongside them; these provide a measure of the reliability of the estimates. Details of where these are published, including further information on statistical significance can be found in Chapter 8 of the User Guide.

Police recorded crime figures are a by-product of a live administrative system which is continually being updated as incidents are logged as crimes and subsequently investigated. Some incidents initially recorded as crime may on further investigation be found not to be a crime (described as being ‘no crimed’). Other justifications for a previously recorded crime being ‘no crimed’ include, among others, an incident being recorded in error, or transferred to another force. Some offences may change category, for example from theft to robbery (for further details of the process involved from recording a crime to production of statistics see Section 3.2 of the User Guide). The police return provisional figures to the Home Office on a monthly basis and each month they may supply revised totals for months that have previously been supplied. The Home Office Statistics Unit undertake a series of validation checks on receipt of the data and query outliers with forces who may then re-submit data. Details of these validation checks are given in Section 3.3 of the User Guide and the differences in data published between the current and preceding publications can be found in Table QT1a (227.5 Kb Excel sheet).

Police recording practice is governed by the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) and the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). The HOCR have existed in one form or another since the 1920s with some substantial changes in 1998.

The NCRS was introduced in April 2002 following a critical report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 2000 (Povey, 2000) which showed there was a problem with differing interpretation of the HOCR that resulted in inconsistent recording practices across forces.

The Audit Commission carried out regular independent audits of police data quality between 2003/04 and 2006/07. In their final assessment published in September 2007 (Audit Commission, 2007) they commented that “The police have continued to make significant improvements in crime recording performance and now have better quality crime data than ever before”.

However, both the UK Statistics Authority (2010) and the National Statistician (2011) have highlighted concerns about the absence of such periodic audits. A HMIC quality review in 2009 into the way in which police forces record most serious violence (which at the time was part of a central Government target) found some variation in recording which they partly attributed to the lack of

Office for National Statistics | 114 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

independent monitoring of crime records. In line with a recommendation by the National Statistician, HMIC carried out a review of police crime and incident reports in all forces in England and Wales during 2011 (HMIC, 2012) and a full national inspection of crime data integrity was undertaken during 2014 (HMIC, 2014).

Analysis published by ONS in January 2013 (175.4 Kb Pdf) used a ‘comparable’ sub-set of offences covered by both the CSEW and police recorded crime in order to compare the relationship between the two series. This analysis showed that between 2002/03 and 2006/07 the reduction in the volume of crime measured by the two series was similar, but between 2006/07 and 2011/12 the gap between the two series widened with the police recorded crime series showing a faster rate of reduction. One possible explanation for this is a gradual erosion of compliance with the NCRS, such that a growing number of crimes reported to the police are not being captured in crime recording systems. For more details see the ‘Analysis of Variation in Crime trends’ methodological note.

Statistics based on police recorded crime data do not currently meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics.

Additionally, as part of the inquiry by the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) into crime statistics allegations of under-recording of crime by the police have been made. In the PASC inquiry referenced above the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Tom Winsor, outlined how HMIC would be undertaking an inspection of the integrity of police recorded crime during 2014. Findings from the inspections of crime recording processes and practices have helped provide further information on the level of compliance across England and Wales.

HMIC’s inspection methodology involved audits of a sample of reports of crime received either through incidents reported by the public, crimes directly reported to a police crime bureau, and those reports referred by other agencies directly to specialist departments within a force. HMIC’s aim was to check whether correct crime recording decisions were made in each case. Inspections were carried out between December 2013 and August 14; a total of 10,267 reports of crime recorded between November 2012 and October 2013 across all 43 police forces in England and Wales were reviewed.

The final report on findings from the HMIC inspections, ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’, was published on 18 November 2014 and separate crime data integrity force reports for each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales were published on 27 November 2014.

Based on an audit of a large sample of records, HMIC concluded that, across England and Wales as a whole, an estimated one in five offences (19%) that should have been recorded as crimes were not. The greatest levels of under-recording were seen for violence against the person offences (33%) and sexual offences (26%), however there was considerable variation in the level of under- recording across the different offence types investigated. For other crime types: an estimated 14% of criminal damage and arson offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not; 14% of robbery offences; 11% of burglary offences; and 17% of other offences (excluding fraud).

The report outlines several recommendations to strengthen recording practices in forces including improved training for those involved in crime recording, better auditing and tightening of recording processes. More detail can be found in the User Guide.

Office for National Statistics | 115 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Potential future increases in police recorded crime data are likely to be seen due to the implementation of the aforementioned HMIC recommendations rather than a genuine increase in the levels of crime, so trends should be interpreted with caution.

Further evidence suggesting that there has been a recent improvement in compliance with the NCRS can be seen from updated analysis comparing trends in the CSEW and police recorded crime (see section 4.2 of the User Guide). This shows that the gap between the two series is narrowing; suggesting that improvements to recording practices may be partly responsible for increases in recorded crime.

Interpreting data on police recorded crime

The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording means that caution is needed when interpreting statistics on police recorded crime. While we know that it is likely that improvements in compliance with the NCRS have led to increases in the number of crimes recorded by the police it is not possible to quantify the scale of this or assess how this effect varied between different police forces. While police recorded crime for England and Wales as a whole has remained at a similar level when compared with the previous year, some crime types have shown increases and 24 police forces have recorded overall increases in levels of crime.

Apparent increases in police force area data may reflect a number of factors including tightening of recording practice, increases in reporting by victims and also genuine increases in the levels of crime1.

It is thought that incidents of violence are more open to subjective judgements about recording and thus more prone to changes in police practice. A number of forces have also shown large increases in sexual offences which are likely to be due to the Yewtree effect, although improved compliance with recording standards for sexual offences may also have been a factor. In contrast, anecdotal evidence suggests that increases in shoplifting are more likely to represent a genuine rise in that type of offence. Ministry of Justice statistics also show a recent rise in the number of offenders being prosecuted for shoplifting at Magistrates' courts.

Notes for Accuracy of the Statistics

1. For further information on possible explanations of increasing police recorded crime levels see Chapter 3 of the User Guide.

Users of Crime Statistics

There is significant interest in crime statistics and a diverse range of users. These include elected national and local representatives (such as MPs, Police and Crime Commissioners and local councillors), police forces, those delivering support or services to victims of crime, lobby groups, journalists, academic researchers, teachers and students.

These statistics are used by central and local government and the police service for planning and monitoring service delivery and for resource allocation. The statistics are also used to inform public

Office for National Statistics | 116 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

debate about crime and the public policy response to it. Further information about the uses of crime statistics is available in the Crime Statistics Quality and Methodology Information report.

International and UK comparisons

There are currently no recognised international standards for crime recording and international comparisons are limited due to the differing legal systems which underpin crime statistics and processes for collecting and recording crimes.

Crimes recorded by the police

The system for recording crime in England and Wales by the police is widely recognised by international standards to be one of the best in the world. Few other jurisdictions have attempted to develop such a standardised approach to crime recording and some of those that have base their approach on the England and Wales model (for example, Australia, Northern Ireland). Thus, it is difficult to make international comparisons of levels of recorded crime given the lack of consistency in definitions, legal systems and police/criminal justice recording practices.

The legal system in Northern Ireland is based on that of England and Wales and the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) has the same notifiable offence list for recorded crime as used in England and Wales. In addition, the PSNI has adopted the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) and Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime that applies in England and Wales. Thus there is broad comparability between the recorded crime statistics in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

However, recorded crime statistics for England and Wales are not directly comparable with those in Scotland. The recorded crime statistics for Scotland are collected on the basis of the Scottish Crime Recording Standard, which was introduced in 2004. Like its counterpart in England and Wales, it aims to give consistency in crime recording. The main principles of the Scottish Crime Recording Standard itself are similar to the National Crime Recording Standard for England and Wales with regard to when a crime should be recorded.

However, there are differences between the respective counting rules. For example, the ‘Principal Crime Rule’ in England and Wales states that if a sequence of crimes in an incident, or alternatively a complex crime, contains more than one crime type, then the most serious crime should be counted. For example, an incident where an intruder breaks into a home and assaults the sole occupant would be recorded as two crimes in Scotland, while in England and Wales it would be recorded as one crime.

Differences in legislation and common law have also to be taken into account when comparing the crime statistics for England/Wales and Scotland.

Victimisation surveys

A number of countries run their own national victimisation surveys and they all broadly follow a similar model to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) in attempting to obtain information from a representative sample of the population resident in households about their

Office for National Statistics | 117 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

experience of criminal victimisation. The US National Crime and Victimisation Survey (NCVS) is the longest running, being established in 1973 and there are similar surveys in other countries including Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. However, while these surveys have a similar objective they are not conducted using a standard methodology. Sampling (frames and of households/individuals) and modes of interview (for example face to face interviewing, telephone interviewing, self-completion via the web) differ, as do the crime reference periods (last five years, last 12 months, last calendar year) over which respondents are asked about their victimisation experience. Similarly, there is a lack of standardisation in question wording and order. Response rates vary considerably across the world, as do methods to adjust for any resulting possible non-response bias; therefore, it becomes extremely difficult to make valid comparisons between the surveys.

There have been attempts in the past to run international surveys on a standard basis and the International Crime and Victimisation Survey (ICVS) was initiated by a group of European criminologists with expertise in national crime surveys. The survey aimed to produce estimates of victimisation that could be used for international comparisons. The first survey was run in 1989 and was repeated in 1992, 1996 and 2004/5. All surveys were based upon a 2,000 sample of the population, and in most countries, surveys were carried out with computer-assisted telephone interviewing. A pilot ICVS-2, intended to test alternative and cheaper modes of data collection including self-completion via the web, was carried out in a limited number of countries in 2010.

However, despite the attempt to obtain a standardised and comparable approach to all of the surveys, this was never successfully achieved. While a standard questionnaire was employed in all countries, alongside a standard mode of interviewing, important differences remained in the approach to sampling, translation of questions into different national languages, interview lengths and response rates which make comparisons problematic.

Both Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own separate victimisation surveys that, like the CSEW, complement their recorded crime figures.

The Northern Ireland Crime Survey (NICS) closely mirrors the format and content of the CSEW employing a very similar methodology with continuous interviewing, a face to face interview with nationally representative sample of adults (16 years and over) using a similar set of questions. Thus results from the two surveys are broadly comparable.

The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS) also follows a similar format to the CSEW, having a shared antecedence in the British Crime Survey (whose sample during some rounds of the survey in the 1980s covered Scotland, south of the Caledonian Canal). There are differences in the crimes/ offence classifications to reflect the differing legal systems but the results from the surveys are broadly comparable.

List of products

Release tables published alongside this commentary include a set of bulletin tables containing the data tables and numbers appearing behind graphs in this publication, and more detailed estimates and counts of crime levels as set out in the table below.

Office for National Statistics | 118 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

The following are URL links associated with the production of Crime Statistics.

1. Crime statistics publications on the Home Office website 2. Historic police recorded crime 3. National Statistician’s Review of Crime Statistics 4. Previous quarterly publication 5. User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales 6. Guide to Finding Crime Statistics 7. The 2012/13 Crime Survey for England and Wales Technical Report Volume 1 8. Analysis of Variation in Crime Trends (methodological note) 9. Future Dissemination Strategy – Summary of Responses 10. Methodological note: Presentational changes to National Statistics on police recorded crime in England and Wales 11. Methodological note: Presentational and methodological improvements to National Statistics on the Crime Survey for England and Wales 12. Work to extend the Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime (methodological note) 13. ‘‘Focus on Public Perceptions of Policing, 2011/12’ (published 29 November 2012) 14. ‘Short story on Anti-Social Behaviour, 2011/12’ (published 11 April 2013) 15. ‘An overview of hate crime in England and Wales’ (published 17 December 2013) 16. ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’ (published 13 February 2014) 17. 'Focus on: Victimisation and Public Perceptions, 2012/13' (published 30 May 2014) 18. ‘Focus on Property Crime, 2013/14’ (published 27 November 2014)

Anonymised datasets from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (in SPSS format) currently are available on:

• the UK Data Service through the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS); and • ONS Virtual Micro data Laboratory (VML).

In addition to these National Statistics releases, provisional police recorded crime data drawn from local management information systems sit behind, street level figures released each month, via:

Police recorded crime, street level mapping tool.

Crime Statistics for Scotland are available from the Scottish Government.

Crime Statistics for Northern Ireland are available from the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

References

Audit Commission, 2007, Police data quality 2006/07: ‘Improving data quality to make places safer in England and Wales’

British Retail Consortium, 2013, ‘Policies & Issues: Retail Crime’

CIFAS, 2014, ‘CIFAS members’

Office for National Statistics | 119 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Department for Transport, 2014, ‘Vehicle licensing statistics, 2013’

Durham Constabulary, 2014, ‘Over 230 new calls to Medomsley detectives’

Evening Standard, 2013, ‘Bike mugger phone thefts in London soar to 3,754 in a year’

Financial Fraud Action UK, 2014, ‘Fraud The Facts 2014’

Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSIC), 2014, ‘Provisional Monthly Hospital Episode Statistics for Admitted Patient Care, Outpatients and Accident and Emergency Data – April 2013 to March 2014’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), 2012a, ‘A step in the right direction: The policing of anti-social behaviour’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), 2012b, ‘The crime scene: A review of police crime and incident reports’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), 2014a, ‘Crime data integrity force reports’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), 2014b, ‘Crime-recording: making the victim count’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), 2014c, ‘Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), 2012, ‘Forging the links: Rape investigation and prosecution’

Home Office, 2012, ‘Guidance on the offence of buying scrap metal for cash’

Home Office, 2013a, ‘Crime against businesses: Detailed findings from the 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey’

Home Office, 2013b, ‘Metal theft, England and Wales, financial year ending March 2013’

Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics, 2013, ‘An overview of sexual offending in England and Wales’

Home Office, 2014a, ‘Crime against businesses: Detailed findings from the 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey’

Home Office, 2014b, ‘Crime against businesses: Headline findings from the 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey’

Home Office, 2014c, ‘Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2013 to 2014 Crime Survey for England and Wales’

Office for National Statistics | 120 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Home Office, 2014d, ‘Police powers and procedures England and Wales 2012/13’

Home Office, 2014e, ‘Reducing mobile phone theft and improving security’

Metropolitan Police, 2014, ‘Commission of an independent review into rape investigation’

Millard, B. and Flatley, J. (Eds), ‘Experimental statistics on victimisation of children aged 10 to 15: Findings from the British Crime Survey for the year ending December 2009’, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/11

Ministry of Justice, 2014, ‘Criminal justice statistics quarterly update to June 2014’

National Statistician, 2011, ‘National Statistician’s Review of crime statistics for England and Wales’

Nottingham Post, 2013, ‘Nottingham Co-op stores to get tough on shoplifters’

Office for National Statistics, 2012, ‘Trends in crime – A short story 2011/12’

Office for National Statistics, 2013a, ‘Analysis of variation in crime trends: A study of trends in ‘comparable crime’ categories between the Crime Survey of England and Wales and the police recorded crime series between 1981 and 2011/12’

Office for National Statistics, 2013b, ‘Focus on: Property Crime, 2011/12’

Office for National Statistics, 2013c, ‘Future dissemination strategy: Summary of responses’

Office for National Statistics, 2013d, ‘Presentational changes to National Statistics on police recorded crime in England and Wales’

Office for National Statistics, 2013e, ‘Short Story on Anti-Social Behaviour, 2011/12’

Office for National Statistics, 2014a, ‘Action Plan to address requirements from UK statistics authority assessment – Progress update’

Office for National Statistics, 2014b, ‘Crime Statistics Quality and Methodology Information’

Office for National Statistics, 2014c, ‘Discussion paper on the coverage of crime statistics’

Office for National Statistics, 2014d, ‘Focus on: Property Crime, 2013/14’

Office for National Statistics, 2014e, ‘Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13’

Office for National Statistics, 2014f, ‘Presentational and methodological improvements to National Statistics on the Crime Survey for England and Wales’

Office for National Statistics, 2014g, ‘User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales’

Office for National Statistics, 2014h, ‘What does the Crime Survey for England and Wales cover?‘

Office for National Statistics | 121 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Office for National Statistics, 2014i, ‘Work to extend the Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime’

Public Administration Select Committee, 2013, ‘Crime Statistics, HC760: Evidence heard, Questions 1-135’

Public Administration Select Committee, 2014, ‘Caught red handed: Why we can’t count on police recorded crime statistics’

Sivarajasingam, V., Wells, J.P., Moore, S., Page, N. and Shepherd, J.P., 2014, ‘Violence in England and Wales in 2013: An Accident and Emergency Perspective’

The Guardian, 2014, ‘Rise in female shoplifters linked to benefit cuts, say police’

TNS BMRB, 2013, ‘2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales: Technical Report, Volume One’

UK Cards Association, 2012, ‘Plastic fraud figures’

UK Statistics Authority, 2014a, ‘Assessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics: Statistics on Crime in England and Wales’

UK Statistics Authority, 2014b, ‘Types of official statistics’

Background notes

1. The Crime in England and Wales quarterly releases are produced in partnership with the Home Office who collate and quality assure the police recorded crime data presented in the bulletins. Home Office colleagues also quality assurance the overall content of the bulletin.

2. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.

3. Next quarterly publication - 23rd April 2015

Future thematic report due to be published: Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2013/14 - 12th February 2015

Follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook.

View the latest podcasts here.

Media contact: Tel: Luke Croydon 0845 6041858 Emergency on-call 07867 906553 Email: [email protected]

Office for National Statistics | 122 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Statistical contact: Contact Name: John Flatley Tel: +44 (0)207 592 8695 Email: [email protected]

Website: www.ons.gov.uk

4. Details of the policy governing the release of new data are available by visiting www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/code-of-practice/index.html or from the Media Relations Office email: [email protected]

The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:

• meet identified user needs; • are well explained and readily accessible; • are produced according to sound methods; and • are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.

Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.

Copyright

© Crown copyright 2015

You may use or re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

This document is also available on our website at www.ons.gov.uk.

Statistical contacts

Name Phone Department Email John Flatley +44 (0)2075 928695 Office for National [email protected] Statistics

Office for National Statistics | 123 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September 2014 | 22 January 2015

Next Publication Date: 23 April 2015

Issuing Body: Office for National Statistics

Media Contact Details: Telephone: 0845 604 1858 (8.30am-5.30pm Weekdays)

Emergency out of hours (limited service): 07867 906553

Email: [email protected]

Office for National Statistics | 124 Revisions made to the multipliers and unit costs of crime used in the Integrated Offender Management Value for Money Toolkit

September 2011

1. Introduction Home Office Online Report 30/05 (HOOR 30/05) and Home Office Research Study 217 (HORS 217)1 published estimated unit costs of a range of crime types for 1999/00 and 2003/04 respectively. These estimates are composed of three elements: costs incurred in anticipation of crime (such as security expenditure), as a consequence of crime (such as property stolen and emotional or physical impacts), and in response to crime (costs to the criminal justice system). The reports also calculated multipliers equal to the ratio of the estimated total number of crimes (usually taken from the British Crime Survey) to the number of comparable crimes recorded (by the police). The break-even analysis2 model in the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) Value for Money (VfM) Toolkit requires the use of both unit costs of crime and weights3 based on the multipliers. Adjustments have been made to the published unit costs and multipliers to account for changes in the prices and volumes of total crime over time. They also incorporate a number of methodological improvements. This note explains these adjustments. It should be borne in mind that the amendments outlined here do not represent a comprehensive update of the costs of crime figures. Instead, the revisions should be viewed as a pragmatic attempt to update the estimates in the interim period before a full update of the costs of crime is undertaken.

2. Revisions to the multipliers and unit costs Details of the amendments that were made to the multipliers and the unit costs are set out below. The revised multipliers for 2010/11 and unit costs in 2010 prices can be found in Annex 1 and 2 respectively.

Crimes against individuals and households

Key changes  There have been small changes to the multipliers for all crimes against individuals and households covered by HOOR 30/05 (except sexual

1 HORS 217, published in 2000, presented the first estimates of the cost of crime in England and Wales. HOOR 30/05, published in 2005, then presented the results of the first set of updates to the original figures. These updates, however, only relate to the costs of crime against individuals and households. Please see these documents for a detailed discussion of the methodologies that underpin the estimated unit costs and multipliers. 2 Break-even analysis is a form of economic evaluation that allows an assessment to be made of the additional positive outcomes required to justify the cost of a programme or project. To calculate the „break-even‟ number of additional positive outcomes required (such as fewer crimes), the value of the outcomes and the cost of the programme must be known. 3 Weights are used to apportion additional IOM spend in the breakeven analysis between selected crime types according to the relative total harm it is estimated they cause. Relative total harm is defined as the combination of total volume and unit cost for each crime type considered. As not all crime is recorded, multipliers are required to „gross up‟ from recorded crime to total crime for each crime type.

1 offences). Generally the multipliers have remained relatively stable between 2003/04 and 2010/11.  The adjusted unit costs of crime for all crimes against individuals and households are higher than those reported in HOOR 30/05 reflecting increases in prices and income.

Multipliers The multipliers for crimes against individuals and households presented in HOOR 30/05 were estimated on the comparable subset4 of BCS and recorded crime data for 2003/04. New multipliers for all crimes against individuals and households (sexual offences are excluded: these are dealt with separately below) have been estimated for subsequent years using the same methodology. They are based upon the comparable subset of BCS and police recorded crime data relevant to the year in question.

Unit costs The most recent published unit cost estimates for crime against individuals and households from HOOR 30/05 are presented in 2003 prices. To make the IOM VfM Toolkit more accurately reflects the current costs of crime, the 2003 estimates of the unit costs of crime need to be revised upwards. These estimates have, therefore, been adjusted by uprating all the components of the costs to account for inflation with the exception of „physical and emotional costs‟. The physical and emotional cost components of the estimates were uprated by growth in nominal income per capita. The choice of nominal income per capita reflects evidence that, as average incomes grow, people value the costs of negative health impacts to a greater extent. This is in line with guidance in HM Treasury‟s Green Book. One of the weaknesses of simply adjusting for inflation and income growth is that it does not account for changes in the underlying costs since 2003/04. For example, it would not account for any changes in the average costs of a particular crime arising due to changes in sentencing practices.

Burglary in a building other than a dwelling and selected crimes committed against commercial targets

Key changes  New estimated multipliers for burglary in a building other than a dwelling remained relatively constant over time.  For robbery of business property, non-household criminal damage and commercial vehicle thefts the same multiplier was assumed as for crimes committed against individuals and households.  The estimated unit costs for robbery of business property, burglary in a building other than a dwelling, non-household criminal damage and commercial vehicle theft were all higher than previously published estimates due to increases in price and income.

Multipliers

4 The comparable subset is a group of crimes that are recorded by the police and coded in the BCS in a way similar enough to be able to make comparisons.

2 The most recent published estimates for commercial crime multipliers are from 2000 (HORS 217). In order to update these, a different approach to that for crimes against individuals and households was required because the BCS does not cover commercial crime. HORS 217 was able to draw upon the Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) to estimate the total number of burglaries in a building other than a dwelling (“burglary other”) in 1999/005. The ratio of the multiplier for burglary in a dwelling to the multiplier6 for burglary other was calculated for the year 1999/00. Since updated multipliers for burglary in a dwelling have been calculated for more recent years as part of this exercise, the ratio between the two burglary multipliers in 1999/00 could be used to derive proxy multipliers for burglary other for later years. This was the only practical method available; it does however assume implicitly that the relative recording rates between the two crimes has remained the same since 1999/00. HORS 217 did not generate estimated multipliers for commercial vehicle theft; instead, estimated total levels of victimisation were reported from the CVS for 1999/00. To update figures for the IOM VfM toolkit, it has been assumed that the multipliers for commercial vehicle thefts are the same as for vehicle theft offences against individuals and households. The multipliers for non household criminal damage and robbery of business property are also assumed to be the same as the multipliers for the equivalent personal crimes (as was the case in HORS 217).

Unit costs An adjustment was made to the unit costs for each crime type – robbery of business property, non-household criminal damage and commercial vehicle theft – which assumed that the relative severity between the comparable commercial and the domestic crime types remained constant over time. The ratio of the unit cost of a commercial crime to the unit cost of a domestic crime for comparable crime types was applied to the uprated unit cost of the domestic crime type estimated in HOOR 30/05 in order to derive the revised commercial unit cost in a given year‟s prices. The same approach was followed for burglary other.

Issues A lack of data on commercial crimes means that it has not been possible to produce a more robust update at this time. The adjustments made are, by necessity, based on a number of basic assumptions. In particular, the cost and multiplier ratios used in the adjustments are assumed to be constant over time. Applying the cost adjustment ratios to the costs of crimes against individuals and households from HOOR 30/05 also assumes that the methodological improvements made in that report would have had the same impact on crimes committed against commercial targets.

5 Burglary other is a broad offence category which includes burglary of commercial property but also sheds, garages and holiday camp chalets in some circumstances. See section 30A of the Home Office counting rules for more detail. 6 This was derived in HORS 217 from the assumption that the under-recording rate for burglary not in a dwelling was half that in a dwelling (HORS 217, Table 2.2).

3 Any error in these assumptions will not unduly influence the accuracy of the IOM VfM Toolkit because of the relatively low volume and unit cost of commercial crime. A more robust update of the costs of crimes committed against commercial targets will only be possible when further data become available.

Shoplifting

Key changes  The multiplier for shoplifting offences has been revised down from 100 to 16.1 following the same methodology used in the Drug Harm Index (2005).  Using a new methodology, the ‘value of property stolen’ component of the unit cost of shoplifting was estimated to be £58 per incident (2010 prices), £6 less than the previous estimate (in constant prices).

Multiplier The multiplier for theft from a shop in HORS 217 was an assumption based upon a limited number of self-reported incidents summarised in Farrington (1999). A new multiplier has been estimated using an offender-based methodology based on self-reported shoplifting episodes. The revised methodology is in line with the method used to calculate the cost of shoplifting for use in the Drug Harm Index (2005). The volume of shoplifting incidents is the sum of the number of incidents by arrestees and the number of incidents by non-arrestees. The number of incidents committed by arrestees has been estimated using data from the 2005/06 Arrestee Survey (AS). The number of incidents committed by non- arrestees has been estimated using data from the 2003 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (OCJS). The volume of shoplifting episodes7 has been adjusted to take account of co-offending using an estimated co-offending rate of 1.8 from Farrington (1999). Although this represents the most substantial change reported in this paper, it is believed that the offender based approach used in the Drug Harm Index produces a considerably more robust estimate than the assumption used previously. The revision suggests that a greater proportion of shoplifting incidents is reported than was previously thought.

Unit Cost In HORS 217, each incident of theft from a shop was estimated to cost around £100. This comprised three categories of cost: the cost in anticipation of shoplifting; the cost as a consequence (the average value of stolen goods), and the cost in response. The updated unit cost figure presented here includes the cost in anticipation and in response to shoplifting, but assumes no change in these cost components, except to account for inflation. However a new methodology has been used to update the „value of goods stolen‟ component.

7 Volume of shoplifting incidents = (mean no. of shopliftings per arrestee per year (AS) * no of arrestees) + (mean no. of shopliftings per non arrestee (OCJS)) * (total population – population of arrestees = population estimate of non-arrestees)

4 The victim-based approach of calculating unit cost (as applied in HORS 217) has been replaced by an offender-based approach, following the same approach as described for the multiplier. The new methodology measures the total value of goods stolen during shoplifting by arrestees and non-arrestees – from 2005/06 AS data and 2003 OCJS data respectively. The total value was divided by the number of shoplifting offences to derive an average value of goods stolen. Finally, the average value of property stolen was uprated for inflation and added to the uprated costs in anticipation and in response to crime. This revised methodology does not account for changes in the underlying data used to estimate the costs in anticipation or response to shoplifting (such as changes to the costs resulting from increased security measures, after inflation).

Sexual offences

Key changes  The new multiplier for sexual offences is 13.6. This is higher than the multiplier from HOOR 30/05 (5.2), mainly due to changes in the methodology rather than changes in recording rates.  The unit cost from HOOR 30/05 was amended, resulting in a slightly lower estimate than the original. The change was only minor as the vast majority of the unit cost relates to the physical and emotional costs which did not change.

Multiplier The methodology used to estimate the sexual offences multiplier in HOOR 30/05 has been revised. In HOOR 30/05 the multiplier was based on research by Walby and Allen (2004) which used the 2001 BCS Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) self-completion module to estimate the total number of victims of sexual offences in England and Wales. Under the lower bound assumption that each victim experienced one sexual offence in the previous 12 months, an estimate of the total number of sexual offences was derived which could be compared with recorded crime to generate a multiplier. In order to ensure consistency with other multipliers, the approach adopted for HOOR 30/05 was to then scale the multiplier down in line with the multiplier for violence against the person to reflect changes in recording over time. The availability of new data has allowed two main improvements to be made to this estimate. Firstly, more recent data from the 2008/09 BCS IPV module has been utilised. This revealed that the previous scaling method was imperfect in that trends in violence against the person and in sexual offences differed over time. The availability of up to date data means that this scaling approach is no longer necessary. Secondly, disaggregation of some of the relevant recorded crime offence codes has allowed a more accurate comparable crime group to be used in constructing the multiplier. The new multiplier uses the 2008/09 BCS IPV module to estimate any victims of sexual offences in the last year (excluding those who were only a victim of indecent exposure) and divides this volume

5 by the comparable recorded crime volume (excluding offences against minors).

Unit Cost A number of the components of the unit cost of sexual offences from HOOR 30/05 were estimated using a „top down‟ approach – dividing total cost by the total volume of sexual offences. Since a better estimate for the sexual offences multiplier had become available, based on the improvements described above, it was decided for this update to backdate that multiplier to 2003 – the year to which HOOR 30/05 applied – leading to a better estimate of the total volume of sexual offences in that year. The total costs relating to the relevant components were then divided by the updated volume estimate to determine new component costs. The physical and emotional unit costs, lost output unit costs and the costs to the health service remain unchanged as these costs were estimated using a „bottom up‟ approach, which did not depend on the volume of total crimes. The amended 2003 unit cost was then uprated for inflation or, where appropriate, for changes in nominal GDP per capita.

3. Summary

The revisions detailed here have primarily been used to estimate updated costs of crime unit costs and multipliers for use in the IOM VfM Toolkit, but the updated figures can be used in other contexts. It should, however, be acknowledged that the adjustments, particularly those made to the cost estimates, are generally fairly basic. Most of the adjustments to the cost estimates only reflect changes in prices over time and do not account for changes in the underlying data. Very few revisions to either the unit costs or the multipliers reflect methodological improvements. In the most part, the revisions presented in this note should not be viewed as providing substantive updates of the costs of crime estimates or multipliers. However, given the limitations regarding the availability of suitable data, particularly in relation to non household offences, the revised estimates do present a pragmatic attempt to improve the estimates. It is hoped that, for crimes against individuals and households, a substantive update will be provided in the near future. An update of the costs of crimes committed against commercial targets will only be possible when further data become available.

6 References

Brand et al (2000) „The economic and social costs of crime‟. Home Office Research Study 217. London: Home Office. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.go v.uk/rds/pdfs/hors217.pdf

British Retail Consortium (1999) „Retail Crime Survey 1998‟. London: BRC.

Dubourg et al (2005) „The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/04‟. Home Office Online Report 30/05. London: Home Office. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100413151441/http://www.homeo ffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr3005.pdf

Farrington, D. P. (1999) „Measuring, explaining and preventing shoplifting‟, Security Journal, 12(1), pp 9-27.

HM Treasury (2003) „The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government‟, London: TSO. Available at: http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_index.htm

Home Office „Commercial Victimization Survey (1995) „. London: Home Office.

Home Office counting rules for burglary. With effect from April 2011. Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research- statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count- burglary?view=Binary

Walby, S. and Allen, J. (2004) „Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey.‟ Home Office Research Study 276. London: The Home Office.

7 Annex 1: Multipliers Table A1 below sets out the most recent published multipliers for each crime type covered in the IOM VfM Toolkit, along with details of the adjustments made to each multiplier and the adjusted multiplier.

Table A1: Previously published multipliers and updated multipliers Crime type Previous Adjustment New multiplier multiplier

1 Homicide 1(2003/04)  Same as HOOR 30/05 1 (2010/11) 1 Serious wounding 1.8 (2003/04)  Updated using most recent BCS and recorded crime data 1.5 (2010/11) 1 Other wounding 1.8 (2003/04) 1.5 (2010/11) 1 Sexual offences 5.2 (2003/04)  Cost components that were estimated „top down‟ adjusted to account for amended total volume of offences 13.6 (2008/09)  Uprated physical and emotional cost for changes in nominal GDP per capita  All other components uprated for inflation 1 Common assault 7.7 (2003/04)  Updated using most recent BCS and recorded crime data 7.9 (2010/11)

Robbery – personal1 3.7 (2003/04) 4.8 (2010/11) Burglary in a dwelling1 2.2 (2003/04) 2.8 (2010/11) Theft – not vehicle1 Various (2003/04) Various (2010/11) Theft of vehicle1 1.2 (2003/04) 1.3 (2010/11) Theft from vehicle1 2.8 (2003/04) 3.5 (2010/11) Attempted vehicle theft1 2.2 (2003/04) 2.3 (2010/11) Criminal damage 4.3 (2003/04) 5.9 (2010/11) (personal)1 2 Robbery – commercial 5.8 (1999/00)  Same as personal robbery 4.8 (2010/11) 2 Burglary not in a dwelling 2.1 (1999/00)  Ratio of multiplier for “burglary in a dwelling” to “burglary not in a dwelling” from HORS 217 applied to 1.9 (2010/11) updated “burglary in a dwelling ” multiplier Commercial – theft of N/A  Same as domestic theft of a vehicle 1.3 (2010/11) vehicle2 Commercial – theft from N/A  Same as domestic theft from a vehicle 3.5 (2010/11) vehicle2 Commercial – attempted N/A  Same as domestic attempted vehicle theft 2.3 (2010/11) vehicle theft2 2 Shoplifting 100 (1999/00)  Re-estimated following offender based approach as used for the Drug Harm Index 16.1 (2010/11) Criminal damage 6.3 (1999/00)  Same as domestic criminal damage 5.9 (2010/11) (commercial) 2 Notes: 1. Figures from HOOR 30/05 2. Figures from HORS 217

8 Annex 2: Unit costs Table A2 below sets out the most recent published unit cost for each crime type covered in the IOM VfM Toolkit, along with details of the adjustments made to each cost and the adjusted unit costs.

Table A2: Previously published unit costs and updated unit costs Crime type Previous unit cost Adjustment New unit cost (2010 prices) 1 Homicide £1,458,97(2003 prices)  Uprated physical and emotional cost for changes in nominal GDP per capita £1,774,681 1  All other components uprated for inflation Serious wounding £21,422 (2003 prices) £25,747 Other wounding1 £8,056 (2003 prices) £9,790 1 Sexual offences £31,438 (2003 prices)  Cost components that were estimated „top down‟ adjusted to account for amended total volume of offences £36,952  Uprated physical and emotional cost for changes in nominal GDP per capita  All other components uprated for inflation 1 Common assault £1,440 (2003 prices)  Uprated physical and emotional cost for changes in nominal GDP per capita £1,750  All other components uprated for inflation Robbery – personal1 £7,282 (2003 prices) £8,810 Burglary in a dwelling1 £3,268 (2003 prices) £3,925 Theft – not vehicle1 £634 (2003 prices) £763 Theft of vehicle1 £4,138 (2003 prices) £4,970 Theft from vehicle1 £858 (2003 prices) £1,034 Attempted vehicle theft1 £510 (2003 prices) £617 Criminal damage (personal)1 £866 (2003 prices) £1,053 2 Robbery – commercial £5,000 (1999 prices)  Ratio of costs of “robbery – commercial” to “robbery – personal” from HORS 217 applied to uprated £9,372 “robbery – personal” unit cost 2 Burglary not in a dwelling £2,700 (1999 prices)  Ratio of costs of “burglary in a dwelling” to “burglary not in a dwelling” from HORS 217 applied to uprated £4,608 “burglary in a dwelling ” unit cost Commercial – theft of £9,700 (1999 prices)  Ratio of costs of “domestic theft of vehicle” to “commercial theft of vehicle” from HORS 217 applied to £10,043 vehicle2 uprated “domestic theft of vehicle” unit cost Commercial – theft from £700 (1999 prices)  Ratio of costs of “domestic theft from vehicle” to “commercial theft from vehicle” from HORS 217 applied to £1,248 vehicle2 uprated “domestic theft from vehicle” unit cost Commercial – attempted N/A  Assumed to be the same as the unit cost of “domestic attempted vehicle theft” £617 vehicle theft2 2 Shoplifting £100 (1999 prices)  Value of goods stolen re-estimated using offender based approach £124  All other components uprated for inflation Criminal damage £890 (1999 prices)  Ratio of costs of “criminal damage – commercial” to “criminal damage – personal” from HORS 217 applied £1,838 (commercial) 2 to uprated “criminal damage – personal” unit cost Notes: 1. Figures from HOOR 30/05 2. Figures from HORS 217

9 Provision of Outreach Advocacy and Support Services In Redbridge for Sex Workers

What are the aims of Sex Workers Outreach Project? To make contact with people (men and Women) involved in sex work, who S UMMARY can be a hidden population, and who do not necessarily access mainstream 1 What are the aims of sex specialist services due to a wide range of factors including stigma, worker outreach project? criminalisation, fear of judgemental attitudes and lifestyles.

2 What Is Outreach Deliver a wide range of frontline harm reduction, information, health and 3 Project update other initiatives/services, e.g. addressing violence against sex workers, exiting safely, and raising awareness about legal rights 4 Case Study

Facilitate improvement in health and reduce the risks associated with sex work, and to work with sex workers to achieve this, and provide a referral and support gateway to other services

Identify cases of sexual exploitation of young people, and other forms of

Exploitation, provide appropriate support and make appropriate referrals Outreach is a and interventions significant Prerequisite for What is Outreach? building sustainable

Relationships between The project works in different environments in which outreach takes place, project workers and sex workers detached outreach - streets, in public sex environments (Cruising and Hester and Dogging hotspots) and peripatetic outreach settings we work in - massage Westmarland, 2004 parlours; saunas; clubs; flats; lap dancing bars; and public sex venues.

We also work closely with the police when visiting ‘suspected’ brothels, massage parlours/ saunas ensuring that women we meet are informed of their choices and offered additional support.

There may be regional differences in definitions for settings where sex is sold. For example, in London a sauna and a massage parlour are defined as the same setting, therefore community safety is critical, ensuring joint working with police, and working with the women who have been issued a conditional caution by the police as part of a wider diversionary scheme being piloted in Redbridge.

Page 2 Provision of Outreach Advocacy and Support Services In Redbridge for Sex Workers

Sex worker populations are often mobile and changing, and outreach is very important. How often we outreach has been guided by a range of factors such as the size of the sex work setting we work in, the number of sex workers, the number of different cultural groups in the area and the type of sex work. Sex workers on Ilford Lane fluctuates from 15 (visible head counts) to 5 on any given evening. However, this is based on the shift patterns. We have noticed from 10pm – 2.00am, women working are Eastern European, selective regarding clientele and very well ‘managed’ by the handlers.

We have covered 25 night –time shifts, since project start (April 2015) and given out 380 condoms to women working on the street, 98 femidoms and a selection of ‘hygiene products’. We have engaged 5 women in supportive treatment (continued care planned interventions) exited 2 Women from sex working whom are now re-located out of the Borough and are still receiving support from our team.

There are known hotspots where girls will take men for sex and this intelligence is shared between Community Safety Partnership and the police, to ensure that we are responding appropriately.

We also know from our visits to suspected ‘brothels’ that the same women often work both on premises and the street.

We have worked closely with local Police force to implement new conditions for workers whereby after arrest the workers are given the opportunity to engage with our service instead of attending court. The conditional caution runs for a period of 4 weeks with 4 conditions attached. The conditions are: 1. To not attend Ilford Lane for a period of time 2. Attend an initial assessment with outreach 3. Attend 2 follow up appointments within 2 weeks of initial . 4. Attend a physical and sexual health check before the conditional caution end date

We have had some success with this new pilot scheme and have managed to engage with some workers on caution. These will continue until the end of the contract in December 2015.

Case Study Page 3

Client x is a 33 year old white British female.

She was first identified as a worker on Ilford Lane whilst conducting my outreach duties. Client x agreed to be assessed by our service and an appointment was made for her for the following day.

Client x was assessed and her immediate risks were identified.

Client x was using alcohol heavily to mask any emotions after working and was taking clients home to her Fathers address. Her father knew about this activity and in fact encouraged it as client x was made to pay rent to her Father to stay at the property.

Concerns regarding client x self care, were raised she was extremely underweight and personal hygiene was inadequate.. Client x stated that although she was paying rent to stay at the property she was not allowed to shower or eat there. .

Client x was claiming benefits however they had been suspended and she was not registered with the Housing office.

Client x also suffers from anxiety and depression and taking medication for this. We prioritised her immediate needs and issued food vouchers and personal hygiene items. Made a referral into alcohol services and attended JCP appointment to complete paperwork for ESA reconsideration. We attended the housing office and made an application for temp housing due to vulnerability.

Client x has been placed in refuge out of borough. She is awaiting a decision on her ESA claim and is claiming JSA in the meantime. She has reduced her alcohol units and is no longer sex working. She has gained weight and is taking care of her personal hygiene on a daily basis.

Page 4 Provision of Outreach Advocacy and Support Services In Redbridge for Sex Workers

Findings from an eight week Needs Assessment Conducted with Street Sex Workers in the London Borough of Redbridge

May 2014

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4 Background and purpose of needs assessment ...... 4 Background to Open Doors ...... 5 The national context ……………………………………………………………………………… ...... 6-7 Services available for sex workers in Redbridge ………………………………………………………...7

Profile of street sex workers in Redbridge ...... 8 Demographic details ...... 8 Access to public funds ...... 8-9

Part A: Romanian street sex workers in Redbridge ...... 10 Demographics of Romanian migrants in the UK ...... 11 Differentiating between Roman and non-Roma ...... 11 Current context: Romanian migrants in the UK ...... 12

Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 12

Residency, documentation and recent history of migration …………………………………...... 12-13 Family, Friendships, male partners and cohabitation ……………………………………………....… 14 Sex work activity……………………………………………………………………………………..…14-15 Describing health needs ………………………………………………………………………….…...16-17 Criminal justice and general advocacy …………………………………………………………….. 17-18 Violence and personal safety …………………………………………..…………………………….18-19

Exit routes out of sex work … …………………………………………..…………………………….19-20

Part B: British street sex workers in Redbridge ...... 21 Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………...22

Residency, documentation and links to the borough ……….…………………………………...... 22 Family, Friendships, male partners and cohabitation ……………………………………………...22-23 Sex work activity…………………………………………………………………………….…….……23-24 Describing health needs …………………………………………………………………….…...... 24-25 Criminal justice and general advocacy ………………………………………………………………….25 Violence and personal safety …………………………………………..……………………………..….26

Exit routes out of sex work … …………………………………………..…………………………..……27

Summary of findings ………………………………………………………………………………. 28-29 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………….. 30-31 Glossary of terms ………………………………………………………………………………………...32 Methods ...... 33-34 References ...... 35-36 Appendix i. Needs assessment specification ...... 37-39 Appendix ii. Mapping of services in Redbridge ...... 40-45 Appendix iii. Data collection tool ...... 46-47

3 | P a g e

Introduction

Between the beginning of February and end of April 2013, Open Doors undertook a commission from Redbridge Public Health to carry out an assessment that would quantify and qualify in as much detail as possible the demographics of street sex workers in the borough, their health care and criminal justice support requirements, social care needs and broader engagement with services in Redbridge borough. Information was also to be sought on perceptions and reality of personal safety as well as to try to gain a deeper understanding of the networks that may either support or control the women on the street.

Background and purpose of needs assessment In the initial specification - Appendix i. (Haste 2013) the following rational for the needs assessment (NA) is given.

‘Street prostitution is perceived by local residents to be becoming an increasing problem in particular parts of Redbridge. The murder of a street sex worker in October 2013 suggests that there are major safety issues for workers themselves, and few support services exist for sex workers in the borough. A Strategy to reduce on-street prostitution in Redbridge was developed in 2012 which had 4 strands;

1. Reducing the opportunities for street work through Environmental changes 2. Enforcement activity, 3. Responding to Residents’ concerns 4. Facilitating women’s Exit from prostitution.

Street sex workers are usually a vulnerable and marginalised group with high need for social and health services support, however the characteristics and needs of these women, and the nature of sex work varies from place to place. Limited information on the women and their clients in Redbridge has been derived from data gained during enforcement activity, but more data are needed in order to identify what the needs of this group are. Some types of enforcement activity may have unintended consequences of putting women in greater danger.

Based on the identified needs the consultants are invited to make recommendations about: - How the identified gaps in services might best be filled - What model of service would best fit the needs of this group of women - How the needs of the women and concerns of local residents can best be reconciled - What would be the best way to reduce harm to sex workers from prostitution in the long term’

Background to Open Doors Open Doors is a clinical, case management and outreach service, delivering intensive, client centered support to almost 2000 individuals a year across three east London boroughs, Newham, City & Hackney and Tower Hamlets. It is recognised as the largest and most comprehensive service for sex workers in the UK. The service is designed around social as well as bio-medical models of health need and works with female, male and transgender sex workers providing a multi-disciplinary response to the needs of individuals who sell sex in both street and off street environments. In 2006 Open Doors began working with the street sex workers of Hackney and at the beginning of 2013 the team began delivering a service to street sex workers in Newham. At the beginning of June 2014, the service was awarded the contract to deliver street services in Tower Hamlets.

The Open Doors delivery model is evidence based and works on the principle that unless and until personal chaos, crisis and instability have been addressed and meaningful professional partnerships established (in order to support the complex lives of women involved in street sex work), sex workers are unlikely to ever make the changes necessary in order to move away from the street.

Open Doors integrated delivery model spans both a public health and public protection approach and we have won awards and recognition at a local and national level for our work. Some of the key pieces of work Open Doors have been commended for are as follows:

· The containment and elimination of a syphilis outbreak amongst the Hackney street sex worker cohort in 2006. (BMJ Creighton,Tariq, Perry)

· The containment and elimination an HIV/TB co-infection outbreak amongst the street sex work cohort in Hackney between 2006-2011.

· A joint partnership with Hackney Homelessness services and St Mungo’s developed in 2006 that has seen the virtual eradication of homelessness amongst street sex workers in Hackney and the development of a new hostel for complex needs women in Newham.

· The development and delivery of a court diversion programme for street sex workers in Hackney and the rolling out of a curb crawler rehabilitation course across Hackney, Waltham Forest and Newham. Both initiatives designed to remove the need for costly and time consuming court attendances.

· A Holloway prison re-integration and support pathway for sex workers in order to re- integrate women upon release into treatment and services.

· The development of an Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA) service to Support sex workers in East London who have been victims of sexual violence (Evaluation - Blair 2010)

· The development of the Male Partners Project. An initiative devised to recognise that without equitable support and services and a more nuanced understanding about the men involved in the women’s lives, there would be little likelihood of

5 | P a g e

stabilisation or improved health and social care outcomes for the street sex workers. (Journal of Men’s Health, Collinson, Straub, Perry 2011)

Open Doors data shows that in Hackney almost 100% of the street sex workers supported have been Hackney residents women with long standing Hackney connections whilst in Newham, the data describes a 50/50 split between UK born Newham residents and Romanian street sex workers.

Since 2013 and the beginnings of its service for street sex workers in Newham, Open Doors have provided services for women who work between the boroughs of Redbridge and Newham. Our multi-disciplinary team have met and supported Romanian sex workers in our specialist sexual health clinics, in the local magistrates courts and in Holloway prison.

Although the period of the Redbridge needs assessment was short and the numbers of women interviewed small (only 27 completed interviews in total) it should be recognised that Open Doors has a lengthy and ongoing relationship with and understanding of the needs of the Redbridge cohort and has been offering services and support to women who traverse borough borders for eighteen months. As a result, knowledge and evidence from ongoing work with the cohort has been incorporated into the NA.

The national context ‘Sex workers experience barriers to accessing healthcare. The criminalisation of sex work leaves sex workers distrustful of statutory services, fearful that information about them will be shared with the police or that they will be deported. This means that they often do not report as sex workers to health services’ . (DH 2013)

In the 2009 briefing produced for the Department of Health the United Kingdom Network of Sex Work Projects (UKNSWP) notes; ‘Sex workers sexual and health behaviour varies enormously. For some, involvement in commercial sex entails no risk of morbidity compared to the general population and UKNSWP urges organisations not to reinforce stigmatising stereotypes which increase social exclusion and reduce contact with health services. However, both research and the experience of targeted services shows that many sex workers do have heightened risk in relation to certain aspects of sexual health. Some also experience other vulnerabilities such as violence, rape and sexual assault, homelessness, drug and alcohol problems which may impact on sexual health needs. There is a need for targeted specialist services because sex workers still face barriers to accessing mainstream services’. (Jeal and Salisbury 2013) report ‘All women selling sex share the same core health needs in order to minimise the risks relating to their work. These include reliable contraception to reduce the risks of unplanned pregnancy; condoms and vaccination to reduce the risks of genital and blood borne infection; and protection from violence. However, not all sex workers will have the same general health needs, as these are influenced by the sector in which they work and the country in which they live’.

Studies in the UK and globally demonstrate that female street sex workers experience particularly high levels of work related violence committed by a range of perpetrators, for example, men who present as clients and vigilantes (Barnard, 1993, Hester & Westmorland, 2004, Kinnell, 2008, Shannon et al, 2009). A considerable research literature illustrates the levels and patterns of sex worker victimisation, showing them as more at risk of harassment and violence than the general public, with risks varying across different sectors. Offenders often display repeat and

escalating offending patterns (Kinnell, 2008). The heightened vulnerability of sex workers, particularly street based, to murder has been illustrated (Lowman and Fraser, 2006; Salfati et al, 2008).

(Campbell 2014) in her research with sex workers and police in Merseyside, reflects that central to the problematic relationship between sex workers and police in the UK is the fact that for sex workers the institution that can protect them, is also responsible for enforcing laws against them, (Campbell, 2011). The quasi-criminalisation of sex work sets up an adversarial relationship between sex workers and the police (Lowman, 2000).

Research on the regulation of sex work highlights how police enforcement of laws criminalising many activities associated with sex work perpetuate sex worker victimisation and have detrimental impacts on safety by; exacerbating risks, preventing safer working, alienating sex workers from potentially protective policing. (Self, 2003, Brooks-Gordon, 2006; Hubbard, 2006; Kinnell, 2008). Research has found that incidents of violent and other crime committed against sex workers are seriously under reported to police (McKeganey Barnard, 1995; Barnard, 1993; Kinnell, 1993, Campbell, 2002, Church et al 2001, Campbell and Kinnell 2001, Boff, 2012). A range of reasons have been identified for this underreporting with the poor relationship between sex workers and the police and a lack of trust in the police being a theme and a general fear that sex workers will not get a sympathetic reaction from the police (Dodds, 2002, Kinnell, 2006),

Some of these factors are heightened for migrant sex workers who may have a greater mistrust and fear of the police and statutory authorities, having had poor experiences of the police in home countries and there are additional barriers. For example ‘Those who are undocumented or have irregular legal status may fear deportation and be very reluctant to contact the police (Mai, 2009). Wilcock (1998) noted in her study of sex workers that there was a “strong sense of “what’s the point” in making reports to police whilst the recent review of literature published by UCL Social Exclusion Unit devotes a section on criminalisation and stigma and policies that neglect the complex needs of sex workers, increasing the likelihood of violence, poor health, addiction and an inability to escape their situation.

In local authorities where street sex work is recognised to be a problem, an effective borough strategy is one that will propose solutions to the challenges faced both by local communities who oppose prostitution in their area as well as for the sex worker population faced with complex social exclusion issues.

‘Communities will expect the police to enforce the law, but it is important that the way in which this is done takes account of the need for support for those involved in prostitution and that policing is sensitive to this balance’ (Home Office 2011).

It is entirely possible and very desirable for police to work in partnership with local services. An effective partnership approach means that:  The police can call upon services to explain to local community groups the macro and micro issues relating to street prostitution and to describe what meaningful solutions are on offer to the women.  Street sex workers unable to speak out on their own behalf, will have a professional interlocutor both to mediate between residents and the police.  Where there are concerns around the behavior and/or vulnerabilities of individual women, strategies can be developed in order to ensure that meaningful safeguarding actions are taken. 7 | P a g e

Current Services available for sex workers in Redbridge Prior to the start of the NA field work, borough services were contacted and information sought in order to map the services that sex workers would be likely to use. Full details from this mapping exercise can be found in Appendix ii.

The mapping exercise identified nineteen services providing a comprehensive range of voluntary and statutory support throughout the borough. All of these services could in principle be accessed by street sex workers. In terms of overall provision there does not appear to be any gaps. However the question is not so much whether provision exists, but rather, what are the measures that each service has in place to become accessible to sex workers with complex needs?

None of the services describe a specific case management approach for complex needs street sex workers. As with most specialist services throughout the UK, they provide generic support around a specific issue (i.e. drug use, homelessness, domestic violence) without consideration of the additional burden of stigma and challenges faced by sex workers.

Redbridge Street Pastors is the only service targeting work specifically towards the needs of street sex workers by offering ‘holistic support’. However, the organisation does not deliver comprehensive, complex case management and is also focused on supporting sex workers to exit sex work. This limits provision to women interested only in cessation of sex work activity rather than assisting them to manage and minimize harm if so required. The service is also staffed by volunteers rather than paid professionals, which again presents constraints around the complexities that can be responded to.

Profile of street sex workers in Redbridge

Street Sex Workers in LBR Demographic Details

• Total number of unique individuals met whilst conducting NA: 31 • Aggregate number of interactions with Street Sex Workers: 121 • Number of Outreach Sessions delivered over the eight week NA period: 29 • Of 31 unique individuals 21 are Romanian, 9 are British, 1 is Lithuanian, • Of 21 Romanian Street Sex Workers, 2 are of Roma Ethnicity. • Of the 9 British Street Sex Workers, 4 are white, 2 are Black British 2 identify as mixed heritage. • Mean age of Romanian Street Sex Workers: 24.5 years old • The age range among Romanian Street Sex Workers ranges from 19 to 35 years of age • Mean age of British Street Sex Workers: 32 years old • The age range among British Street Sex Workers is from 26 to 44 years of age • Of 31 unique/individual clients, all were met on outreach and questionnaires were begun with them in a street setting. Three interviews were started on outreach and completed by telephone and four questionnaires were started and not completed.

Access to public funds

Of the 31 street sex workers who took part in this NA, 21 were Romanian migrants. As of 1st January 2014, A2 nationals (Romanians and Bulgarians) are able to exercise the right to reside as a worker or jobseeker in the UK in the same way as any other citizen from the EEA (European Economic Area). This means that they can reside in the UK as a jobseeker for no longer than six months (unless they provide compelling evidence that they are seeking work and have a genuine chance of becoming engaged in employment). During that six-month period they are entitled to claim Job Seekers Allowance if they have been resident for at least three months. A2 Nationals are entitled to access all NHS services.

For the purpose of this NA, The Romanian cohort are described as having partial access to public funds as their status and entitlement maybe adversely affected if they do not make active attempts to seek legitimate employment and additionally if they fail to exercise their treaty rights by falling foul of the criminal justice system.

Nine respondents were born in the UK and had full recourse to public funds.

One respondent was Lithuanian and determined to be of irregular migrant status as she told us that she had lived in the UK for ten years and had a long-term partner and children (not living with them). However, due to several criminal convictions her documents were with the Home Office awaiting a decision on her UK residency.

9 | P a g e

The report is divided into two sections. Part A deals with findings for the Romanian cohort and Part B deals with findings from the UK born cohort.

Part A

Romanian Street Sex Workers in Redbridge

11 | P a g e

Demographics of Romanian migrants in the UK

The 2012 report by The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that 289,000 Romanians entered the UK in 2010, of which 24,600 were students. It is impossible to identify how many of these Romanian citizens are also Roma because this data is not collected. The Department for Work and Pensions indicate that from the total number of permanent immigrants that migrated to the UK in 2011 only a small number (12,814) of Romanian migrants were employed or self-employed, and a very small proportion (1,582) were working within qualified positions, i.e. business, financial services or in receipt of vocational training, work experience, and student internships. This disparity between the actual number of Romanians and the small proportion that are on legal work permits is a major issue for the Romanian community in London.

According to the Office for National Statistics, in December 2011, 94,000 people declared themselves as Romanians resident in the UK, yet for only for 68,000 of these Romanian is the first language spoken in their household. As shown by the 2011 Census, the largest contingent of Romanian people living in London is concentrated in the following London boroughs:

Barking & Dagenham 1,265

Barnet 4,475 Brent 6,182 Ealing 1,028 Enfield 1,698 Haringey 2,374 Harrow 4,784 Newham 4,816 Redbridge 1,825 Waltham Forest 4,291

Romanians: differentiating between Roma and non-Roma It is estimated that there are two million people living in Romania of Roma ethnicity. However, the numbers of Roma in Europe and Asia Minor are estimated to be between four to nine million, and even as high as fourteen million. Roma groups across Europe are not all the same in terms of sense of commonness, autonomy, language and nomadic tradition. There is not one shared Romani language but up to five main dialects. There are still some, small nomadic communities of Roma in Europe. However, Romanian citizens (both of non-Roma and Roma ethnicity) speak the same official language and have the same legal entitlements as all A2 nationals in Europe.

Current context: Romanian migrants in the UK In January 2007 Romania joined the European Union (EU), but without full membership. Temporary work restrictions applied against A2 nationals until January 2014. Under EU legislation, Romanians have the same rights as all other EU (including UK) citizens.

Findings

Twenty-one individual Romanian women began the NA questionnaire but only 17 completed the majority of the questions. Where answers were not given to questions, this will be referred to in the text of the relevant findings section. Four women began the questionnaire but terminated the interviews early as they were concerned about attracting the attention of passing police. They gave their names, dates of birth and contact telephone number (in order for the team to complete the questionnaire over the telephone). Although several attempts were made over the following week it was not possible to contact them to complete the questionnaire. Therefore the total number of completed questionnaires considered eligible for analysis is 17.

Residency, documentation and recent history of migration

Place of residence in the UK · A total of 13 women said that they currently live in Redbridge. · One woman said that she currently lives in Newham · One woman said that she currently lives in Milton Keynes. · One woman said that she currently lives in Barking. · One woman refused to disclose where she lives.

Length of time in UK · Four women said that they had been in the UK for less than one month (however two of these women told us that they had previously been living in the UK in 2013 for between 6-12 months). · Seven women told us that they had been in the UK for between one and six months. · Three women told us that they had been in the UK for between six to twelve months · Three women told us that they had been in the UK for over 12 months

Place of residency before coming to UK · Eleven women told us that they had been living in Romania prior to coming to the UK. · Two women told us that they had been living in Spain prior to coming to the UK. · Two women told us that they had been living in Italy prior to coming to the UK. · Two women told us that they had been living in Germany prior to coming to the UK.

Additionally, two of the seventeen respondents mentioned that they had also lived and worked in Austria and France prior to coming to the UK. All of the respondents except one said that they had been sex working prior to coming to the UK.

Documentation · All seventeen women who completed the questionnaire told us that they had their passports/travel documentation safe and in their own possession.

13 | P a g e

Observations · The two months before the NA (December 2013 and January 2014) saw an exodus of Romanian street sex workers away from Redbridge and Newham. Most describe ‘going home’ to their family for the Christmas period and others describe the Murder of the Romanian sex worker in October 2013 as a catalyst for leaving the UK as they did not feel safe. · Although the majority of the women told us that they currently live in London or greater London, several conversations took place indicating that women were quite likely to move to other major UK conurbations including Manchester, Birmingham and Luton during the course of their time in the UK. · Informal conversations with the women indicate that they move between neighboring London boroughs both to sell sex and for accommodation. · Most women indicated that they would stay in the UK for between 3-12 months and then move on to other European destinations. · Women described going home to visit family in Romania on a regular basis (notably for Easter and Christmas) or if there were problems at home that needed their attention. · The Open Doors team met at least five women who had been in the UK during the summer and early winter of 2013 but who said that after the murder of Mariana Popa in October, they were too frightened to stay and so left for another country. · Women described traveling around the UK and Europe with ease and of their own volition. However general conversations over the course of the NA alluded to their accepted frustration that until they had become familiar with the way a country worked they were always susceptible to ‘the skim’ (the practice by which individuals introduced them to accommodation, transportation, work environments but always took a commission for doing so). · On several occasions during the NA police were observed carrying out immigration interviews with the women. At the end of the police questionnaire women were handed a Home Office document that said “We aim to administratively remove you from UK”. The police then told the women that the Home Office wanted to make sure that the women were safe and that they (the police) were targeting the men who were exploiting them. These messages were confusing for the women.

Family, friendships, male partners and cohabitation arrangements

Numbers and whereabouts of children · Eleven out of seventeen women told us they had children. · Family sizes ranged from one to three children and all the women reported that their children lived at home in Romania with family members. · They also reported that the money they earned from selling sex was sent home to their children and families.

Cohabitation in current place of residency · Fourteen women told us that they shared accommodation with friends who were all other Romanians. · Three women told us that they lived alone. · One woman who described living with friends also described co-habiting with a long term male partner.

Male partners · Only one Romanian woman disclosed that she was living with her male partner and had been for three years. · A few of the women discussed male partners in general (boyfriends, husbands) but were very reticent to give much information about them. In general conversation they commented on their partners either being back in Romania or coming and going from the UK. · Two women commented that their boyfriends did not know that they were selling sex. Three women disclosed that they had partners who have been violent towards them.

Observations · The women are very clear that the reason they are selling sex is because they face family and financial pressure in Romania and that the expectation is that they will send home money to support children, build houses and generally contribute to the financial security of extended family. · Many of the women tell us that they come from a city called Bacau, a place historically known for its poverty and lack of work opportunity.

Sex work activity

Sex work and financial autonomy · All seventeen women said that they sell sex between 5-7 nights per week. · During outreach sessions the Open Doors team observed women working in small groups, nevertheless, all but one woman said that they worked alone and by this we understood that they worked autonomously and did not give the money they earned to anyone else, other than to send money home to family in Romania. The woman who said that she worked with another woman to whom she gave a small amount of her earnings did not say why this was the case. · One woman told us that she had given money to other people (not family) in the past but that this was not the case now.

15 | P a g e

Men who buy sex in LBR · When asked about ethnicity and age of the men who buy sex from street sex workers in LBR, the general consensus was that men from all cultural and nationality backgrounds are customers and that their age varies from late teens to 70’s. · The most frequent mode of curb crawling takes place by men in vehicles however it is not uncommon for customers to be on foot and approach women to buy sex. · The women describe varying modes of customer behavior; o Eleven of the women describe having a number of regular ‘telephone’ customers. These are men who telephone them and make arrangements to meet and buy sex. o Additionally, nine women describe having regular customers who come to meet them on foot or in their vehicle. o Eight describe their customers as ‘one offs’.

Observations · The Open Doors team witnessed on several occasions what appeared to be arguing and intimidation between groups of Romanian sex workers. When questioned about what was going on, some of the women described a situation in which they worked in ‘cliques’ and that it was possible to fall in and out of favour with these cliques. If a woman were to fall out with a group then she could be ostracised and find it difficult to work in a particular area as they would intimidate her to leave. · It was also observed that groups of (believed to be) Roma men and possibly the boyfriends of some of the women were involved in bullying and coercion of money or resources from some of the women. When asked about this situation, one of the older women described it as being something that a number of the younger women tended to get drawn into as they competed for boyfriends who in turn behaved as though they were ‘little gangsters’. The older women who described the situation always ‘othered’ their descriptions and derided the younger women for being so foolish. However they also talked about how the younger women ‘would learn’ indicating that they too had experienced similar relationship dynamics that they were now wise to. · The women generally describe older customers (men in their 40’s onwards) to be straightforward in their approach and manner whilst younger men (20’s to 30’s) were characterised as causing a lot of problems for the women. When asked what these problems were they ranged from; o Having sex and then refusing to pay for the service o Being verbally aggressive o Being violent o Groups of men approaching the women and being intimidating when trying to buy sex · The Open Doors team observed women being approached by groups of men in vehicles (between 2-4 individuals) and negotiating to go with them to have sex. Sometimes the women would go in pairs and sometimes alone. In conversations at a later date, the women would acknowledge that this was dangerous but described feeling that they had little choice as they needed to make money quickly and had to take opportunities to do so whenever they presented themselves. · Conversely women also described going in pairs with more than one man in order to make sure that the colleague who was ‘doing business’ had protection or oversight from another woman in case anything went wrong.

Describing health needs amongst the Romanian cohort

Drug and alcohol use · The use of drugs and alcohol amongst the Romanian cohort is low. Whilst 14 women were clearly disdainful of the idea of drug use and commented as much, three women in total reported using drugs, 2 recreationally (cocaine and LSD) and one problematically (heroin). · The Romanian woman who had told us that she lived with her partner and had been in the UK for three years is currently accessing a methadone prescription.

GP registration · Eleven out of seventeen women are not registered with a GP. The four women who have been in the UK for less than one month have yet to register which is not unsurprising given that they are new migrants and are yet to understand the public health systems here. However the remaining seven women who have been in the UK between 6 and 18 months have not registered saying that they do not consider it worth doing and that they are unlikely to need the service. · Six out of seventeen women are registered with a GP.

Mental health · When asked whether they felt in need of mental health support and services none of the seventeen Romanian women said that they needed or would use such a service.

Access to sexual health services · Twelve women said that they have regular access to sexual health services.

· Whilst five women said that they did not have easy access and had not used a sexual health clinic recently.

· Two women described using clinics in other parts of North London. This is not unusual as migrant individuals often find it onerous to register at new GP practices when they move and so prefer to continue to use services they are familiar with. Additionally they may have found a service that they feel meets their needs in North London and prefer to remain a patient there.

Access to condoms · Access to condoms for most women was not a problem with fourteen women telling us that they regularly received condoms from outreach services (Open Doors were mentioned as a source). Three women also told us that they buy additional condoms. Three women said that they had problems accessing condoms easily and that until that night (all had been in the UK for less than a month) did not know that they could get free condoms from outreach services.

Contraception · Contraception (other than condom use) is not popular amongst the Romanian cohort. Fourteen women told us that they had no need for additional contraception whilst three women said that they did use additional methods such as the contraceptive pill.

17 | P a g e

Observations · The Romanian women interviewed were disdainful of drugs and drug users describing drugs as ‘a waste of money’. The woman who told us that she used cocaine with clients sometimes when she went to hotels said that this happened in a work context only and that she did not enjoy the use. · The Romanian women appeared motivated to look after their health and were keen to talk to us about appointments for our specialist clinics as well as tell us about the services they already use. · All took condoms from us although we witnessed (and were told) that women hide the condoms in places on the street as if the police catch them they are used as evidence of prostitution.

Criminal Justice and general advocacy

Currently engaging with legal support (this could be legal advocacy, sex worker service support and advocacy around legal issues or citizens rights advocacy) · Thirteen women said that they were not currently engaged with any type of legal or criminal justice advocacy support. · Four women said that they were currently being supported (either by Open Doors or other citizen’s rights advocacy services) around criminal charges for soliciting.

Ever involved with the criminal justice system in the UK? • Twelve women said that they had not had any involvement with the criminal justice system in the UK whilst five said that they had been arrested and charged for soliciting offences.

Sex worker support services • Eight women said that they had engaged with and received support from Open Doors. • Three women said that they had engaged with and received support from other sex worker services but did not say which ones. • Five women said that they had not engaged with any sex worker services. • One woman said that she had not known until the evening that she engaged with Open Doors that sex worker support services existed.

Observations · During the eight week needs assessment the Open Doors team were told every night, by women they met, that Romanian street sex workers had been arrested on or around Ilford lane and charged with soliciting by the police. At the time of writing this report, Open Doors is awaiting confirmation of actual numbers from Barking and Thames courts that will help us corroborate numbers of Romanian women arrested in Redbridge. · Further interrogation of needs assessment data plus a review of case notes reflects that a group of between 6-8 of the same women are being arrested by police. · The Open Doors criminal justice data over the past 12 months reflects a disproportionate arrest and conviction rate of Romanian street sex workers compared to their UK counterparts. · Women who told us that they were not ‘currently’ or ‘yet’ involved in the criminal justice system are very aware of the risk of being arrested and sent to the local magistrates courts. As a result they modify their behaviour. Prior to the start of the NA, Open

Doors staff had witnessed women running away from the police and hiding behind walls of local residential properties in order to avoid arrest. · When Romanian women are sent to the local magistrates courts they are usually fined and released. Open Doors staff have been in the court when magistrates have said that this is their only option as due to the fact that the women do not speak English they are unable to sentence them to probation or community orders. The fines (usually between £150 and £260 mean that they women tell us that they their only option is to go straight back out onto the street to earn money to pay the fine. · One woman described to the NA team that she had been unable to return to Romania as she had so many fines to pay that she was unable to afford to leave the UK. · Police enforcement activity prior to and during the NA was high. None of the officers that the OD team spoke to were aware of the public health needs assessment.

Violence and personal safety

Experience of violence from customers · Women were asked about their experiences of violence and personal safety in general. · Thirteen women said that they had experienced violence from men who had bought sex from them. · Four said that they had never experienced violence from customers.

Experience of violence from strangers · Fourteen women said that they had not experienced violence from strangers. · Two women commented that they had been beaten by Redbridge residents on numerous occasions. · Four women said that food had been thrown at them by Redbridge residents.

Experience of violence from partners · Sixteen women said that they had never experienced intimate partner violence IPV. · One woman said that she had experienced IPV but her partner had been deported from the UK and she was no longer in a DV situation.

Frequency and types of violence · Thirteen women out of seventeen said that they had experienced violence from men who had purchased sex from them. The violence ranged from being punched and having money taken back from them, being raped and being beaten with implements. · Three women told us that they had experienced violence from local residents on ‘numerous’ occasions which included being beaten and having things thrown at them from moving vehicles. · One of these women described almost nightly attacks from a local resident who she described as ‘always being drunk’. · Three quarters of the Romanian women interviewed told us that they had been victims of violence ranging in frequency from ‘every night’, ‘at least once a week’ and ‘at least once a month’. · These findings are commensurate with national and international data cited at the beginning this report that demonstrate that ‘female street sex workers experience particularly high levels of work related violence committed by a range of perpetrators, for example, men who present as clients and vigilantes whether the violence comes from men buying sex, or local residents. (Barnard, 1993, Hester & Westmorland, 2004, Kinnell, 2008, Shannon et al, 2009). · One women described Friday nights as being particularly bad for violent incidents against Romanian sex workers. 19 | P a g e

Reporting violence to the police · Three women said that it was straightforward to report violence against them to the police. · Fourteen women said that they would not report crimes that took place against them and seven women gave details as to why they would be reluctant to report to the police. Their reasons all related to poor experiences in the past when trying to report to the police, both in Redbridge and elsewhere.

Outcomes when police reports have been made · Only one woman of the three who had reported said that there had been a criminal justice outcome for her.

Other threats to safety · One woman said that it was possible to be forced to give money earned from selling sex. · Two women mentioned local vigilantes as a threat to safety.

Observations · During the NA the team were told on five separate occasions about situations where they had tried to report attacks and abuse against them to police in Redbridge but their concerns had been dismissed.

Exit routes out of sex work

Offers of other employment and opportunities to earn income · Fourteen women responded that they had not had any other opportunities to earn money other than sex work since they came to the UK. · Four women said that they would not do another job as the money could never be comparable to their earnings from sex work. · One woman described having promises of other work made to her but she was never successful in getting those jobs. · One woman said that if there were opportunities for other work she would take it and not be involved in prostitution, however she did not believe that there were these opportunities. · One woman has also worked in a restaurant but the money was very poor. · Sixteen women said that they would not know where to begin to look for mainstream employment in the UK.

Language barriers · Eleven women said that not speaking English confidently was a barrier to them looking for other types of work. · Three women said that they spoke English confidently so this would not present a barrier.

Language and vocational training opportunities · Twelve women said that if language classes were available to them at the right time then they would consider attending. · Vocational training options were popular amongst 8 respondents. · Eight women said that they would not be interested in vocational training · One woman said that she may be interested in vocational training.

Do you know where to look for other work? · Thirteen women said that they did not know where to look for other work in the UK. · Four women said that they knew the procedures for finding work in the UK.

What prevents you from looking for other work? · Nine women mentioned the language barrier as a preventative factor for them finding alternative work in the UK. · Thirteen women said that they would not be able to earn a decent amount of money in any other job and because they needed to send money home to family this is why they continued to sell sex. · Four women said that they did not know where to look. · Four women said that they wanted to get a national insurance number and to start to make themselves more legitimate in the UK. · Two women said that they did not feel confident traveling around the city to look for jobs by themselves.

Observations Romanian sex workers face barriers to leaving sex work in the UK in order to seek other employment. These barriers are;

· Lack of knowledge of the English language and English employment systems. · Poor remuneration in any other type of work. · Not yet having registered for NI numbers. · Poor transferable employment skills. · The fact that they are transitory. · The fact that they have previous criminal convictions that limit the type of employment they will be eligible for in the UK.

21 | P a g e

Part B

British Street Sex Workers in Redbridge

Findings Nine individual UK born women completed the questionnaire as well as one woman who was born in Lithuania but has been living in the UK for a decade, has a partner and children here and avails herself of UK health and social care services. Five interviews were completed during outreach and 5 started on outreach and completed by telephone or face-to-face. For the purposes of analysis (as the UK women and the Lithuanian woman share similar lifestyle, health and social exclusion issues) analysis of these respondents will be grouped together.

Residency, documentation and links to the borough Place of residence in London · Four women describe their borough of residence as Redbridge. · Five women describe Newham as their borough of residence. · One woman described her borough of residence as Barking.

Length of time in UK · Eight women were born in the UK. · One woman was born in Lithuania · One woman was born in West Africa and adopted by British parents who failed to complete her citizenship registration. This leaves her with irregular status, and Open Doors continues to work with her in order to enable her to access health and social care services plus benefits.

Observations · There are very few UK born street sex workers visibly selling sex in Redbridge. · The woman met by the Open Doors team worked on the border of Ilford Lane and Newham (the large intersecting roundabout by the bus stop). · Half of this cohort were already known to Open Doors services in Newham. · UK born sex workers do not appear to work in close proximity to the Romanian sex workers.

Family, friendships, male partners and cohabitation arrangements

Numbers and whereabouts of children · Four women do not have children. · Two women have one child · Two women have two children · One woman has three children · One woman has six children

· All of the women with children have had their children removed following care proceedings. These children are reported to be under various different fostering, adoption and special guardianship arrangements.

23 | P a g e

Cohabitation in current place of residency · None of the women describe having their own tenancy or secure place of residence. · Two women describe living temporarily with ‘punters’ · One woman describes sleeping during the day time at her ex-partners house although she has to leave when he returns from work at the end of the day. · Three women describe sofa surfing with friends. · Two women describe recently leaving hostel accommodation elsewhere in the UK (one was a refuge and the other a drug and alcohol half way house after prison release) before returning to East London where they are now homeless. · Two women describe being street homeless in Redbridge (one of these women presented with extreme safeguarding risks due to mental health and recent sexual violence and has now been housed in Hackney as at the time of the NA there were no Redbridge services that could meet her immediate needs.

Male partners · None of the women described the men in their lives as long-term current partners. · One was described as ‘an ex who won’t leave me alone’ · One was described as a ‘new’ partner · One was described as an ex-partner who lets me stay at his place. · Eight out of the ten women described ex partners as being perpetrators of DV.

Observations · The UK street sex workers appear to be very isolated in their chaos. All women with children have had them removed and suffer the sadness and trauma that this entails. None appear to have strong contact with family members. · Prevalence of DV amongst the cohort is high.

Sex work activity

Sex work and financial autonomy · All of the UK sex workers describe working to get money to pay for drugs between 5-7 nights per week. · All of the women say that they keep their own money but spend most of it on drugs. · All of the women say that they work alone. · One of the woman said that she had given money she earned from sex working to a man in the past. · One of the women said that she had recently been told by an Eastern European man that she would have to pay him if she wanted to work on a corner. She told him to get lost.

Men who buy sex in LBR · The UK women describe their customers as local men from across the range of ethnicities and nationalities. · Customers were described as being ‘older’ in their late 30’s to 80’s. · Kerb crawling in vehicles and meeting regulars were described as the most common modes of picking up customers.

Observations · There is no animosity between the UK born street sex workers and the Romanian women, however there is a distrust of the Romanian male associates and a general feeling that they are opportunists who will attempt to make money from the women if they can. · The women describe working between Newham and Redbridge depending on the enforcement situation in each borough.

Describing health needs

Drug and alcohol use · All of the women describe having addictions to both crack and heroin. · Alcohol was not mentioned by any of the women as being problematic for them. · Seven women report smoking both crack and heroin. · Three women report injecting heroin and smoking crack. · The amount of money spent on their drug use varies from between £150 and £350 per day. · Four women already working with Open Doors in Newham are currently prescribed for by SSMT in the borough. · One woman from Redbridge said that she was engaged with Redbridge Drug and Alcohol service RDAS.

GP registration · Six women said that they are registered with a GP. · Four women said that they are not registered with a GP.

Mental health · Three out of the ten women say that they have been engaged with mental health services ranging from acute to community based. · One woman said that she had been desperate for mental health support but had not been able to access it. · One woman met during the NA had a long and complex history of contact with services in Redbridge. She engaged with our team as she had been the victim of a serious sexual assault. Attempts to advocate for her to access support services in Redbrige did not yield results as she had a history of failed tenancy and checkered engagement with mental health services across several boroughs. The decision was taken to cease advocacy in Redbridge and move her to Hackney where she was able to access supported accommodation and specialist sexual violence services.

Access to sexual health services · Access to sexual health services amongst the cohort was low. Seven of the ten women said that they did not regularly utilise GU clinics. · Three women said that they used GP or drug services for sexual health screening.

Access to condoms Access to condoms appeared to be good with women citing drug services, Open Doors and local pharmacies as sources for obtaining condoms.

Contraception · Seven women said that condoms were their only means of contraception. · One woman said that she had been sterilised. 25 | P a g e

· Two women said that they used LARC methods (implant and IUD)

Observations · The general health of the UK street cohort is poor. Respondents appeared underweight and neglected and looked very unhealthy in comparison to the Romanian women. · This cohort fit the general profile of most UK born street sex workers, experiencing high levels of drug and alcohol use, poor mental health and personal chaos. · All of the women described feeling low and depressed but only three experienced such acute mental health problems that they sought treatment. · One woman was experiencing such acute and complex needs that the OD team felt it imperative to case manage her into services out of the borough as her needs were unmet in Redbridge. The fact that she was victim of a serious sexual assault gave us the ability to refer her into Hackney where she is receiving ongoing support. · Other than self-reported condom use, contraceptive use is low.

Criminal Justice and general advocacy

Currently or ever engaged with legal support (this could be legal advocacy, sex worker service support and advocacy around legal issues or citizens rights advocacy) · None of the UK cohort were currently involved in the criminal justice system or needed support and advocacy around criminal or legal issues. · Seven of the ten women had a history of criminal justice engagement, ranging from prison sentences to court fines to cautions. Information about crimes committed was not sought. · Two of the women had met the Open Doors criminal justice worker when they were in Holloway prison.

Sex worker support services · All of the women who described themselves as Newham residents said that they had been working with Open Doors. · None of the Redbridge residents had come into contact with specific sex worker support services.

Observations · None of the women had felt able to source proactive advocacy and support around their legal issues, waiting instead until they were in court and offered a duty solicitor or in prison and offered legal advice or had met Open Doors and been offered advocacy support. · Redbridge UK street sex workers had not come into contact with specific sex worker support organisations.

Violence and personal safety

Experience of violence from customers · Eight of the ten women said that they had experienced violence from customers.

Experience of violence from strangers · Six of the ten women said that they had experienced violence from strangers

Experience of violence from partners · Eight of the ten women said that they had experienced historic domestic violence from male partners.

Frequency of violence · All ten women described experiencing violence of some form, either from strangers partners or punters. · One woman described experiencing violence daily (she did not say who the perpetrator was). · Three women said that they felt that they had been ‘lucky’ as they had experienced relatively little violence in the course of their work and personal life although this was contradicted somewhat as they did describe violence from strangers/punters at work that had taken place with one of the women described her experience of violence several times per year. · Eight women described experiencing violence that was regular, often monthly or several times a year.

Reporting violence to the police · Only one woman had reported being the victim of an assault to the police and was very satisfied with the way that she had been treated and with the criminal justice outcome. · The remaining 9 women said that they would not report violence against them to the police for numerous reasons relating to lack of trust of the police, feeling that they were drug users and so would not be taken seriously by the police and not wanting to be seen by others as ‘a grass’.

Observations · The frequency of violence from customers and strangers appears to be less than experienced by the Romanian cohort. The UK women emanate a tougher, more street savvy persona and are older in years than the Romanians. It may be that perpetrators feel less able to get away with violence and assault against the UK born women. · UK women do not report vigilante or community attacks against them. · However, the experience of violence is still high amongst the cohort.

27 | P a g e

Exit routes out of sex work

Offers of other employment · Eight of the ten women said that they had never had any other opportunities for employment. · Two of the women described undertaking minimum wage or cash in hand jobs in the past as cleaners or working in a café.

Do you have any other income? · Four women said that they were in receipt of benefits as an additional source of income. · Six women said that sex work was their only source of income.

Would other courses help you? · All of the women said that they thought that vocational and educational training courses would help them. · All said that their current (drug using and homelessness) circumstances would preclude them from taking up training or education at this point.

Do you know where to look for other work? · Three of the ten women said that they would know where to look for alternative work. · Seven women said that they would not know where to begin to look for alternative work.

What prevents you from looking for other work? · All of the women said that their drug use and homelessness prevented them from being stable enough to look for work at this point. · One woman described her mental health problems as being a barrier to employment and training. · One woman described her criminal record as being a barrier to further employment.

Observations · Personal chaos and instability makes it extremely difficult for the UK cohort who are working in and around Redbridge to take meaningful steps to move away from sex work as a means to support their drug habit. · The woman supported by Open Doors to leave the borough has stabilized considerably in the short time she has been out of the borough.

Summary of findings

• The eight-week NA process yielded fewer numbers of street sex workers (both UK and Romanian) than expected. A similar exercise conducted in the neighboring borough of Newham one year before found 102 sex street sex workers, although the Newham NA model used was action research based, therefore encouraging word of mouth uptake of services and intensive engagement. Also the length of time for the Newham NA was three months in total.

• One of the reasons for low numbers of sex workers in Redbridge is likely to be due to the amount of police enforcement that has been ongoing in the borough since the late autumn as well as the fact that many Romanian women had returned home to Romania for Christmas and were only just beginning to come back to the UK by late February 2014.

• The low numbers of UK street sex workers in Redbridge was surprising as the borough has relatively high levels of social exclusion. The NA was not able to examine in any detail the question of where homeless women with substance misuse problems might go if they are not as immediately visible as they are in neighboring boroughs.

• All of the UK born women interviewed described having drug and alcohol problems. Not all of these women were Redbridge residents (six were women who worked between Newham and Redbridge) however four women described themselves as having local borough connections. These women fit the ‘usual’ profile of UK born street sex workers (i.e. with complex drug, alcohol, homelessness and mental health needs) and there is no evidence from the NA to suggest that the barriers to stabilisation and recovery they face are different to anywhere else in the UK.

• The large numbers of Romanian women on Ilford Lane (the usual street sex work beat for the borough) may mean that UK street sex workers are put off of soliciting in the same area as the competition from younger, healthier women means that they are unlikely to have as many customers.

• There is no specialist outreach, clinical or case management service for sex workers in LBR. Given the low numbers of local UK women and the transitory numbers of Romanians, The Borough may decide that it is not cost effective to develop a service to meet the needs and issues identified in this NA. However, these numbers are not likely to be truly representative of need given the significant displacement that was taking place amongst street sex workers at the time.

• The public health concerns amongst the street cohort are clear:

1. Low uptake of contraception (all) 2. Ongoing removal of children and ensuing trauma (UK cohort) 3. Drug and alcohol addiction that are difficult for women to resolve as access to services is intermittent (UK cohort) 4. High levels of violence both intimate partner and stranger related (all) 5. Advocacy and case management requirements for women who present with complex mental health and multiple social welfare concerns (UK cohort).

29 | P a g e

 The Redbridge Community Safety Partnership has produced a strategy to reduce on- street prostitution in the borough between 2012-15. The four key strands of this strategy are;

1. Reducing the opportunities for street work through Environmental changes 2. Enforcement activity, 3. Responding to Residents’ concerns 4. Facilitating women’s Exit from prostitution.

It is beyond the scope of this NA to ascertain whether environmental changes other than those identified in the strategy are ongoing. Conversations between the Open Doors team and local police during the NA period clarified that enforcement activities against the women are however a key priority. The team did not witness arrests of any curb crawlers during their field work sessions, nevertheless there may have been curb crawler arrests during this period that we are not aware of.

Facilitating exit from prostitution is only possible if there are specialist services in place with considerable skills and experience in this area of work. This NA has demonstrated that the majority of street sex workers in Redbridge present with complex issues and are a highly mobile group of migrant women who have little or no intention of giving up sex work in the short term. They do however require considerable support around;  Safety  Criminal justice engagement  Compliance with appropriate documents to reside and work in the UK  Accessing primary care and sexual health services  Accessing condoms

There are currently no specific case management services for sex works in Redbridge. If these were developed in the future, they should be client -centered so that individually tailored and fully integrated treatment and support plans could be formulated in order to support each woman to achieve her personal goals.

Recommendations

The service specification for the Redbridge NA invited Open Doors to make recommendations against the following areas;

 How the identified gaps in services might best be filled  What model of service would best fit the needs of this group of women  How the needs of the women and concerns of local residents can best be reconciled  The best way to reduce harm to sex workers in the long term.

Identifying how gaps in services might best be filled

Homelessness among UK born Street Sex Workers in LBR was critical for each individual interviewed. Homelessness further entrenches women into the street sex working environment, and undermines opportunities for improved health and social change. Lack of local supported accommodation was identified to be a major factor in preventing women from moving away from street chaos. Recommendation: The Open Doors/Mungo’s complex needs hostel is opening in June 2014 in Newham. LBR has referral rights to ensure that three women from the borough are resident at any one time. LBR should ensure that it takes up these rights and that local services are briefed effectively about the hostel and who to refer.

Of the five UK street sex workers with Redbridge connections who described problematic drug use, only one is currently engaged with RDAS. The remaining four women describe in ambivalent terms (at various times in their past) coming into contact with Specialist prescribing and community based drug services in LBR. They reported that they had not succeeded in maintaining engagement as their perception was that the threshold requirements for engagement were too high. Recommendation: These services should become familiar with the needs of complex needs sex workers and ensure that a case management (not signposting) approach can meet the needs of women accessing their services. Best practice would be to nominate a member of staff who has the expertise and capabilities to work to support these needs. Additionally There is a need to strengthen multi- agency referral pathways to ensure that victims of domestic and sexual violence who are Street Sex Workers have their needs met.

Six out of ten women from the UK cohort report having children removed through care proceedings. This finding reflects similarities in adjacent boroughs. At the same time the women also reported low uptake of LARC or contraception other than condoms. The correlation reflects how precarious contraception arrangements alongside chaotic behaviour results in pregnancies that are largely unplanned and live births of children who cannot safely be cared for. Recommendation: Services working with street based sex workers should undertake intensive work to encourage LARC use in order that women who are trying to manage complex and chaotic lifestyles are not faced with the additional burden of managing pregnancy as well as subsequent adversarial engagement with care proceedings.

31 | P a g e

What model of service would best fit the needs of this group of women?

There is no specialist outreach, clinical or case management service for sex workers in LBR. Given the low numbers of local UK women and the transitory numbers of Romanians, The Borough may decide that it is not cost effective to develop a service to meet the needs and issues identified in this NA. Recommendation: Where specialist services exist to advocate and support for sex workers the body of evidence tells us that the health and wellbeing of the cohort improves significantly. Specialist outreach, clinical and case management services act as an interlocutor between the women, the wider community and the various institutions that should exist to support them and should be able to moderate and influence local borough policy based on evidence rather than emotion.

How the needs of the women and concerns of local residents can best be reconciled

The perception of the women interviewed for this NA is that there is no evident public protection approach extended towards street sex workers in LBR. During the NA period, Open Doors became aware of at least three different violent crimes that remain unreported by the women due to lack of trust in the criminal justice system. This could allow offenders to harm women with impunity. Recommendation: LBR should move away from enforcement operations that evidentially displace the women and do not dissuade them from sex working in the borough. These enforcement operations also send a message to the women that they are not welcome to report harm against them. Time should be taken to discuss with the wider community the implications for safety of enforcement and a more measured approach should be taken where street sex workers are diverted away from the criminal justice system through engagement and support.

The best way to reduce harm to sex workers in the long term.

Women from Romania are transitory and unlikely to engage long term with services as their routes of migration around the UK and Europe mean that they do not stay long in one place. Recommendation: Work can be done to assist them to register with health and employment services, to learn English and to become confident in finding alternative work. This can only be done via sensible engagement. Enforcement means that the women continue to sell sex to pay court fines and are unable to move away from the street world that they become criminalised and stigmatised into.

Glossary of terms

NA: Needs Assessment

EU: European Union

UK: United Kingdom

OECD: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

UKBA: United Kingdom Border Agency

LBR: London Borough of Redbridge

LBN: London Borough of Newham

HMO: Houses of Multiple Occupancy

GU: Genito Urinary Medicine

EEA: European Economic Area

A2 Nationals: People from Romania and Bulgaria

RSW: Romanian Sex Worker

UKSW: UK sex worker

ABC: Anti-social behaviour contract

RDAS: Redbridge Drug and Alcohol Service

33 | P a g e

Methods for conducting needs assessment

• A comprehensive data set was developed Appendix iii to be used as a framework for collecting information. • Alongside this data set a series of more probing questions were asked when possible in order to gain a fuller picture of the women’s circumstances. • Observations during each outreach session were also recorded. These were a combination of environmental observations from the team and additional comments made by the women. • Interviews were conducted on outreach and during contact in Open Doors clinics. • Interviews that were started on outreach but not completed were finalised (where possible) by telephone. • Outreach took place on Ilford Lane, although in the first four weeks of the NA other areas of the borough were scouted but did not yield street sex workers. • Information was correlated by the use of full names where possible and dates of birth in order to ensure that no double interviewing took place. • Outreach sessions (a minimum of 3.5 hours per session) were undertaken over three nights during the week. These sessions took place at varying times of the night and early morning in order to capture interviews with both Romanian (migrant) street sex workers and UK born (indigenous) street sex workers who appear to sell sex from the street at different times. • As an incentive to take part in the needs assessment, women were offered a small gift bag containing underwear and toiletries. • A short mapping exercise was undertaken at the beginning of the NA to identify existing services in the London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) in order to understand what health and social care pathways already exist for street sex workers, how they are delivered and to what numbers of women. • The field work was undertaken by one Romanian speaking development practitioner (an existing member of the Open Doors team), one Romanian speaking bank worker (employed on a sessional basis to assist with the NA) and various members of the Open Doors outreach, clinical and case management team. • NA team members met prior to the beginning of the fieldwork to agree engagement methods. These included a fieldwork timetable, a standardised explanation with which to introduce the NA to street sex workers, a trial of the questionnaire in order to sense check the questions and an agreed process by which to record observations. • The team was also briefed on managing emergent issues around safeguarding, policing and criminal justice, onward referral and signposting. Throughout the eight week NA, the team met weekly to de-brief any issues and matters arising. • It was agreed that appointments for street sex workers met through the NA could be made to attend any of the Open Doors specialist GU clinics and that ongoing case management could be undertaken if the team encountered women who worked across both LBR and Newham (LBN) as Open Doors is commissioned to work with this cohort in LBN.

Methods for analysing data

Survey Data Data recorded on the questionnaire was entered into an Excel spreadsheet and cleansed for errors. Quantifiable answers have been aggregated and presented within the body of the report. Where narrative answers were given these have been scrutinised for clear or emerging themes. These themes have been summarised within the body of the report.

Observation notes made by team members during outreach Observation notes made by team members during outreach have been transcribed and scrutinised for clear or emerging themes. These themes have then been summarised clearly under the ‘Observations’ section at the end of each summary section.

35 | P a g e

References

1 Redbridge street sex work needs assessment specification 2013. Haste F.

2 Taylor, D (2014) Mariana Popa was killed working as a prostitute. Are the police to blame?, Observer , 19th January 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/19/woman-killed-prostitute-police-blame

3 www.opendoors.nhs.uk

4 Creighton S, Tariq S, Perry G. BMJ (2007). Managing a syphilis outbreak amongst street sex workers in East London.

5 Blair, E (2011) I’ am not a victim’: a preliminary evaluation of the first ISVA service for men and women selling sex in East London, Homerton.

6 Bury L (2011) Evaluation of the male partners work, Open Doors.

7 Collinson S, Straub R, Perry G (2011). ‘Men in the Shadows’. Journal of Men’s Health

8 Commissioning Inclusive services; Practical steps towards inclusive JSNAs, JHWSs and commissioning for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, homeless people, sex workers and vulnerable migrants. DH 2013

9 Developing sexual health services for sex workers. (2009) www.uknswp.org/wp- content/uploads/Deptofhealth.pdf) contribution to DH ‘Developing services for excluded groups’

10 Jeal and Salisbury (2013) ‘Protecting the health of sex workers. Will the real agenda please stand up’ . BMJ.

11 Barnard, M. 1993 ‘Violence and Vulnerability: Conditions of Work for Street Working Prostitutes’, Sociology of Health and Illness 15(1): 5–14.

12 Hester, M and Westmarland, N (2004) Tackling Street Prostitution: Towards an holistic Approach, Home Office Research Study 279, Development and Statistics Directorate.

13 Kinnell, H (2008) Violence and Sex Work in Britain, Willan, Cullompton

14 Shannon et al, Prevalence and structural correlates of gender based violence among a prospective cohort of female sex workers. BMJ 2009;339:b2939

15 Kinnell, H (2008) Violence and Sex Work in Britain, Willan, Cullompton

16 Lowman and Fraser Violence and the outlaw status of street prostitution in Candada. Violence Against Women, Volume 6, Number 9, September 2000, pp. 987-1011

17 Salfati, C. G (2009) “Prostitute homicide: An overview of the literature and comparison to sexual and non- sexual female victim homicide”, in Canter,D, Ioannou, M & Youngs, D (eds) Safer Sex in the City: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution , The Psychology, Crime and Law Series. Aldershot, Ashgate.

18Campbell, R (2014) ‘Not Getting Away With It: Linking Sex Work and Hate Crime in Merseyside’ in Chakroborti, N and Garland, J (eds) , ‘Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for Connecting Policy and Research', The Policy Press, Bristol.

19 Campbell, R. (2011)a ‘A case of hate: Approaching crimes against sex workers as hate crime in Merseyside’, presented at; British Society of Criminology Annual Conference 2011: Economies and Insecurities of Crime and Justice, Northumbria University, 3RD-6TH July 2011.

20 Lowman, J. (2000) ‘Violence and outlaw status of street prostitution in Canada’ Violence Against Women, vol 6, no.9, pp 987-1011.

21 Self, H. J. (2003). Prostitution, women and the misuse of the law: the fallen daughters of Eve.

London: Routledge.

22 Brooks-Gordon, 2006 ‘The Price of Sex’ Prostitution, Policy and Society.

23 Hubbard, P. (2006). Out of touch and out of time? The contemporary policing of sex work. In: Campbell, R. and O‟Neill, M. (eds.), Sex work now. Devon: Willan, pp. 1-32.

24 Kinnell, H (2008) Violence and Sex Work in Britain, Willan, Cullompton.

25 McKeganey, N. and Barnard, M. (1996). Sex work on the streets: prostitutes and their clients. Buckingham: Open University Press

26 Barnard, M. 1993 ‘Violence and Vulnerability: Conditions of Work for Street Working Prostitutes’, Sociology of Health and Illness

27 Kinnell, 1993 A review of legislation in selected countries

28 Campbell, 2002

29 Church et al 2001

30 Kinnell, H and Campbell, R(2001) "We Shouldn’t Have to Put Up with This”: Street Sex Work and Violence", Criminal Justice Matters, Spring Edition.

31 Boff, 2012 ‘Silence on Violence’ The policing of off street sex work and trafficking in london.

32 Dodds, 2002

33 Kinnell, H (2006) “Murder Made Easy”, in Campbell, R., & O'Neill, M. (2006) Sex Work Now Cullompton, Willan.

34 Mai, N (2009) Migrants in the UK Sex Industry: Final Policy Relevant Report, Institute for the Study of European Transformations, London Metropolitan University. www.londonmet.ac.uk/migrant workers

35 Wilcock (1998)

36 Balfour, R Allen J 2014. A review on the literature of sex workers and social exclusion. UCL

37 Perry G, Humphreys S, Vanes L 2013: A study into a cohort of women in Hackney who have multiple births and multiple children removed.

38 Home Office 2011. Review of effective practice in responding to prostitution.

37 | P a g e

Appendix i. Redbridge Needs Assessment Specification

Needs assessment for Sex workers in Redbridge, specification Draft 1, 1.12.13

Background and purpose of specification Street prostitution is perceived by residents to be becoming an increasing problem in particular parts of Redbridge. A recent murder of a street sex worker suggests that there are major safety issues for workers themselves, and few support services exist for sex workers in the borough. A Strategy to reduce on-street prostitution in Redbridge was developed in 2012 which had 4 strands; reducing the opportunities for street work through Environmental changes, Enforcement activity, responding to Residents’ concerns and facilitating women’s Exit from prostitution. Street sex workers are usually a vulnerable and marginalised group with high need for social and health services support, however the characteristics and needs of these women, and the nature of sex work varies from place to place. Limited information on the women and their clients has been derived from data gained during enforcement activity, but more data are needed in order to identify what the needs of this group are. Some types of enforcement activity may have unintended consequences of putting women in greater danger. The purpose of this document is to provide a specification for a Needs Assessment to be conducted to examine the characteristics of the sex worker population, their needs, their clients and partners, and needs of local residents, and to make recommendations as to how the identified needs might be met. This complements the work done by Community Safety in improving the environment and engaging with residents and takes forward the work recommended as part of the Exit strand of the strategy.

Scope The focus of this work will be on on-street sex work in Redbridge, taking place primarily in Ilford. It does not include off street sex work.

Methods Given the likely nature of this population, ie. ‘hard to reach’, distrustful, vulnerable, possible low literacy levels in some cases, it is suggested that a qualitative piece of work with women on the streets would be likely to be the most productive in getting sensitive data from the women, as well as their views on safety issues.

Areas to be considered

1. Sex workers 1.1 Demographics How many sex workers are working in Redbridge, either on the street or off street What are their origins, ethnicities, legal status (eg. legal/illegal immigrants) What is the age range, are juveniles an issue Where do they live – in/out of borough, permanent/temporary/no accommodation Family structure – partners, children

1.2 Sex work Where do they work street/off street, and when (occasional/regular; evening/night) Working arrangements, eg. Individual, ‘managed’, part of organised gangs etc

1.3 Health needs

How many have substance misuse problems and what kind, and how many are accessing substance misuse services How many are registered with a GP, what are the access issues How many access sexual health services, what are the access issues. Do they have access to/use condoms How many have identified or unidentified mental health problems What are the main gaps in services

1.4 Social/legal needs Are there issues of access to housing, what are the barriers Do they have/need access to legal services What are the Social services/safeguarding needs in relation to children What has the response of the courts been to sex workers What are the main gaps in services

1.5 Safety What levels of violence have/are being experienced and from whom; eg. strangers, partners, clients, others What is the response of police to safety issues and to sex work Are there other major threats to safety, from where? What are the main gaps

1.6 Exit options What opportunities, if any, exist for women to find alternative forms of employment What kinds of support are needed to help women exit sex work What prevents women seeking alternative employment

2. Clients 2.1 Demographic characteristics Borough of residence, ethnicity, age, mode of access (eg kerb crawling)

2.2 Activity Frequency of purchase, eg regulars/one offs Use of condoms

3. Local Population

Perceptions of the local population about their immediate environment are important for neighbourhood harmony, for local people to feel safe and not intimidated, and also for the safety of sex workers themselves. How does the local community feel about and respond to sex workers and their clients on the streets, what are the main issues (eg. Sex work litter, visible presence, associated criminal activity, moral concerns) How do the local police force respond to local concerns – see local strategy doc What options are available to minimise local antagonism and anxiety

Recommendations Based on the identified needs the consultants are invited to make recommendations about: - How the identified gaps in services might best be filled - What model of service would best fit the needs of this group of women

39 | P a g e

- How the needs of the women and concerns of local residents can best be reconciled - What would be the best way to reduce harm to sex workers from prostitution in the long term

Terms The assessment will need to be completed by March 31st 2014, with a preliminary report by the end of February.

Appendix ii. Mapping of services available to sex workers in Redbridge Letter of introduction

Dear Colleague

I am writing to introduce our service to you and to let you know that between March 5th and April 30th 2014, Open Doors www.opendoors.nhs.uk (clinical, case management and outreach service for Sex Workers in East London) will be conducting a needs assessment on behalf of the London Borough of Redbridge.

We will be focusing on developing an understanding of the health and social care needs of street sex workers in the borough. The intended outcomes of the needs assessment are as follows:

5. To conduct assertive and consistent night-time outreach in order to engage the women with our team and ascertain answers to a series of questions related to their health and wellbeing. 6. To meet women (if they are willing) during day time hours in order to complete these questionnaires. 7. To quantify the number of women currently involved in street sex work in Redbridge within this eight week period. - To record and analyse demographic details of the women 8. To undertake a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the social and health determinants affecting the women’s lives. - To document numbers and information about male partners/male associates (including customers) of the women and how these relationships intersect with broader social exclusion issues.

We are currently conducting a mapping exercise in order to understand where we might be able to refer or signpost street sex workers we come into contact with who are not already engaging with services. To this end we are keen to understand referral protocols for 1. prescribing for methadone maintenance 2. sexual health screening and GU treatment 3. primary care services (GP access) 4. housing (both emergency and supported) 5. support with domestic violence issues 6. support for women who have experienced sexual violence 7. Child and adult safeguarding routes

- We would like to understand whether current arrangements are in place to meet the needs of street sex workers within these services and whether there are particular pathways in place that we should be aware of in order to expedite signposting or referral of this cohort.

My colleague Dianne Harrington will be making contact with your service over the coming two weeks in order to begin this mapping process.

Best wishes

Georgina Perry Service Manager, Open Doors 07970956127

41 | P a g e

Map of services and provision

Drug and alcohol services

1: Contact details Redbridge Drug and Alcohol Service (RDAS) Scripting BBV 3rd Floor, Ilford Chambers, 11 Chapel Road, Ilford, IG1 2DR Tiri Chifamba Service Manager specialist prescribing Jennifer Receptionist 0300 555 1180 Fax: 0844 493 0238 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Telephone or fax referral form. Client is seen on same day or within 72 hours.

2: Contact details Westminster Drugs Project (WDP) Problematic Alcohol Use. 3rd Floor, Ilford Chambers, 11 Chapel Road, Ilford, IG1 2DR Tel: 0208 553 4941 Fax: 020 8911 8627 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Drop in Monday To Friday 1pm to 3pm, Tuesday 5pm to 6pm If clients unable to attend drop in referral taken over the phone and client contacted within 5 days with appointment.

3: Contact details Redbridge Open Access Drugs Service (ROADS) Foundation 66. Stimulant Users and NX 1st Floor Ilford Chambers 11 Chapel Road, Ilford London IG1 2DR Tel: 020 8553 7710 Freephone: 08081 782 762 Fax: 020 8514 0874 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Drop in Mon To Friday 1pm to 4pm On Line Referral form, telephone or fax

Outreach services

1: Contact details Redbridge Outreach Service (ROS) Olympic House, 28-42, Clements Rd, Ilford, IG1 1BA Toni Brennan 020 8514 3836 Fax: 020 8514 3107 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Inter Agency Referral Form.

2: Redbridge Street Outreach Team (SORT) SHP

How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Referrals made by phone or email. Tel: 0870 383 3333 email [email protected]

Primary care services

1: Contact details Primary care (GP or transition care team) Name, address and contact details of service. Loxford Polyclinic 417 Ilford Way,Ilford, IG1 2SN 020 8822 3800 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Walk In Clinic Mon To Sun 8am To 8pm

Sexual health screening and GU services

1: Contact details Loxford Polyclinic 417 Ilford Lane, Town Centre Ilford, IG1 2PF Tel: 0208 924 6400 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Monday 4.00pm - 6.30pm Walk-in clinic session for young people, under 25s only) Tuesday 1.00pm - 4.30pm 5.00pm - 7.30pm Wednesday 5.00pm - 7.30pm Friday 2,.00 - 4.00pm (under 25's only) & 5.00pm - 7.30pm Saturday 9.00am - 11.30am

2: Contact details Queen's Hospital Rom Valley Way, Romford, RM7 0AG Tel: 01708 503838 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Walk in clinics Tuesday 9.00am - 11.15am Tuesday 1.30pm - 3.00pm Thursday 9.00 - 11.15am Thursday 1.30pm - 3.00pm Friday: 9.00 - 11.15am

3: Contact details Sexual health service Outpatients East (Sydenham Centre) Barking Hospital, Upney Lane, IG11 9LX Tel: 01708 503838 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Walk in clinic times Monday: 9.00am - 3.30pm Monday: 4.00 - 6.30pm (under 21's only) Tuesday: 9.00am - 3.00pm Wednesday: 1.00 - 4.00pm Thursday: 9.00am - 3.00pm Friday: 9.30am - 12.30pm (family planning walk-in)

Housing (both emergency and supported)

1: Contact details Redbridge Homeless Persons Unit (HPU) The Housing Advice Centre,17-23 Clements Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1AG Tel: 0208 708 4002 Fax: 0208 708 4477 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Days & Hours of Opening: Monday-Friday, 9.00am-1.00pm Self Referral 16 yrs and over.

43 | P a g e

2: Contact details Jason Lee House (SHP) 18 Bed Hostel 16 York Road, Ilford, IG1 3AD Tel: 020 8911 7470 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Referrals are only accepted from: The Welcome Centre, Ilford - 0208 220 4111 Street Rescue teams - 0870 383 3333 Redbridge Housing Aid Centre - 0208 708 4002

3: Contact details The Welcome Centre Day centre for homeless people offering Housing and benefit advice. 2 St. Marys Road, Ilford, IG1 1QX Tel: 020 8514 3283 Fax: 020 8911 4864 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Drop In or phone. Monday – Closed Tuesday to Friday 10am To 3pm

Domestic violence support

1: Contact details Redbridge Action Against Domestic Abuse (RAADA) Refuge and Outreach Provides temporary accommodation (through Redbridge Women's Refuge. Vanessa 07984 677384 (Refuge) or 07946 872734 (Outreach) Monday to Friday - 9.30am to 4.00pm How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Only accept referrals from Redbridge HPU.

2: Contact details Telephone outreach team. Victim Support (Redbridge) 10 Bourne Court, Southend Road, Woodford Green, IG8 8HD

Georgina Hagan IDVA Tel: 0208 418 2390 [email protected] Gulcan Erkul IDVA Tel: 0208 418 2391 [email protected] Tracy Cleverley IDVA Tel: 0208 418 2399 [email protected]

How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Victim Support IDVA Service referral form which is either Faxed or emailed. Fax : 0208 418 2327 FAO Redbridge IDVA service.

Sexual Violence support

1: Contact details East London Rape Crisis Service Helpline 0808 802 9999 From 12pm To 2.30pm and 7pm To 9.30pm 365 Days a year. NIA Information and referral line 0207 683 1210 Open Mon/Fri and Sat 10am To 12pm and Tues/Wed and Thursday 6pm To 8pm Nia Office 0207 683 1270

Migrant support

1: Contact details RAMFEL Suite 22, Ground Floor, Cardinal Heenan Centre, 326 High Road Ilford, Essex, IG1 1QP Rita Chadha CEO Tel: 020 8478 4513 Fax: 020 8514 0540 Mobile: 07795 677 084 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Lucy Mercer Referrals and Donations Co ordinator 020 8478 4513 Referral Form sent by Fax; 0208 514 0540 or email [email protected] and Drop In Monday 10-1pm Tuesday 2-5pm Wednesday 10-1pm Thursday 10-1pm Fridays – closed

Child and adult safeguarding referral routes

1: Contact details Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) Lynton House 255-259 High Road Ilford IG1 1NY Anna Mayer Direct Line: 0208 708 3978 [email protected] Fax 020 8708 3886 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Multi Agency Referral Form which is sent to [email protected]. Should you have child protection concerns during the day, you would need to contact the number you telephoned earlier 0208 708 3885. Should you have concerns out of hours, the telephone number for the Emergency Duty Team (EDT) is 020 8708 5825.

2: Contact details Redbridge Adult Social Services Samira Natafji Adult Safeguarding Lead. Safeguarding adults at risk. Report concerns to Social Services on: 020 8708 7333 (Monday to Friday, from 9am to 5pm) or 020 8554 5000 (Monday to Friday from 8.30 am to 6pm) Report any concerns of a crime to the Police on 020 8478 1123

45 | P a g e

Sex worker services

1: Contact details Redbridge Street Pastors Safe Space Project A drop-in for women involved in prostitution where they can receive hospitality and support from a volunteer team as well as providing them with holistic opportunities to help them make the most of their lives. Drop in every Monday from 1-4pm at Salvation Army Church, 15 Clements Rd, Ilford. Contact Monica on 07507906615 How would a prospective client be referred or signposted to the service? Through meeting during street outreach, referral from other services and word of mouth.

Appendix iii. Data collection tool Outreach Worker(s) completing Name/Ini Open Doors Needs Assessment for Sex Workers in Redbridge form: tials:

Initials: Name: D.O.B: Heritage:

NRPF: Borough of residence: No of times seen:

Who do you live with? Description/Comments:

Partner

Demographics

Children No of children: Other family Friends NFA Alone

Drug use: How much do you spend per £ day? Crack Route of administration: Heroin

Alcohol Health Needs Health

Prescription Other None Do you currently access any of the following Are there any issues with accessing these services? services? Registered with a GP Substance misuse service Sexual health services Do you have access to free condoms Mental health services

Engaged with housing Comments/issues experienced with accessing these services: services

Engaged with legal services Needs In need of legal services

Engaged with Social Services

Social/Legal Social/Legal

Justice System

y Have you experienced violence Frequency Recent Over 5 years

fet from the following people?

Sa stranger

47 | P a g e

clients partners others Where these incidents reported to the Police? If so what was the outcome?

Would you say there are other threats to your safety, if so from where?

How many nights do you work a week? Work arrangements – work alone, with someone? Do you work to pay someone?

Types of clients Ethnicity

Sex Work/Activity Sex Average age Mode of access (kerb crawling) More regulars / or one offs? What form of contraception do you use?

Can you tell me of any opportunities, if any, have been offered to you to find alternative forms of employment:

Exitoptions

What prevents you seeking alternative employment:

Building Strong Communities: Strategy Overview

Local Strategies:

Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC Safer Redbridge Outlines the priorities and sets strategic The strategy recognises the Fairness is not explicit in the wording of Strategy 2013-16 direction to focus multi agency work demographic and geographic disparities the strategy but it is implicit in the work which will be undertaken to reduce within the Borough that is being proposed and how the CSP crime, disorder and substance misuse in are planning to monitor the impact. Redbridge. The agreed priorities are: There are six criteria used to set the • Residential Burglary; priorities for the CSP. Two of these are There is reference to measures of success • Drug and Alcohol Related Crime focused on fairness ; the first “Impact on but specific targets were not included at and Anti-Social Behaviour. Victims” means that even if a small the time of writing because the Borough • Vulnerable Victims including group or community is targets had not been set by the Domestic Abuse and disproportionately affected by crime Metropolitan Police Service. The Fairness Prostitution; and they will not be overlooked and the Commission may want to request an • Integrated Offender second “Quality of Life for Residents” is a update on these at this stage. Management; more generic fairness that all people in These were set using the criteria of the Borough should not be in fear of collective partnership impact, impact on crime and feel safer. victims, quality of life for local residents, local crime analysis, MOPAC Police and The Local Policing Model which is Crime Plan (see below) and national explained within the strategy helps to agendas. tailor the approach of creating These will be addressed through: community safety by geographical area. • Supporting victims of crime; This means that there are generic • Improving vulnerable locations; Borough priorities but locally the needs • Tackling offenders. of different communities can be addressed depending on their issues.

There are officers who are specifically trained and supported to work with communities i.e. Faith, LGBT.

Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC The Redbridge The vision of the VAWG Partnership The strategy strives to create a culture Local Context Violence remains nothing less than the within all agencies which is clearly • During the year ending July 2014, Against Women and elimination of domestic abuse and focused on the needs of the victim as the number of recorded offences of Girls Draft Strategy violence against women and girls. well as taking a partnership approach to Domestic Abuse (Violence with tackling these crimes. Injury) increased by 26% compared 2015 - 2018 The strategy aims to: to the previous year; • improve recognition and Whilst the strategy focuses on • For the same offence category there understanding of the circumstances supporting victims there is an explicit was a decrease in the sanctioned in which adult safeguarding and discussion about the role of early detection rate from 43.6% to 37.5% domestic abuse overlap and should intervention. This will help to prevent in the same period; be considered in tandem; young women or girls more vulnerable • contribute to the knowledge and to violence from becoming victims. This is an issue that does occur within confidence of professionals so that Redbridge, without ensuring that the complexities of working with The strategy explicitly identifies links partners are working together to address people who need care and support with both adult and children them there is a greater risk that some and who are also safeguarding – helping to integrate the potential victims could be missed. experiencing/reporting domestic work across several areas of work. abuse are better understood and The types of violence identified ranges better outcomes for people can be There are a number of actions that are from domestic violence to female genital achieved as a result; targeting victims and potential victims in mutilation and so it impacts all • offer good, practical advice to staff a variety of ways. spectrums of the Redbridge community. and managers to ensure that older, disabled and mentally ill people in vulnerable circumstances have the best support, advice and potential remedies if they are harmed or abused by a partner or family member; and • Identify some of the organisational developments which can support best practice in this area.

Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC Strategy to Reduce The Aim: The strategy is focused on the issues Much of the data that informs this On-street Prostitution • focused and co-ordinated approach within a geographical area, targeting strategy was gathered from in Redbridge 2012-15 to managing and reducing on street resources on the inequalities faced Boroughwide intelligence, local SNT prostitution within Loxford Ward. intelligence and Enforcement • focus on the current geographical Operations - however this was from 2011 hotspot area A strand of the strategic approach does and so there may be further information look at the exit of women from required by the Fairness Commission to A number of initiatives were undertaken prostitution because it is seen as a form make an informed assessment of this by the Police but the concerns rose from of violence against women (in line with work on Building Strong Communities residents in Loxford Ward in the South of the Home Office and Mayor of London and the impact of the actions taken. the Borough. A petition organised by guidelines) - recognising that in many residents regarding their concerns about cases they are victims. However the Funding for the third year was not prostitution occurring and the impact on strategy recognises that not all women guaranteed, Commissioners may want to their lives. wish to exit and so puts the safety of the explore how much was received and the women at the heart of the work impact this may have had on tackling on A Local Multi Agency Problem Solving undertaken. the issues identified. Group was set up to tackle this issue, however due to the entrenched nature The strategy specifically refers to of the issue it was felt a long term challenging myths and exposing the strategy was required to tackle it. reality of street prostitution to help communities understand the The approach within the strategy has complexities of the issues that are being four elements: faced with. 1. Environment 2. Enforcement 3. Exit 4. Engagement Statement of This Statement satisfies the There is an early acknowledgement of The appendices contain a lot of Licensing Policy – requirements of Section 5 of the equalities within the policy and ensuring information and research about specific Alcohol, Regulated Licensing Act 2003 and has been written that an EIA was conducted “protecting issues within the Borough including: Entertainment & Late with a view to promoting the four vulnerable people from the harmful 1. The consultees to develop the Night Refreshment licensing objectives: impact of crime and anti-social strategy Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC (Under the Licensing behaviour and ensuring the diversity of 2. Crime statistics Act 2003). Effective 1. The prevention of crime and disorder Redbridge is celebrated. “ 3. Cumulative impact zones from 1st August 2015. 2. Public safety 4. Protecting children 3. The prevention of public nuisance 5. Street drinkers 4. Other protection of children from harm Redbridge 2014/15 Over the coming year, it is intended to The Police produce a regular Counter The strategy recognises the groups and Prevent Strategy and achieve the following objectives: Terrorism Local Profile (CTLP), drawn communities that are most at risk of Delivery Plan from information from various sources, becoming involved and acknowledges • Create and deliver advice and designed to assist local Partnerships plan that there are a range of different information regarding the Syria crisis appropriate Prevent-related activity. approaches required to minimise this to institutions and individuals. Whilst the information and intelligence risk. • Strengthen community contained therein is restricted, it organisations’ response to supports the Government’s assessment A range of partners have been involved radicalisation, extremism and violent of Redbridge as a Prevent borough, in mechanisms in the past including: extremism, through the provision of indicating that extremist activity has • Community tension monitoring guidance, advice, training and policy occurred in the Borough in the past year. • Work with licensed premises development. previously linked with marches for • Identify and address specific issues The ‘Prevent Guide for Local Partners’ groups such as the EDL that arise, through appropriate (2008) stated that “violent extremism is • Young Leaders Project structures. caused by a combination of interlocking • Training for front line staff • Implement projects with young factors”: • Women’s workshops and networks people to educate them around the • an ideology which justifies terrorism dangers of violent extremism and by manipulating theology as well as strengthen their ability to counter history and politics; extremist narratives. • radicalisers and their networks which • Create resilience to violent promote violent extremism through extremism within Redbridge a variety of places, institutions and Council’s own policies and media; procedures. • individuals who are vulnerable to the messages of violent extremists; These objectives have been developed • communities, which are sometimes Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC into a comprehensive delivery plan that poorly equipped to challenge and will be undertaken by the London resist violent extremism; and Borough of Redbridge, along with • grievances, some genuine and some partners from statutory services perceived, and some of course voluntary groups and community directed very specifically against organisations. government. It is by addressing all of these factors, and understanding the links between them, whereby Redbridge will reduce the risk of radicalisation, extremism and violent extremism in the Borough.

Regional Strategies:

Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC MOPAC Police and Sets priorities of: The strategy does not explicitly refer to It is important that the Commissioners Crime Plan 2013-16 • A 20% reduction in crime in 7 key tackling inequality within the objectives, recognise that although there is some neighbourhood crime types however it does show how it will link to flexibility and devolution of powers for (including burglary, vandalism, theft the Mayors Strategy for Equalities – Local Policing the Borough Commander from and theft of motor vehicles, Equal Life Chances for all. is still tied to the delivery of MOPAC violence with injury, robbery and objectives. In some cases it may be theft from the person); The strategy states that to meet equality considered that these are not such a • A 20% increase in public confidence; priorities MOPAC will: priority in Redbridge and resources • A 20% reduction in costs would be better allocated elsewhere. • Hold the Commissioner to account These form the Mayor of London’s for the delivery of his Equality Act This means that Redbridge will be ‘20:20:20 challenge’ to the Commissioner duties and for achieving the MPS’s required to work with the local Police of the Metropolitan Police Service. In equality objectives. force to put a case for a different focus addition the Mayor has outlined the • Ask the Audit Panel to provide locally or Commissioners should following areas of work as a priority: assurance on delivery; and progress recognise in their recommendations will be monitored at the quarterly what level of influence they can have. • Create a safer London for women by MOPAC Performance Challenge Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC tackling violence against women meetings. and girls; • Develop smarter solutions to alcohol The Local Policing Model enables and drug crime; Borough Commanders to tailor their • Help London’s vulnerable young approach to crime to meet the needs of people. the local area. This helps to tackle the area specific inequalities and identify The Mayor of London has also placed which preventative activities will have extra emphasis on a number of the biggest impact, whilst linking with additional public concerns. These other Boroughs to create London include: hate crime and crimes against synergies. disabled people, serious youth violence, and business crime. London-wide Details a model to deliver a consistent While the overall crime rate in London is Local authorities have led on the Integrated Offender evidence-based approach to IOM across falling, there is an increase in development of local IOM services to Management (IOM) London with the aim of reducing crime reoffending rates. This proves that a tackle the types of offending that matter Strategic Framework and reoffending as well as protecting significant amount of crime is most to their communities. They play an victims. committed by the same group of integral role in the strategic offenders. Targeting this cohort will development and operational delivery of The Framework’s vision is for a therefore deliver an overall reduction in IOM: consistent approach to IOM that takes crime and address / prevent the • Securing partnership buy-in and account of regional and local crime inequality of them offending. resources for multi-disciplinary IOM priorities across London. It aims to teams reduce crime and reoffending as well as The Framework includes offenders who • Ensuring robust governance protect victims, through a partnership are subject to statutory supervision as arrangements that support delivery approach. well as non-statutory offenders. and ensure • accountability The Government’s five principles of IOM The London IOM Strategic Framework • Managing performance are: aims to support communities, the • Commissioning evaluations to • A partnership approach to tackling voluntary sector, local authorities and measure outcomes and to evidence offenders statutory agencies. It will help them work value for money. • Delivering a local response to local together to address the reoffending of a More recently, local authorities took the Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC problems group of offenders whose criminal lead in bidding for financial support from • Offenders facing up to their activities adversely impact the lives of the MOPAC Crime Prevention Fund to responsibilities or the consequences their families and the communities they expand or establish IOM provision. of their crimes live in. Through this process they will be • Making better use of existing accountable, on behalf of their local programmes and governance Community Safety Partnership (CSP), for • Focusing on offenders at high risk of the effective delivery of IOM services. causing serious harm and/or reoffending MOPAC Violence The UN defines violence against women As the definition identifies VAWG It is important to recognise that the Against Women and as “any act of gender-based violence considers both gender based violence violence against women and girls that Girls Strategy 2013 - that is directed at a woman because she and the incidents that occur occurs in Redbridge is not in isolation. 2017 is a woman or acts of violence which are disproportionally towards women, There are support mechanisms and suffered disproportionately by women. showing that it is the inequality as well opportunities for the Council to work as the act of violence that is being across borough boundaries to tackle the Through the Police and Crime Plan and addressed. issues. delivery of this strategy, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are committed to The strategy looks at methods to There are examples of good practice and reducing the prevalence of VAWG over prevent the violence from occurring but different pilot schemes that are being time and improving confidence of it also identifies how knowledge to developed that Redbridge can learn and victims by working with partners to: women and girls can help them to adapt for the local issues and concerns. • Focus on prevention and create a understand what is not acceptable and culture based on equal rights and feel secure in the ability to speak out The promotion of integrated working respect. against it. across services and departments will • Hold perpetrators of VAWG to help to gain local support in Redbridge. account. The focus on perpetrators helps to move • Ensure that women and girls have the focus on the strategy from women as access to protection, justice and victims to the instigator of the violence. support to rebuild their lives. This is important to ensure that the responsibility for prevention is not The five main objectives are: placed only on women and service 1. London taking a global lead to provision but also on those responsible Title Main Concept/Purpose Addressing Inequality Relevance to Redbridge FC prevent and eliminate VAWG for the act. 2. Improving access to support 3. Addressing health, social and economic consequences of violence 4. Protecting women and girls at risk 5. Getting tougher with perpetrators

Building Strong Communities – Community Cohesion

1. Purpose It is the purpose of this short paper to look at community cohesion, in its broadest sense, as an essential mechanism for building stronger communities. Essentially community cohesion is about people getting on well together in their area. Redbridge has a track record of strong community cohesion and the work of the Fairness Commission to reduce economic and social disadvantage will be fundamental to maintaining and progressing what has been achieved to date in challenging circumstances. There are many aspects of cohesion that are very effectively addressed, commonly where enforcement measures apply such as crime and antisocial behaviour, street cleaning etc. There are also high profile aspects such as preventing violent extremism which are proactively addressed. These are important components of cohesion but not the whole picture.

There are a range of common issues involved in the overall cohesion picture, they include:

. Delivering better services and tackling broad social problems . Greater partnership working . Tackling inequalities, prejudice and discrimination . Addressing economic and social disadvantage . Reducing crime and the fear of crime . Raising educational standards . Alleviating poverty and deprivation . Addressing unemployment . Cleaning up the physical environment . Improving social housing . Fostering greater confidence in the police

We can see that we have addressed many of these themes, often very positively but they are not always badged as community cohesion.

2. A cohesive borough is one where:

• diversity is a strength • people live positively together, value each other and get on well together • links and relationships are built • everyone has a stake in society, makes a contribution and the contribution of everyone is valued • there are equal opportunities for everyone and no-one is excluded • there is commitment to social justice and reducing inequalities • people are proud of the borough and their neighbourhood

Whilst we aim to have a cohesive borough evidence shows that cohesion is built in neighbourhoods. In building local identity, engagement and empowerment, neighbourhoods can demonstrate that people have more in common than they have to divide them. By focussing on local priorities (such as street cleaning, parking, and local facilities) neighbourhoods can develop stronger links than would be possible through discussions of “difference”.

Some principles that might be considered to develop cohesion in the context of neighbourhood include:

• building loyalty to, and pride in, the local area • promoting a stake in the area and a commitment to build relationships within it • developing ownership and belonging • developing shared values between communities • building a willingness to explore, understand and value differences • resisting tolerance of racism, stereotypes and myths • promoting cross cultural contact • tackling deprivation and disaffection • developing festivals and celebrations across all communities • asking what each community can do for other as well as what others can do for them

3. The key areas where community cohesion can contribute to building strong communities are listed below:

Supporting the social integration of communities

. Sharing issues and concerns between geographical communities . Fostering inter-cultural contacts between communities . Addressing the concerns of communities . Strengthening social networks . Developing strategies for welcoming newcomers

Working with and supporting young people

. Addressing the generation gap . Improving support to alienated young people . Fostering inter-cultural contact between young people . Providing “things to do” for young people

Building confidence and a sense of belonging

. Building the sense of self-esteem of individuals, communities and neighbourhoods . Supporting cultural festivals and celebrations which open up contacts across communities . Developing community leadership . Supporting interfaith activities . Establishing inter-cultural activities and events valuing shared and distinct cultures

Addressing immediate social tensions

. The tensions between communities . Intra-community tensions . Reducing the disaffection amongst some youth and fostering understanding between generations

Improving communication and information activities

. Spreading the community cohesion message . Improving information and channels of communication . Addressing perceptions of unfairness . Raising understanding of different cultures, working with communities and organisations to promote a better and shared understanding

4. Causes of Low Community Cohesion

Community cohesion is difficult to see or measure when it is working well but very apparent when it breaks down. Poor community cohesion can be caused by:

• Structural disadvantage issues – the poor life, health, economic, educational, housing and recreational opportunities experienced by individuals by virtue of their membership of a particular group. These issues are complex, inter-related and long term in nature. • Inter-group tensions – the real or perceived differences between groups which may create, or be used to create anger, distance and conflict. • Incident escalation issues – the way that particular out breaks of community tension can build through inappropriate management, into serious and damaging breakdown. • Overlaid on these core issues are service, information and resource issues - the perceived inequity of public funding or support and the tendency for media to focus on bad news rather than celebration

5. Potential responses:

There are a range of possible responses to low community cohesion most of which have been deployed to varying degrees:

• Core policies – addressing structural disadvantage; designing community cohesion principles into the way that the public sector works; changing perceptions for the better • Service alignment policies – delivering joined up and responsive services targeted in ways that strengthen communities and links between people of different heritage, gender, location, age and disability. Minimising resentments between communities can be achieved by ensuring a minimum level of service is provided for all residents. Similarly it is important to show that regeneration investment is based on sound evidence of where need is greatest and the process for decision making is transparent and clearly communicated. • Conflict resolution and prevention policies – addressing areas of specific concern; preventing potential incidents where possible, containing them where it is not. • Information and communication policies – ensuring that the statutory agencies are aware of the mood of the population; developing promotional and media management approaches which celebrate rather than undermine our cohesion. • Staffing and recruitment policies – actively ensuring that the Council and other public sector agencies work to improve the representative composition of the workforce at all levels; working with those employees to deepen community engagement.

6. Conclusion:

Redbridge has a good record of positive community relations some of which is attributable to work on aspects of community cohesion by statutory and voluntary agencies across the borough. Maintaining current levels of cohesion might prove challenging as times become more difficult. There is a temptation to focus resource into areas with immediate visible outcomes, for example through enforcement activity. There are, however, further dimensions of community cohesion which are less concrete and more difficult to appreciate whilst they are going well; nevertheless, it is important that we continue to work on those aspects with equal vigour. Strong community cohesion is synonymous with stronger communities if viewed as a whole.

UNITY IN THE COMMUNITY

REPORT TO THE FAIRNESS COMMISSION ON BUILDING STRONG COMMUNITIES

BY REDBRIDGE EQUALITIES & COMMUNITY COUNCIL

Building Strong Communities, one of the themes addressed by the Redbridge Fairness Commission, can cover a wide range of issues – addressing community tensions, developing community cohesion, challenging prejudices, overcoming isolation, loneliness and vulnerability, combating crime and making people feel safe, ensuring that all groups in the community have access to services, jobs, benefit entitlements and facilitating all groups to have a voice in the community and the democratic process. This is a very wide remit and some of these will overlap with the Commission’s other themes.

A substantial part of the activity of Redbridge Equalities & Community Council (RECC) is about these things so we decided to submit this report about the things that we do which address this theme. To be clear from the outset, the issues that we address are much larger than ourselves. We think that we ‘punch above our weight’ but each initiative and project can only make a very limited impact. We believe that our activities are indicative of the elements of a strategy, to build strong communities there needs to be much bigger and sustainable in order to have a lasting and major impact.

We give an account here under a series of heading:

 Engaging the Community in Combating Hate Crime

 Challenging myths and prejudice

 Building Bridges

 Participation and Engagement

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY IN COMBATTING HATE CRIME

Hate crime is defined as:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostile or prejudice based on a personal characteristic – can be race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender assignment, disability, because you’re a migrant, refugee, Gypsy, Traveller, have a learning difficulty or belong to any other group against which there is prejudice. (This is our slightly amended version of the definition used by many institutions).

The actual volume of hate crime and its trend – up or down – reflects upon the strength of the community. If hate crime is rare then this suggests a cohesive community where prejudices are low and people look out for each other. If it is common and increasing, this suggests the reverse. However, the level and trends of reported and recorded hate is not necessarily a good indicator of community cohesion or tensions. These figures might reflect just as much the confidence that people have in reporting incidents, the willingness of the authorities to record an incident as a hate crime rather than just a crime or incident and so forth.

So if we look at hate crime levels in Redbridge we find that back in 1997 when figures for racist incidents were recorded in this borough (ahead of the Criminal Justice Act and the recommendations from the Inquiry into the Death of Stephen Lawrence – Redbridge was ahead of the game at this stage), there were only 70 recorded racist incidents. After the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and the strong campaign from the Government and the police to encouraging reporting, the figures shot up in the early2000s, peaking in 2004/5 to 1,500. We do not believe that there was actually over a 20-fold increase in actual incidents on the ground. After that the figures went down until 2010 when it hovered at around 200 incidents. By this time this included other kinds of hate crime – homophobic, transphobic, disability hate crime and so forth which were not included in the 1,500 referred to before. Such a drop in the figures would not reflect some of the events going on that we know about – the success of the British National Party in Barking & Dagenham, the BNP councillor in Redbridge, the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the UK etc.

Why community engagement? There are a number of pillars of a strategy to combat hate crime. There is advice and advocacy which is a central part of our work. But this cannot be effective unless people from isolated and vulnerable communities know about what we do. There is enforcement – the RECC has no powers of enforcement but we are involved in multi-agency partnership bodies with organisations with such powers. But we believe that central to an effective strategy is the provision of community support and challenging prejudice in the communities.

All bullies are cowards. They pick on people who are isolated. This applies to all crimes against people. It especially applies to hate crime. Prejudice isolates people and it gives the perpetrators the feeling like that they have the community behind them when they target people from particular groups in society. In reality, these prejudices may not be hegemonic in the local community but people may not have the courage to stand out in defence of the victim and against the perpetrator of hate crimes. We have run projects and initiatives which try to address such isolation and prejudice. Community Witness & Support Team (CWST): In 2001 the RECC launched this initiative. It involved volunteers going to visit victims of hate crime with a view to giving support, deterring the perpetrators and bearing witness if an incident happened during a visit. This activity could be extended to going out with the victim – say to the shops – if they were frightened to go out alone, or accompany them to court to give evidence against perpetrators. Victims would provide more details of incidents during visits so it acted as a way to increase reporting of hate crime.

We trawled our networks and advertised in order to recruit volunteers. We provide training.

In 2004 we secured funding from the Commission for Racial Equality for an 18 hour per week post to co-ordinate the CWST. This lasted for three years. We have been unable to restore that post. Nevertheless we have managed to sustain the CWST until now, sometimes with no funding, whilst sometimes we have secured some funding which has allowed us to rejuvenate the CWST – advertising, recruiting and training new volunteers. Currently we have no funding but this is part of a bid to MOPAC from the Safer Neighbourhood Board.

We have had up to sixteen volunteers in the CWST. Those victims who have been supported by the CWST have generally found it very positive.

Hotspotting: Sometimes particular pockets of Redbridge have concentrations of hate crime. When this happens we have done leaflet drops in the area asking for victims to come forward and other members of the community to come forward and tell us what is going on. We have set up mutual support groups – see later. We have spoken to community groups, residents associations and places of worship in the area to make them aware of the problem, ask them to look out for their neighbours, join the CWST and challenge prejudices. Areas where we have done this over years are Hainault ward, Barkingside ward, Ashthall Gardens/Mulberry Way, Chadwell Heath near Eastern Avenue, Meadgate Avenue and streets around. We have not engaged all the activities above in every area but have done leaflet drops and follow up in all of them.

Mutual Support Groups: Where we have identified a number of victims of hate crime in an area we have invited them to a meeting. This has led to the formation of local mutual support groups, where victims support each other, share intelligence with each other and us. On their request we have invited people from appropriate agencies – often officers from the Safer Neighbourhood Team, local housing officers, the ASB Team, victim support, occasionally someone from the local school. This gives the victims a collective voice and gives the agencies an understanding that these are not all separate cases but a local syndrome that has to be met strategically – maybe with more patrols on particular streets for example. We had very positive responses from the victims attending these meetings and it has led to the problem being addressed and often going away altogether once a particular cohort of perpetrators have been dealt with by the authorities.

Unfortunately we currently do not have any funding to run mutual support groups at the moment.

What didn’t Work? – Reporting Centres

One of the recommendations of the Inquiry into the Death of Stephen Lawrence was to establish places where people could report racist incidents (and later extended to all hate crime) where they feel comfortable – in community groups or venues, places of worship etc. The RECC itself is a reporting centre as is Victim Support. From 1999 to 2004 it was one of our tasks to establish reporting centres. This meant speaking to different groups, getting them to agree in principle, to find volunteers and for us to train those volunteers. This was very time consuming work which was not successful. It took about a year per organisation from first approach to becoming a reporting centre. After a few months we usually discovered that the volunteers had moved on and organisations had forgotten that they were supposed to be a reporting centre.

After we stopped this, the Redbridge Safer Communities Partnership hate crime worker was tasked to establish reporting centres and the same thing happened.

This does not necessarily mean that Reporting Centres can never work. Rather we think that they require far more oversight and input from a responsible body than the RECC or the Safer Communities Partnership team had the capacity to provide. The venues need to be monitored; new volunteers need to be trained and existing volunteers refreshed.

CHALLENGING MYTHS AND PREJUDICES

Myths and prejudices weaken our community; they sow division between groups of people which can lead to hate crime and community tensions. So challenging myths and prejudices is a crucial part of building a stronger community in Redbridge. Of course the myths and prejudices do not stand alone. They have power because they are projected daily by sections of the media, by politicians and sometimes respected pillars of the community. People have distressing problems and only see things getting worse in the current financial climate and are looking for people to blame this on. So the myths and prejudices have a receptive audience in some quarters, encouraging scapegoating of sections of the community who are often already vulnerable and marginalised.

So providing arguments and facts to counter the myths and prejudices – a battle of ideas – will have a limited impact whilst forces that promote them and the factors that encourage their reception remain in place. Nevertheless, presenting the arguments is absolutely necessary. Myth Busting Packs and Briefing Papers: The RECC has produced briefing packs to challenge the misrepresentation of particular groups of people who tend to be marginalised, informing people about who they are, their needs, culture, obstacles to engagement and so forth. We have so far produced the following myth busting packs, either ourselves or jointly with the Eastside Consortium involving our sister organisations in Waltham Forest and Barking & Dagenham:

 Gypsies and Travellers

 Immigration

 New Arrivals

 Islamaphobia

 Homophobia

 Transsexual People

 Mental Health

 Learning Difficulties

 Disabilities

The Eastside Consortium has also done 12 pocket guides to different faiths

The RECC has also produced a number of briefing papers in response to particular divisive misrepresentations that could have serious negative impacts on community cohesion. These briefing papers are primarily directed towards opinion formers in the community and sections of the community – they might be community leaders, local councillors, MPs, newspaper editors, faith leaders and so forth. These have included:

 Briefing Notes on BNP Leaflet “No more Mosques in Loughton” (the leaflet said falsehoods about Muslim leaders in Redbridge)

 Multiculturalism

 Recent Persecution of Roma People in Europe and the Trafficking Scare

 Beyond the Scare Stories (about the projections of enormous numbers of people coming from Romania and Bulgaria)

 Supplement to Beyond the Scare Stories (what actually happened)

We also assisted Redbridge & Epping Forest Together produce briefing papers about the British National Party in 2005/6. Schools: On a number of occasions we have written to all the schools in the borough asking to invite us to speak to the children about hate crime and prejudice. We have spoken to a number of school assemblies – both primary and secondary. We have occasionally spoken to PSHE classes also. We generally get a very enthusiastic response from the children and we would like to do much more of this in the future. We have also had our exhibitions displayed in a number of schools (see below).

Exhibitions: The RECC has exhibitions on:

 Migration to and from London throughout the ages

 Gypsies and Travellers

 Black History

 Women and Work

We display them at particular times such as Refugee Week; Gypsy, Roma Traveller Month; Black History Month; International Women’s Day. We display them in schools, in libraries and sometimes at special events.

Meetings: We think that it is very important to speak to organisations about these issues. We have spoken or made presentations to the old Area Committees, to community and residents groups, to trades unions, to faith groups or congregations and so forth.

BUILDING BRIDGES

RECC has been working on building bridges between groups in the community for many years, especially where there have been community tension. In recent times we have been innovative creating what we used to call Community Forums. We have changed the name to Community Network because of the arrival of the Local Forums. The two places we have been doing this kind of work is in South Ilford – especially Loxford Ward – and in Hainault and the areas adjoining it.

LOXFORD

From around 2008 we became aware of tensions occurring between established communities in South Ilford and new arrivals. In particular there was tension with Roma people coming from Romania. This follows the pattern of most reactions to migrations – where opposition, resentment, concern at particular behaviours etc engenders tensions. The Roma people are very visible. Anti-social behaviour by a few Roma people was getting noticed and a stereotypical picture was painted of the whole group. These problems were exacerbated by overcrowding in houses and also people not knowing about how to access certain services like rubbish collection, recycling etc. A petition was got up against this new community. Councillors did not always have a positive role in relation to these tensions. The RECC together with a Roma teacher gave a presentation to a meeting of Area 6 Committee in 2010 out of which came the idea of developing a project to bring people together to learn about and get to know each other.

South Ilford Community Forum: We promoted meetings where people from different groups in the community could come. People were encouraged to come from the Area Committee and through our connections with local schools. At first Roma people did not attend, probably because of fear and suspicion. However, slowly we began to overcome that by developing greater links with the Roma community and also through key people in the schools attending and bringing Roma parents with them. The Forum discussed issues of joint concern which brought people together. But also issues around which there was tension and hostility were also aired.

Sometimes it was difficult to manage the tensions. There was one particular meeting where people who had “problems with Eastern Europeans” were urged to come along. That was a very difficult meeting and it was a meeting with a couple of Roma families in attendance. People said a lot of nasty things before one of the Roma people spoke which was a shock to them as they hadn’t realised they were there. Once people made contact as human beings trying to share the problems of the community, the mood changed.

People identified problems about waste, recycling, open spaces, housing and so forth. We identified the relevant council officers with the knowledge and expertise about the specific issues that had been raised and got them to come along to the meetings and have a kind of surgery.

One particular open space on the corner of Norman Road and Ilford Lane had been fenced off by the council because people had complained about the Roma people congregating there. But then it was clear that many people in the area did not want to see open spaces closed down. So we invited people from Planning Action for London and Living Streets to the Community Forum to help people begin to develop a community plan for these sites, where all sections of the community could have a stake. Out of this came a Walkabout and a report which has been taken to the relevant council officers.

We are trying to facilitate a Friends of Jubilee Gardens and Norman Road to bring people together to develop a community plan.

Dos and Don’ts: Early on in its life the Community Forum suggested that the RECC produce a leaflet about acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour which focused on the areas of concern that were brought up at the forum. So we produced a leaflet in English and Romanian itemising good and bad behaviour towards your neighbours and explaining how to access certain services. These were put through doors in the area.

Cultural Events: At the instigation of the Forum the RECC and Uphall School organised a Roots in Common Music Festival at the school involving both performances from amateur and professional musicians and dancers and the school children themselves. This brought many adults together from different parts of the community and was tremendously popular.

We also had an event where we invited someone from the Indian Romani Institute to talk about the links between Indian and Roma culture.

Community Newsletter: Attendees at the forum were united frequently did not know and had not been informed about project activities, services etc. So we decided to produce a newsletter – just twice a year, distributing it to the shops, libraries, doctor’s surgeries, schools etc.

We had some funding for this work – a small amount from the Area 6 Committee and more from the Equalities & Human Rights Commission’s Good Relations Programme. But the Commission ceased to have funding arm and the Area Committee is no more so currently we have no funding for this work. We are currently only work on the Friends of Jubilee Gardens and Norman Road.

HAINAULT

Throughout the first half of the 2000s the British National Party (BNP) systematically targeted Hainault ward as a growth area, putting out regular newsletters taking up themes such as the Muslim Cemetery. This work paid off for them in 2006 when they secured a councillor in Hainault. They stood one candidate in the ward and may have secured more seats if they had stood more candidates in the Hainault. As it was they had the largest vote in the ward.

They carried on stoking up fear and loathing throughout the second half of the decade producing leaflets with the legend “Don’t let Hainault become like the Islamic Republic of Ilford”. They repeated this formula for leaflets in Bridge, Roding and Fullwell Wards but without great success.

Before the election of the BNP councillor the RECC recognised the danger and helped to establish Redbridge & Epping Forest Together (REFT) to oppose the BNP in Redbridge and Epping Forest District, where they secured 6 councillors. Next door in Barking & Dagenham the BNP secured 12 councillors.

REFT worked systematically, regularly producing newsletters and leaflets. The RECC advised REFT on its literature as well as promoting REFT in different sections of the community in Redbridge.

In 2010 the BNP lost its only seat in Redbridge and lost all their seats in Barking & Dagenham also. But although the BNP had lost its seats, tensions in the area remained. This became clear when the issue of the New North Road Community Centre emerged. This project, to rejuvenate the Working Men’s Club as a community centre attracted a great deal of opposition – because the organisation that was going to run it was the Hainault & Chigwell Muslim Association. Although it was promoted as a centre for all the community and the lease agreement locked that into centre, people mobilised against it on the grounds because some people spread the claim that it was really a Mosque. Two of the then Hainault Councillors encouraged and supported this opposition. Some objectors also disrupted meetings of the Area Committee.

Area 3 Community Forum/Hainault Community Network: As a result of these developments the RECC decided to try and repeat the formula we had developed in South Ilford and so we set up a bridge building forum in Area 3. In fact, we first announced it as the Hainault Community Forum, but people at the Area 3 objected and wanted it to include Fullwell and Fairlop. So we went along with this. The first meeting took place in St. Francis’ Community Centre and was attended by a number of people from Barkingside 21, some local councillors and people from the New North Road Community Centre where renovation had just begun (it would not open for another 18 months). This was a useful beginning. But we decided to move the venue around and had the next meeting at Hainault Forest Youth Centre.

This led to an unexpected development. A number of the young people who attended the youth centre were very keen on getting involved in the Community Forum. So over the next 18 months the main bridge building that went on was across the generations and the group identified a number of concerns to push for. One of these was the need for a bus to travel along Forest Road so that young people can safely access various sports facilities and the country park. Another was the need for additional sports development programmes, issues about careers training. Because some of the young people had disabilities this became a theme of the meetings too.

The bus route issue has been pursued by Barkingside 21 and others and looks like it may come to fruition.

We had funding from the Equalities & Human Rights Commission for this work, but this ceased. We tried to get funding from Area 3 but without success and the project sadly came to a halt in 2013.

However we have now secured some funding to continue this work and in February of this year re-launched it as the Hainault Community Network. The first meeting was promoted at the Local Forum meeting in Manford Way and was well attended. We only have funding to have two further meetings which will probably be in September 2015 and February 2016. We are in discussion with John Bramston Primary School in the hope of having a similar cultural event to the one that we had at Uphall School.

PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT

If new communities, marginalised and vulnerable groups are enabled to have a voice and to access services and knowledge about how things work, they will be more able to become part of the wider community and so strengthen it and give it greater cohesion. So our participation and engagement projects have some relevance here. We will just itemise some of these briefly:

 Outreach General Advice Surgeries

 Electoral Registration campaign

 We produced a pamphlet “Knowing Your Rights & Having a Voice” in a number of different languages

 Seeking funding for a project to develop a Roma led organisation in the borough.

CONCLUSIONS

We would argue that all these projects have made an impact upon community tensions and have or are helping to build stronger communities in Redbridge. However, in many cases we are only scratching the surface. To make a substantial difference they need to be more sustainable, there needs to be more frequent meetings, more outreach and replicated in other areas of the borough, by the RECC and/or other organisations.

Other activities suggest themselves from our experience. The role of some councillors was not helpful and in some cases were positively a hindrance. There is a strong case for the provision of equalities training for councillors and other elected representatives so that they play a leading role in encouraging equality and unity and challenging prejudices and discrimination.

We know that all this has funding implications. The council is trying to make £70M cuts and so it looks unlikely that much funding will be forthcoming from there. Other sources of funding have become more competitive.

However, it is this very difficult financial climate that makes this work more important. When resources are tight, divisions and tensions become more evident. People on benefits are despised as are migrants. Resentments develop about which group of people have got what. This is no time to be complacent. The factors undermining community are becoming more acute. So the development of projects such as these is becoming more important.

Redbridge Equalities & Community Council

June 2015.

Building Strong Communities – Call for Evidence Overview

To support the Fairness Commission’s investigation into how poverty and inequality affects people’s lives, several forms of engagement activity will be ongoing throughout the life of the Commission. One strand of engagement is a general ‘Call for Evidence’ to solicit the views of anyone who wants to contribute to the Commission’s examination.

The ‘Call for Evidence’ is an online platform on Redbridge Council’s web pages that went live on Monday, 9 February. Respondents are asked to submit evidence pertinent to the theme however, the questions asked are generic to allow for evidence to be gathered throughout the Commission process.

The two questions asked are: • How do you think the Council and its partners can make Redbridge a fairer place to live? • What can residents do to make Redbridge a fairer and more equal place to live for everyone?

The full set of responses is set out in Appendix A. It should be noted, however, a number of comments were made about the religious and ethnic diversity of the Borough which were deemed inappropriate for inclusion in this paper. These can be presented to commissioners in a closed forum for discussion upon request.

Summary of responses

In response to the question, ‘How do you think the Council and its partners can make Redbridge a fairer place to live?’, the following comments were received. a) Health

A concern is raised about ice cream vans targeting council estates and fuelling obesity b) Schools

Concerns raised included:

• the impact of allocating different schools to siblings on working parents • the lack of choice in the type of school offered 1

• raising standards for white working class children • accessibility issues preventing disabled children from attending certain schools

c) Young people

Concerns raised included:

• the lack of funding available to enable young people to study • cost of living • lack of youth provision and cost

d) Welfare payments and benefits

Concerns raised included:

• the cost of travelling to appointments • the length of time the Council takes to process claims • helping those financially struggling even though they may be in work and home owners e) Employment and Business

Concerns included:

• not overlooking disabled candidates for jobs • advertising Ilford to attract visitors to help small businesses

f) Housing

Concerns raised included:

• the allocation of housing causing upheaval to families • fraudulent activity in Houses of Multiple Occupation • the lack of affordable housing and infrastructure available to support the growing population • guaranteeing housing, especially new builds, to local people • treating homeless people in hostel accommodation equally

g) Crime

Concerns raised included:

• increasing CCTV to reduce crime • cutting MPS services • increasing police patrols 2

h) Transport

A general concern was raised about the need to improve transport infrastructure

i) Strong Communities

Concerns related to:

• being inclusive and valuing the contribution of all communities, including Roma • public buildings being made available to all communities • providing information in different formats

j) The Fairness Commission

A general concern was raised that the Commission has not yet evidenced that Redbridge is specifically ‘unfair’. k) The Council

The need for the Council to

• analyse data and work with partners to identify where the key areas of deprivation/health inequalities/unemployment are and the nature of these problems, and target hyper-local services to address these • listen to everyone’s views and exclude nobody • be more transparent • be representative • redesign services • commission locally to keep wealth within the borough • encourage philanthropy

In response to the question, ‘What can residents do to make Redbridge a fairer and more equal place to live for everyone?’, the responses received so far relate to:

• people driving more safely and being more considerate • residents being considerate of neighbours and keeping the local area litter free • welcoming newcomers and celebrating diversity • treating neighbours with respect • informing the council of issues • getting involved in policy changes and challenging decision making • paying taxes • engaging with your community • having a social conscience • encouraging community activism 3

Appendix A

How do you think the Council and its partners can make Redbridge a fairer place to live? Response

1. For working parents especially mothers, the council should ensure that their children of primary age are allocated to the same school, so that parents can get to work on time after dropping them. Further there should always be after school clubs available. Further everyone should be entitled to a place at an ordinary state school. Parents should not have to accept academies, free schools or faith schools if they do not want them. Access to benefits should be easier. Claimants should not have to take 2 or 3 buses each way - at a cost they cannot afford - to attend interviews in Seven Kings Job Centre. It is not easily accessible. Further, the Council should make decisions more quickly in housing benefit cases, and whilst it is right to be vigilant, it should not automatically assume that the claim is not a proper one because there is a mistake in it. People can lose their tenancy because of the delay caused by over-zealous processing of claims, thus making the housing problem worse. Redbridge should also ensure as far as possible that the homeless are not placed in distant places, so that parents lose jobs and children lose school places. this is no way to treat families who face a crisis of homelessness. 2. Make sure all the houses (Legal & illegal) of multiple occupation pay their way and are not claiming benefits to which they are not entitled. 3. First of all you, should provide those youth with EMA. The youth that have a clean criminal record, and a history of good attendnace. This will prevent EMA payments been given to those who dont deserve it. I am 18 in colledge, and i can say i am suffering without this EMA, the government and the council have let me down. Secondly the council needs to spend more on youth club and they need to lower the costs of electricity etc. Ive had days where i felt like the council rather have the community. LASTLY, MORE CCTV PLEASE!!!!!! Ilford lane needs far more cctv. Infanct CCTV should be increased all over redbridge. More cctv = less criminals roaming the streets. 4. Help the white working class aim for greater attainment in our schools,and support CAMHS. 5. Make it easier for disable people to access all facilities. I was told certain school such as (school’s name retracted) does not have disabled accessibility. A friend of mine wants to go to that school. However, she was refused entry because she is a wheel chair user. 6. guarantee offer of housing to people that live in the area new homes are being built first 7. Consider the needs of ALL communities including Roma and value their contribution and participation positively 8. This question appears to assume that Redbridge is not as fair as it could be. However this has not been evidenced by yourselves in any way. If it is not broken please don't fix it. 9. Homeless people living in hostel accommodations due to housing shortage to being treated equally. 11. More police patrols are needed in residential areas to ensure everyone's safety and to deter burgulars. 12. Now that we have a Labour controlled council, can we expect them to do away with the

4

11plus so we can have a comprehensive system of secondary education, which is much fairer. 14. Improve on accessible information to reach hard to reach communities e.g. those with a sensory impairment Inforamtion availabel in different formats e.g. in British Sign Language (BSL) video format. Seems to be a lot of support for people on benefits but for those in work and are home owners appears lack of support when things get too much re: finances. There is no help for those not entitled to benefits and working and still struggling. 15. Look at data from across the borough to understand where the key areas of deprivation/health inequalities/unemployment are and the nature of these problems, and target hyper-local services to address these. It is important that this is done with local partners in the JobCentre, health, police and VCS to make sure that any services put in place to tackle inequalities are joined up, preventative and tackle the root causes of inequalities, rather than put a sticking plaster on them. Share data with partners so you can understand this fully. 16. By ensuring everyone's views are listened to and nobody is excluded 17. Do something about the 30 mins free parking scam. I have overheard numerous times about people getting parking tickets after not pressing the button to get a free ticket. It is not something that is difficult to do and thus it is not done deliberately but by mistake. This is akin to entrapment. I will be interested to see how the revenue from parking fines changes for this year since it is clearly not obvious to most people. I have even heard an argument between two people one being adamant that they did not need to get a ticket as they believed that to be the case they were finally convinced to go and obtain a ticket. 18. By concentrating on it's core duties rather than expanding comms or media events. 19. By paying more attention to the west of Redbridge rather than taking our taxes and funnelling them into projects in the east. Specifically the fact that Wanstead, Snaresbrook and Aldersbrook have just one playground between them, which is old, tatty, falling to pieces and not fit for purpose. Valentine's Park has not one but two lovely playgrounds (one for older and one for younger children) as well as adult gym equipment. Fairlop Waters is going to have millions spent on a new adventure playground. Local Wanstead residents and businesses have donated towards Wanstead Playground Association's appeal to raise money to improve this playground - so far nearly £25,000 has been raised. Not a single penny has been given by the council. How is this fair? 20. Disabled professionals in Redbridge should not be overlooked for professional positions. Please be fair. 21. Do not do things behind closed doors and let everyone know what you intend to do about policies 22. This is my suggestion to Redbridge council which will be great help for small shopkeepers as well as council can also be benefited by increasing Business Rates in future. In Ilford Lane we have more then 60 ladies fashion shops and all the times the number of Ladies Fashion Shops are increasing, the buyers are slowly started knowing this news and on Saturday and Sunday one can see little bit more rush of people on Ilford Lane. 1.The Redbridge council should advertise in different Asian TV channels the growing of Ladies Fashion in Redbrige. 2. The Redbridge Council should allow free parking on Saturday and Sunday to invite people to come from other boroughs. 3. The Redbridge Council should make a TV programme inviting people and tourists to visit Ilford area for buying Ladies Fashion, Indian food etc. 5

[contact details retracted] 23. I am a teacher and I have lived in Redbridge for 10 years, there is no affordable housing and when I looked at shared ownership,properties in the borough were selling for over £300000 for key workers! I really like Redbridge but I will have to either completely moved out of the area in outer London or move abroad. I applied for council flat,again nothing available.

24. Tackle ice cream vans' licence and presence to curb obesity crisis as they target council estates and parents on low income, with less awareness on healthy living.

25. Not just a Redbridge issue but a national one, but Redbridge can do something to kickstart a change. I think it's highly unfair that we have a generation of renters who will never be ablet o get on the housing ladder and, while it is right that vulnerable people are given social housing, why are they the only ones who will be able to buy their own homes? Redbridge has both rich and poor. While the poor aspire to own their own home, the rich have multiple homes. Everyone has a right to own personal possessions and property but when that distribution is uneven or out of reach to most it becomes unfair. The rich will get richer and prices will rise meaning more people unable to afford to buy. We don't want our kids staying at home forever, it's unhealthy!!! Redbridge should have a policy of one person one home. If you want to buy multiple properties then you have to have some form of redress to compensate the poorer people who can't access the supply and price. Bit radical maybe but sometimes you have to be to make big changes when time is not on our side.

26. Why are public organisations not representative of the people of Redbridge? Surely services will meet demand if the people making decisions understood their communities so services are delivered the way the community wants. I'd like to know if policies and services made by white people are serving more white people than minorities.Has anyone actually looked at the service users and assessed if they are representative of the population? Why do I not see people who look like me when I see senior people at meetings? Plenty of BME on frontline where jobs are being cut, but the top are never BME. If the public organisations are going to be run by white people serving non white people then that's just money down the drain and unfair.

27. As a parent it's unfair that my kids will never be able to buy their own home in the borough they were born and bred. This means my family will certainly be spread afar because my kids will not be able to afford to live near me. I've worked all my life and have a job that pays well above average and yet I am still renting and will never be able to buy my own home. So I suppose you could just tell me to move to wherever they maybe, but why should that be the solution? Why can't we all aspire to live where we want to live and work hard to achieve it. No

6

matter how much we work we will never be able to achieve it. Redbridge will be the preserve of the rich and those in social housing. You are forgetting about us in the middle who work hard, bring up decent human beings, are struggling to make ends meet but because we have the basics we can get no help from anyone. Rather than take from the rich to bring up the poor, you are taking from the middle, letting the rich get richer and still not giving to the poor, I don;t know where the money is going!!!!

28. I think it's unfair that there is nothing to do in the borough. I earn £40K a year. More than half my earnings goes on rent. I have 3 kids and all my money is spent on essentials for them. I have no spare cash for entertainment. I live in a nice area where most people own their own homes so there is nothing free given around here. I do not own a car, can't afford it, and public transport is expensive. Is it fair that my kids cannot participate in activities outside of school because I can't afford it? Will this not hinder their growth and social skills. Are they not lacking in experiences that will nurture their soul and make them understand the world around them? I just worry for their future and can't offer them the opportunities I had which makes me feel like a really bad parent. Every generation is supposed to do better. I have failed i think but through lack of trying, but because the system is stacked against me and us. Thanks politicians for dragging those of us who have struggled and worked so hard to do better than the previous generation only for us to feel like complete failures.

29. Seems to me that you need to make Redbridge self sufficient and not reliant on gov funding. At the same time ensure that it doesn't lead to the rich getting richer while the vulnerable suffer hardship. There are huge gaps between the richest and poorest. You can tax them more or appeal to their philanthropic side and reason with them that the cause of the poor is not their fault but that if the system in which we live in Britain. Or you can ensure that every penny earned and spent by residents is done in Redbridge. You can do this by only utilising Redbridge resources to run Redbridge public services. Meaning all wages and business is kept in the borough making the distribution of wealth equal (in relative terms) making everyone, rich and poor, better off. You have to encourage business to ensure there are places for people to spend their money and attract visitors from neighbouring boroughs. Make people self sufficient and they are less reliant on the state leaving public funds to be spent on those who really have no option but to rely on the state through no fault of their own. You need to change the perception of public service as an asset to the community that belongs to the community and has to be run according to the needs of the community. Everything public service does should be designed around the needs of the community and with the community. There is enough money already but you don't know how to look at services holistically and deliver services together more sufficiently designed to meet needs.

7

What can residents do to make Redbridge a more fair and equal place to live for everyone? Response

1. Ensure that there are the services and infrastructure in place to support the burgeoning growth in people moving into the borough. Ensure that there are no further cuts to the MPS service in the borough. Ensure that the transport infrastructure is improved.

2. They need to start driving safer. They also need to refrain from negative attitude whilst driving and refraing from blasting loud music at late hours.

3. do not discriminate

4. keep gardens & driveways clear of rubbish & consider your neighbours when having partys bbq's etc

5. Be open to new neighbours, help neighbours new to living in Redbridge, be non judgemental, smile & engage with & talk to and get to know neighbours and celebrate our diversity

6. Please see response to last question.

7. Have respect for there neighbours, treat people how you would like to be treated.

9. Residents can drive more carefully and be respectful of buses to avoid unfair road accidents when the pedestrians are not at fault.

11. Starting in their own neighbourhoods, residents can do more to help each other by getting to know each other. Everyone has unique skills that they can share. Everyone can do a little bit to help out others, for example, cooking a hot meal for a neighbour in need, collect their prescription, etc. There are lots of schemes that residents could get involved with if the council promoted them, eg: Casserole Club: https://www.casseroleclub.com/ The Good Gym: https://www.goodgym.org/

12. By not discriminating, being tolerant

13. Be more tolerant...

14. Continue to pay there taxes and engage with community outside of council remit.

15. Wanstead, Snaresbrook and Aldersbrook residents are already trying to make Redbridge fairer for our children by donating money. In addition the Aldersbrook playground campaign is trying to improve things in Aldersbrook.

16. Get involved in policies and things in your area

17. Have housing options available for key workers as we can bring so much to the local community.

18. Ban ice cream vans from hounding poorer areas in the council.

19. Stop buying multiple homes and increasing prices so people can get on the housing ladder. Have a social conscience even though we live in a capitalist state.

8

20. Start community activism and take responsibility for what is being done to you. Don;t just think that because you have elected someone to represent you that they are doing a good job. Challenge them and don't just vote based on party actually find out about who you are voting for.

21. Stop voting for parties that have no notion of fairness and responsibility to mankind. Parties that know that the more people moved to the bottom means more richer people at the top!!!!

22. No one listens anyway so we are powerless.

23. Be more compassionate and work together for the benefit of everyone. the more we are divided the more chaotic the response. Public services are run by people who have learned from text books, who don't know how to engage the community or don't want to engage the community and end up delivering services that we don't need or can't access. As a community we need to come together and tell services what we need and be proactive and vocal. It's not enough that we vote for people to represent us, these people make decisions they don't run services, they are not the ones who have the expertise to run sufficient services so we need to guide them, not rely on them to appoint a few people to decide the future of hundreds of thousands of people. It's just a job to most of them, so we have to show them that we care about ourselves even if you don't.

24. I don't know about fair and equal, but I know that life would be much improved if everyone showed a bit more consideration for other people.

9

1





















2

























3























4







5

6

RedbridgeCVS Report on Public Meetings held for Redbridge Fairness Commission 2015.

In 2015 RedbridgeCVS was commissioned by Redbridge Council to deliver three public meetings to support and inform the work of the Redbridge Fairness Commission. The specification required that these meetings be run using “open space techniques” in order to “seek the views of Redbridge residents on aspects of service delivery in Redbridge that they deem unfair, inequitable or inappropriate to the needs of residents.”

Open Space technology is a method for running meetings. In Open Space meetings, events and organizations, participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance. OpenSpaceWorld.Org describes the purpose of this method as follows: “Open Space Technology is one way to enable all kinds of people, in any kind of organization, to create inspired meetings and events. Over the last 20+ years, it has also become clear that opening space, as an intentional leadership practice, can create inspired organizations, where ordinary people work together to create extraordinary results with regularity.” Open Space technology pioneer Harrison Owen says that there are four Rules and one Law for open space meetings. The Four Rules state: i) whoever come are the right people, ii) whatever happens is the only thing that could have, iii) whenever it starts is the right time, and iv) when it’s over, it’s over. The Law of Two Feet states that: “If, during the course of the gathering, any person finds themselves in a situation where they are neither learning nor contributing, they must use their feet and go to some more productive place.”

RedbridgeCVS delivered the three public meetings using this methodology and a draft Agenda and Facilitators’ Guide are attached as Appendices 1 and 2. We sought to promote the meetings with the single theme of “Fairness in Redbridge” to allow those attending the meetings to contribute their

ideas in the early part of the meeting so that themed workshops (with themes emerging from the initial discussions) could take place as the main part of the meeting.

The meetings were planned to take place at different locations within Redbridge (each close to public transport and in accessible venues), and at different times of the week (-we ran one on a weekday evening, one on a Saturday afternoon and one on a weekday). The meetings were as follows:-

Thursday 11th June 2015 7pm – 9 pm ILFORD ISLAMIC CENTRE Albert Road Ilford IG1 1HW

Sat 20 June 2015 2.30 pm - 4.30 pm THE ALDBOROUGH ROOM, FULLWELL CROSS LIBRARY 140 High Street, Barkingside, IG6 2EA

Monday 6th July 2015 2.00 pm – 4.00 pm REDBRIDGE DRAMA AND TEACHER TRAINING CENTRE Churchfields, South Woodford, LONDON, E18 2RB

The first meeting was arranged in partnership with Redbridge Faith Forum, and followed immediately after their AGM. The second meeting was arranged in partnership with Barkingside 21. The third meeting was not arranged in partnership, but had an additional focus on enabling people with additional communication needs to take part. We provided BSL signers, an induction loop (for people with hearing aids) and a palantypist (who projected typed text of the discussions live at the meeting).

Notes of these meetings are attached as Appendices 3, 4 and 5. These notes give a breakdown by ward of where those present either live or work. (Signing-in sheets for all the meetings are available on request. Photos of the meeting are attached as Appendix 6. More photos are available on request.)

A total of 120 people (including Councillors, Council officers and RedbridgeCVS staff) attended the three meetings. If we exclude the RedbridgeCVS staff and Councillors/Council officers, a total of 89 “members of the public” attended the public meetings.

A wide range of topics was discussed – with each meeting discussing some unique topics and some that were common to all the meetings. Some key themes that emerged from the meetings were:- • Fears about ‘digital exclusion’ for those unable or unwilling to use computers to access information, advice, services etc • People with disabilities feel distant from information, services and decisions. (This was also true for people without disabilities, but to a lesser extent.) • Difficulties in getting timely GP access • Support was expressed for voluntary sector services (which are people-centred and offer good value for money) at a time when public sector services are reducing • Concerns about housing – and, specifically, the lack of genuinely affordable housing in the borough • Concerns that some Council sub-contractors pay staff at well below the Living Wage

A more detailed list of the concerns raised at the public meetings, clustered under themes, follows:-

A: Health and Social Care:

1 GP provision needs to be increased 2 Early intervention and prevention services are important 3 There is a need to upskill healthcare professionals, particularly around disability 4 A healthy voluntary sector is vital 5 There should be no cuts in healthcare and spending on Redbridge’s health and social care should be increased 6 There is a greater need for “joined up” services (to maximise services’ impact on users, save money and ensure people don’t get ‘lost between the cracks in the system’) 7 Older people receive unfair treatment in that those who are cared for by family members are not eligible to receive any support for social care 8 Health services – money not recouped for provision of services to non EU citizens 9 Health and Social Services need to take on board the vital role of interpreters for deaf people (BSL is a “first language” for most deaf people. Local services do not provide BSL translations) 10 Needs of older people with no family support have to be taken into account 11 People with disabilities should have a One Stop Shop where they could find out about all available services in one place

B: Education:

1 Education should be predominantly under the control of the local authority 2 Class sizes should be protected 3 Better support and alternative pathways needed for under-achieving students, especially 16+ (ie academic pathways to University are not always appropriate aims for all students) 4 Agency teachers should be a last resort 5 Redbridge pupils have good achievements – but some of this may be due to the impact of parents paying for private tuition 6 Faith schools should offer 50% of places to students of other or no faiths, to encourage a cohesive community

C: Housing and Environment

1 More housing is necessary locally - particularly housing which is “genuinely affordable” 2 Concern was expressed over the removal of people from the Council’s housing waiting list if they have lived in Redbridge for less than 3 years 3 Lack of realistic local housing prospects for young people 4 Need for improvements to housing stock to make homes more energy efficient (thereby saving tenants money and protecting the environment)

5 New build homes should all be for those in current housing need, not for sale to people planning to buy-to-let 6 Greater efforts should be made to ensure families with children in Redbridge schools are not rehoused outside the borough 7 Green waste should be composted locally and sold to local people 8 Housing – buildings with multiple occupancies do not contribute fairly to Council Tax revenue 9 Planning issues – there is a presumption in favour of developers, and too many retrospective planning applications are accepted,

D: Employment and Training

1 Need for more apprenticeships and work experience for 16+ 2 More support to get into work, and for those in work, should be available for people with disabilities 3 Job Centre Plus service and advisors need to improve significantly 4 There should be more publicity about the work of voluntary and community sector groups so people know what services are available 5 Local careers advice needs improving 6 More mentors are needed to support those in work/looking for work 7 Better employer engagement should be undertaken by Redbridge Council 8 There should be a lower retirement age – to give more employment opportunities for younger people 9 Taxpayers should not be subsidising big companies who don’t pay Living Wage 10 Use of less than Living Wage (and zero hours contracts) for staff delivering contracts (via third parties) for LBR was felt to be ‘unfair’

E: Crime, Policing & Community Safety

1 More advice and advocacy on legal issues is required – Redbridge needs a Law Centre 2 More needs to be done to address prostitution issues in Ilford Lane 3 Fly tipping needs addressing with greater urgency 4 The Council should consider introducing a licensing scheme for tradespeople 5 Police are visible but not always focusing on what the public want 6 Need to educate people more about expectations and services to help: eg publicise illegality of fly tipping, promote Neighbourhood Watch and CCTV etc. 7 More policing required at night around public parks

F: Community Engagement / Cohesion

1. Concern was expressed about the lack of engagement of young people (and others) in civic life. (Support was expressed for residents associations, which have been in decline for some years)

2. There is a perceived lack of transparency in Council decision making 3. More should be done to enable dual use of public sector buildings to benefit community groups/organisations 4. Need to get responses to communications from all Councillors and Officers. This was reported to be “hit and miss at the moment” with some Councillors and officers better than others at responding to queries and complaints 5. Community Cohesion: There should be more efforts by local residents (as well as the Council) to raise awareness of different faiths and cultural practices to bring more community cohesion and harmony

Ross Diamond 9/7/15 Redbridge Fairness Commission Notes for facilitators for Public Meeting

Thank you for agreeing to help out with the meeting on Monday – it is much appreciated!

We have been asked by the Council to run these events using “open space technology”. Basically this means that there is no formal agenda at the beginning of the session – only the overarching principle behind the event. In the case of these meetings, this is to consider the general theme of “Fairness in Redbridge.”

After a quick welcome and an overview of the work of the Fairness Commission there will be (approx.) a 20 minute discussion on what people think fairness means in Redbridge with an attempt to encourage the meeting to think about • how we can work together to protect the most vulnerable people in times of austerity; and • how we keep Redbridge a safe and vibrant area

People will have the opportunity to raise the issues which are most important to them, relating to either “fairness” or examples of “unfairness”. I will ask them to decide what groups they want to break up into. Although we can’t dictate what these groups should be, we will suggest the following list (as these cover a wide range of issues that are likely to be raised):- • Health and wellbeing • Housing / the environment • Working and learning • Growing Older • Children and Young People • Community safety

We will need one member of staff to facilitate each group. Your role will be to allow people to consider questions relating to the overall theme of your group, and the following questions can be used to prompt discussion: • What issues relating to [workshop theme] are you most worried about? • What services and support are most valuable to you (eg NHS, friends, vol orgs, online help) - and how might these be improved/made sustainable? • What examples of unfairness regarding [workshop theme] can you think of - and how might these be addressed? • What worries do you have for the future relating to [workshop theme]?

You will have some flipchart paper to note the most important issues raised. These will form the basis for a quick report back from your group at the end of the evening.

People will be free to move from group to group during the course of the hour long session so you may be the only person staying in your ‘group’ for the whole session: it will, therefore, fall to you to report back on the top (approx. 3-5) themes that emerge from your group. Charity Reg 1118675

RedbridgeCVS, supported by Redbridge Faith Forum, invites everyone to:

Redbridge Fairness Commission: Public Meeting 11 June 2015 7pm – 9 pm Ilford Islamic Centre, Albert Road Ilford IG1

7.00 pm Refreshments

7.15 pm Introduction - Ross Diamond RedbridgeCVS - outlining the process to be used during the event)

7.20 Introduction – Redbridge Fairness Commissioner (tbc) – explaining how the meetings fits into the work of the Redbridge Fairness Commission

7.25 pm Open discussion - What does ‘fairness’ mean in Redbridge? Are there aspects of service delivery in Redbridge that you think are unfair, inequitable or inappropriate to the needs of residents? What are the key services that should be protected or changed? How can we work together to protect the most vulnerable people and to keep Redbridge a safe and vibrant area?

7.45 pm Focus Groups (- the themes for the Groups will be decided by participants during the Open Discussion. Participants will be free to move between Groups)

8. 45 pm Feedback from the Groups and Closing Remarks

9.00 pm Close

RedbridgeCVS is a Company Limited by guarantee: No. 2569614 (registered in England) and a Registered Charity No. 1005075

Redbridge Fairness Commission Notes from public meeting held 11 June 2015 at Ilford Islamic Centre

The meeting took place at Ilford Islamic Centre in central Ilford, in the early evening immediately following the Redbidge Faith Forum AGM. Liz Pearce welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained the format of the evening. The first twenty minutes or so would be an open discussion with people being asked to talk about what “fairness in Redbridge” meant to them, and to contribute ideas about what topics the smaller open groups should focus on.

Cllr Farah Hussain and Jacquie Grieve, both Fairness Commissioners, then gave a brief overview of the work of the Commission.

65 people participated in the meeting, including: 5 Councillors, 3 Council Officers and 5 RedbridgeCVS staff members. The breakdown of where people were from (identified by postcode or ward) is as follows:

Ward Including Council & RCVS Excluding Council & RCVS Barkingside 2 2 Bridge 3 3 Church End 1 1 Clayhall 1 1 Clementswood 14 9 Cranbrook 2 1 Fullwell 2 2 Hainault 3 2 Loxford 3 3 Mayfield 4 3 Monkhams 1 1 Newbury 4 2 Seven Kings 4 2 Valentines 8 7 Wanstead 1 1

Out of borough 1 1 Undisclosed 11 11 Totals: 65 52

Opening discussion The issues raised were: • A gentleman who believed that Council services were excellent, but the increasing population was leading to a north/south divide in the borough and there wasn’t enough investment in services in the south • Lack of school places • Loss of health services • Loss of good shopping areas • The building of too many flats with no amenity areas • Teachers not representative of population – ie. lack of teachers of Asian origin • Difficulties in finding employment, especially for young people and those with disabilities • The increasing use of temporary accommodation and the impact on peoples lives • Mismanagement of funds, particularly in housing contracts • The private licensing scheme for landlords • Lack of recreation facilities for old and young • Increasing crime • CCTV not working • Pressures on GP services • Prostitution in Ilford Lane and the impact on residents • Brothels • Lack of hope for the future • Local jobs should be for local people

As a result of the issues raised, 5 discussion groups were set up to focus on: • Health and wellbeing • Education • Housing and environment • Employment and training • Crime and community safety

Health and Wellbeing • GP appointments: long waiting times – 2 weeks. Sent to hospital and sent back to GP • Misuse of A&E • New hub for out of hours & weekend GP appointments: No information about new hub, its hasn’t been publicised enough. • Online GP appointments system does not work with everyone – especially elderly, people with disabilities find it difficult using internet or don’t have access. • Too few GPs for population • GPs taking on too many patients as they get paid for each patient • Staff not trained • King George A&E and Wanstead hospital very valuable • No maternity services based in Redbridge – Whipps Cross is in Waltham Forest and Queens hospital is in Romford. • Long waiting times for hospital appointments • Polyclinic: No appointments. Making money. Running like a business • Heronwood polyclinic working well • A view that the Council does not manage it’s funds well

Quality of health service: • Polyclinic – phone not answsered. Reception staff disrespectful to patients • KGH: under special measures for many years. Also Queens & now Whipps Cross hospital. Why can’t they manage our local hospitals properly? • Goodmayes – perception that funds being mismanaged. • A view expressed that the hospital should have a café run by a charity/community group rather than Costa. • Closing down of Day centres for elderly and for learning disabilities. Ley Street House has closed down as well along with others. This will result in more in patients in hospitals as lack of care closer to homes.

Prevention & wellbeing services: o Yoga o Referral to gym o Voluntary groups : grants for voluntary groups o Space o Difficult to get funding for residents panel and not enough for young people o Support for elderly and young people with special needs • CVS, RECC, CAB: Need to be in one place like a One stop shop in shared space so that people can find it easy to locate them. • Patient choice: very limited • Happy with Homerton – less waiting

Experience: • Royal Free culturally appropriate as compared to King George hospital. Difference in quality of care being offered at different hospitals • Patients don’t have information about any Advocacy support available if patients wanted to make a formal complaint about a health service • Lifeline, Meals on wheels very helpful – funding should not be cut • Lack of awareness of Complaints Procedure – information about how to make a complaint is not readily available and not transparent

Suggestions: • Osteopathy should be offered on NHS – have to pay for access for this treatment • Physiotherapy – not skilled staff to support people with physical disabilities. Patients have to wait upto six months to get physiotherapy started • Lifestyle related services: Diet – education • Alternative therapies • Skills of healthcare professionals varies • Gaps: Autistic spectrum – lack of GP knowledge • Long term health needs (lack of continuity) • Patients should be made aware of their rights so that they can be more assertive in accessing health services • Receptionists are gate keepers • Information needs to be given about GPs with special interests • Join up services eg: o Lack of communication amongst different departments o South of borough – more services needed o Investment in Early intervention will help make more savings in the long term for NHS and the Council. o Not enough School nurses. Healthy diet should be included right from schools and schools should should be equally responsible for maintaining children’s heatlh. Many schools in Redbridge have frozen school dinners which is not healthy. o Need improved wheelchair services

Key points reported back to main group: 1 GP provision needs to be increased 2 Early intervention & prevention services important 3 Skilling up healthcare professionals, particularly around disability 4 Healthy third sector vital 5 No cuts in healthcare and need to increase spending 6 Social care funding vital 7 Joined up services 8 Elderly receive unfair treatment in that those who are cared for by family members are not eligible to receive any support for social care.

Education • Some areas eg., pupils who have a lack of English skills, could be supported by volunteers • RE in schools: LBR has good policy and syllabus through SACRE – led to good reputation for borough • Academies and free schools are not required to teach about faith and understanding other people’s perspectives as local authority maintained schools are • Education should include learning about how to live with others – understanding different backgrounds • Understanding of how to be a good citizen needs “beefing up” a bit • Education should be a public service and predominately in control of the local authority • Attention needs to be paid to children with special needs • Must protect class sizes at time of rising population • Value to be given to diversity of gifts – not just about A and A* grades – need to recognise the potential of all young people • Especially need to recognise potential of those with special needs • Education is now prescriptive from the top down and target led • Lack of support for under achieving students and consideration of alternative pathways for them such as vocational courses • Use of agency teachers should be a last resort • Council needs to be aware that some of the high achievement in the borough is due to parents paying for tutors/extra tuition • Education needs to be high priority and standards in good schools need to be maintained. Standards need to be improved in lower achieving schools so there is equality across the borough • Inequality across schools for play space/sport activities – particularly where school population has grown. Lack of opportunity to run freely. • Insufficient publicly funded nursery places • Faith schools inclusive to their own, but can be exclusive to others. Proposal for faith schools that 50% of places in them should be for those of other faiths or none • Having 11+ lead to inequality • Some teaching staff display disability discrimination

Key points reported back to main group: 1 Education should be predominantly in control of local authority 2 Class sizes should be protected 3 Better support and alternative pathways needed for under achieving students, especially 16+ 4 Agency teachers should be a last resort 5 Impact of parents paying for private tuition on achievement in borough 6 Faith schools to offer 50% of places to other/no faith students

Housing & Environment • Housing list is lengthy and Council want to remove those who haven’t been in the borough for 3 years from it • Housing benefit has been reduced leading to massive shortfall as rents have increased • Young people unable can’t find properties and afford to live in borough • Climate change: what is going to be done to improve energy efficiency of council properties to mitigate climate change impacts • New build housing should be allocated to those who are homeless and on council waiting list – not private buy to let properties • More social housing needed • New luxury apartments should be let for social housing use • Should not be rehousing families with children in schools outside borough – impact on health and wellbeing as well as education • Community should look at taking responsibility for the area they live in – eg. dealing with litter • Rubbish and litter a problem even though Council now provide free bulky waste removal • Redbridge Life not being received by all residents so not aware of all the Council services on offer • Green waste is sent to Colchester – residents would like to be able to buy the compost it is turned into. Can it be done locally? • Not enough staff in place to deliver services. How will be able to liaise with Council and Councillors? We have to go to them with issues at present unless it’s election time when they come to us. • Vital that Councillors/peer researchers visit local communities and talk to people • How do the Council liaise with the wider community to resolve issues and hear their concerns and ideas • How prepared are the voluntary sector to undertake the services that the Council won’t be able to provide • Housing benefit cuts are leading to homelessness and people worrying about their security • How can people who are Council tenants access home swap to move out of the borough?

Key points reported back to main group: 1 Concern over removal of people from housing waiting list if lived for under 3 years in borough 2 Lack of housing prospects for young people 3 Need for improvements to housing stock to make more energy efficient 4 New build should all be for those in housing need, not private buy to let 5 Avoid rehousing families with children in Redbridge schools outside borough 6 Could green waste be composted locally and sold to local people

Employment & Training • Not enough jobs • Training for 16+ required to offer experience and apprenticeships to help find work and have things to put on CVs • Redbridge jobs for Redbridge residents • More support for disability – to get into work, and in work support • Professional jobs for people with disabilities • LBR should be engaging more with employers – Work Redbridge • People with serious disabilities not getting employment as employers won’t invest in the support needed • JCP not a great service and lack of good advisers • JCP were invited to a disability event but didn’t show up • JCP need to provide an service tailored to the individual • Need for role models in schools • Increase number of Asian teachers in schools • More support for NEETs, young carers, looked after children • Unemployment leads to mental health issues and lack of confidence – causes more costs for NHS • Need more publicity of groups in the borough – to help individuals find the right help for them • More training needed for employers around disability – ie. Sycamore Trust Autism Ambassadors • Need to share expertise • Help needed to reskill residents • Careers advice needs to be improved – quality of provision currently inadequate • A job for life – no longer the case – need more mentors and employer support • How do Redbridge residents share skills – Skills Swaps • Too much information only online • Not enough large employers in Redbridge • LBR should increase employer engagement • British jobs for British people • Retirement age should decrease, making more job opportunities for younger people • More local job opportunities needed for those with higher education qualifications

Key points reported back to main group: 1 Need for more apprenticeships and work experience for 16+ 2 More support – to get into work, and in work – for those with disabilities 3 JCP service and advisors need to improve significantly 4 More publicity for work of voluntary and community sector groups so people know what services available 5 Careers advice needs improving 6 More mentors needed to support those in work/looking for work 7 Better employer engagement by Council 8 Lower retirement age – more opportunities for younger people

Crime, Policing & Community Safety • Issues of prostitution in Ilford Lane and fear of residents • Lack of CCTV in some areas means criminals getting away with motor crime • Less policing now – lack of resources • Need to consider if particular groups are all treated in same way – ie. People with mental health issues, learning disabilities etc. • More hate crime occurring – if you get increasing divisions it leads to more tensions • More Neighbourhood Watches needed • Population in Redbridge is transient so people not so involved in the community • Crime has increased – police take time to respond • More fear of going out in pockets of Redbridge community • Voluntary organisations like Street Pastors can help vulnerable women get out of prostitution • Seems like the punters more likely to be prosecuted than the women • Police are not that bad – more that they are overworked than that they are less capable • Fly tipping major problem – can people be fined? – really bad for the environment • Men urinating in streets • Rats and foxes being seen in streets more often • More education needed as to what to do with old fridges etc. Need more information to go out. • People moving into the area are coming from a culture where they don’t care what they do with their rubbish • Gardens are unkempt • More practical to have wheelie bins • More people need to respect the community and environment – more fines needed • Woodford Green has PCSOs who hand out leaflets and have regular meetings with local people – need more of that in Ilford • Lots of illegal immigrants moving around when police aren’t around • Rogue tradesmen target vulnerable and elderly. Need to have traders licensing scheme or police to do more • Speeding: Police are waiting for people to go past them speeding. Want this cut as this can be dealt with by CCTV • No support for victims of crime

Key points reported back to main group: 1 More needs to be done to address prostitution issues in Ilford Lane 2 Fly tipping needs addressing 3 Look at introducing a licensing scheme for tradespeople 4 Police are visible but not always focusing on what we want them to 5 Need to educate people more and publicise illegality of fly tipping, Neighbourhood Watch, CCTV etc.

Redbridge Fairness Commission Notes from public meeting held 20 June 2015 at Fullwell Cross Library

Ross Diamond welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained the format of the event. The first twenty minutes or so would be an open discussion with people being asked to talk about what “fairness in Redbridge” meant to them, and contribute ideas about what the smaller open groups should focus on.

Ross talked about the background and context of the Fairness Commission being set up in Redbridge. This is in recognition of the fact that inequality is bad for everyone. It is being run at a time when the Council are looking to make £70m worth of cuts over the next three years. 4 meetings of the Commision have taken place so far and they have heard from expert and local witnesses on the topics being discussed.

RedbridgeCVS were commissioned by the Council to hold three public meetings to find out from local people what things they most valued and where they felt inequality existed. The notes of the meetings will be considered by the Fairness Commission when finalising their report towards the end of 2015.

Attendees 22 people participated in the meeting, including: 2 Councillors, 1 Council Officer and 5 RedbridgeCVS staff members. The meeting had been promoted by Barkingside 21, and it was unfortunate that it clashed with a major demonstration against austerity being held in central London.

The breakdown of where people were from (identified by postcode or ward) is as follows:

Ward Including Council & RCVS Excluding Council & RCVS Aldborough 1 1 Barkingside 3 2 Clementswood 5 1 Fairlop 2 2 Fullwell 2 2 Goodmayes 1 1 Hainault 3 3 Mayfield 1 1 Seven Kings 2 0 Valentines 2 1 Totals: 22 14

Opening discussion Issues raised were: • Allocation of school places – one example given of 4 year old twins being allocated places in two different schools • The varying quality of educational standards in different schools across the borough • Disillusionment with the Council – example given of having made representations at Council and scrutiny meetings but not getting oral or written answers to the points raised • The problem of people becoming divorced from politics • A view that the Police were not interested in people’s problems • Too many retrospective planning consents being given, leading to people not applying for permission before undertaking works in the hope that it would be less likely that it would be denied after the work had already taken place • Residents Associations folding, leading to less involvement by people in their local communities • The lack of opportunity for the public to meaningfully participate in Council and Committee meetings • The presumption in favour of development which exists in planning law • The problems of “school run” traffic – probably linked to the shortage of school places • The view that the principle of “parental choice” in education is fair • Acknowledgement that the Council has tough choices to make • Some Councillors do not reply to correspondence • Problems with lorries using residential streets as cut throughs • When homeowners are making improvements and their skips and lorries cause damage to roads and pavements the house owner should be made to pay for it • Use of old “S106” funds to buy street properties and using them to house problem families from all over London is wrong • The abolition of area committees means there is not now designated funding for local areas • Local Forums have removed the access to/accountability of local Councillors • Government is too centralised and local councils don’t have enough ability to decide what most needs doing • Children should be taught about politics and the democratic process in school • Question asked about what local government does have the power to do? • Need for more honesty in politics • View that there is a lack of knowledge and information about what the Council can do for local people • Problems of fuel poverty for some – people don’t know about availability of help and grants • Vision took over leisure from the Council but don’t pay their staff a living wage. There was a view that Vision’s staff were taking over more roles which used to be carried out by Council staff without additional remuneration. Also that their pay structure does not treat all staff equally. A figure was quoted of Vision making an £18m surplus in the last year. • A view that the swimming pool needs lots of work doing to it but there is no investment in it • On a positivie note, it was felt that Vision were providing employment opportunities for lots of young people.

The meeting decided that they wished to break into two groups to explore some of these issues in more detail. The points raised here were as follows:

Group A Issues discussed

This meeting - Today’s meeting – there has not been enough notice about it taking place and has not been advertised in diverse ways to inform local communities - This meeting is good as there are no other ways to put the points across - Minutes of this meeting should be sent out to the participants and outcomes of the meeting made public Civic life - Perceived lack of engagement of local residents in civic life of the borough – ‘people are not interested’ - Young people particularly hard to engage, they are more interested in jobs, housing, education and climate change - Lack of know-how in engaging hard to reach groups

Housing - Council housing – some people are housed inappropriately (for example, 1 person lives in a three bedroom property) - Local council have to carry out services locally – are they capable of this? - multiple occupancy in properties – tax paid only by one person: if the right tax is paid the government could get additional revenue and not cut services - house prices sky high – people with more than one property should pay more tax - Residents’ Associations in decline due to lack of residents’ engagement – a possible reason is lack of police engagement maybe because they lack resources Crime - Crime rates have gone up - Not feeling safe to go out of the house after 10pm Employment - there should be more fairness with regards to pay Health services - A&E, King George and Queens Hospitals overburdened as people cannot get to GP services soon enough - Provision of public services over stretched (police, health)- when one is under pressure it adversely affects other public and voluntary sector services - Health care for British people used for free by non-British residents; local NHS trusts do not want to enforce E111 rule (legislation) already present that can enable trusts to recoup the money - Council could collect this E111 money and could go to local health and social care Care for people with disabilities / older people - Services too bureaucratic – a case of twins, one with a disability (sent to separate schools, transport provided for one but not for the other) - Too many organisations providing support to people with disabilities but not easy to identify what services are provided locally – one stop shop could provide access to all the support available Key points reported back to full group: 1. Concern expressed about the lack of engagement of young people (and others) in civic life – it would be good to find a way of engaging people in political life particularly young people 2. Housing – buildings with multiple occupancies do not contribute to council tax revenue of the borough 3. Health services – money not recouped for provision of services to non EU citizens 4. Council – lack of transparency in decision making 5. People with disability should have an equivalent of One Stop Shop where they could find out about all available services in one place

Group B (Liz, Lorna)

Council services - Is it fair that more adults move into a property but council tax remains the same? More people= more costs incurred for services - When will council tax revaluation happen - Inequality across borough – some shopping areas have paid parking while others free. Unfair on residents and businesses - Complaints to planning can take up to a year to resolve. Even acknowledgements slow - Access to council people and responses to queries should be better. Let people know who the appropriate officer / councillor is and have standardised response times - Duplication of personal info being provided to council to access different services – could lead to savings - Centralising services leads to less accountability Health and social care - Social services and mental health services require more investment - Service s for older people and those with learning disabilities been lost - Quality of end of life services needs improving - Prescription exceptions apply to all over 60s not at pensionable age. Could be huge monetary savings for NHS not subsidising working people Voluntary and community sector - Should be making better use of buildings – dual use for benefit of local communities - Voluntary sector strategy could look at matching voluntary organisations with buildings belonging to other agencies - Some voluntary organisations in danger of closure due to lack of funding. Their services could be even more important in times of austerity Employment - Unfairness of large businesses not paying living wages and being subsidised by taxpayers Older people - Many older people excluded from accessing information as not internet users and don’t want to be - Need to make better use of library services for gathering information - Consider needs of single elderly people who don’t have support to access services

Key points reported back to main group

1. Taxpayers subsidising big companies who don’t pay living wages 2. Look at dual use of public sector buildings to benefit community groups/organisations 3. Need to get responses to communications from all Councillors and Officers – hit and miss at the moment 4. Shouldn’t exclude older people and others who can’t/don’t want to use the internet to access services 5. Needs of older people with no family support have to be taken fully into account

Redbridge Fairness Commission Notes from public meeting held 6 July 2015 at Redbridge Teacher’s Centre

Ross Diamond welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained the format of the event. The first twenty minutes or so would be an open discussion with people being asked to talk about what “fairness in Redbridge” meant to them, and contribute ideas about what the smaller open groups should focus on.

Cllr Farah Hussain then talked about the background and context of the Fairness Commission being set up in Redbridge. The setting up of the Commission was one of the first things which the new political administration in Redbridge did. This is in recognition of the fact that inequality is bad for everyone. It is being run at a time when the Council are looking to make £70m worth of cuts over the next three years. 4 meetings of the Commision have taken place so far and they have heard from expert and local witnesses on the topics being discussed. The Fairness Commission intends starting a conversation about what fairness in the London Borough of Redbridge meants, and is building up a picture of local priorities for action.

RedbridgeCVS were commissioned by the Council to hold three public meetings to find out from local people what things they most valued and where they felt inequality existed – what’s fair, and what’s not. The notes of the meetings will be considered by the Fairness Commission when finalising their report towards the end of 2015.

Attendees 33 people participated in the meeting, including: 2 Councillors, 2 BSL signers, 1 palantypist and 5 RedbridgeCVS staff members. 3 of the people present at the meeting were deaf. The breakdown of where people were from (identified by postcode or ward) is as follows:

Ward Including Council & RCVS Excluding Council & RCVS Barkingside 1 1 Bridge 1 1 Chadwell 1 1 Church End 3 3 Clayhall 2 2 Clementswood 8 5 Cranbrook 3 3 Fairlop 1 1 Fullwell 2 2 Roding 1 0 Seven Kings 1 0 Snaresbrook 3 2 Valentines 1 0

Not declared 5 2 Totals: 33 23

Opening discussion Issues raised were:

• A volunteer with the Salvation Army’s housing advice project and the Ilford Sunday Drop In talked about housing being the biggest issue. Very distressing to see the way in which people are being treated. Referred to 2 case studies of people in temporary accommodation and the Council not providing appropriate responses to complaints. There was a display of unprofessional attitudes by Council staff, and this is having a terrible effect on people’s lives. • Another participant referred to housing in the context of victims of domestic abuse, and the inadequate responses to dealing with it by housing staff. Problems caused for people when they are housed out of borough, especially for those with children in Redbridge schools. General lack of help for victims of domestic abuse from police, community etc. • Needs to be better integration between housing staff and courts over evictions etc. Also need to consider the needs of children’s education when housing problems arise. • Carers: Are facing huge pressures and not enough support for them. • Legal system is in crisis for victims. No financial support available to help people get the justice they deserve. • Housing staff are not well trained and don’t respect people – they lack compassion. They need to explain things better to people. • Deaf people face huge barriers in accessing Council staff. Almost impossible to get through to anyone. • Issues facing people with learning disabilities. Day services have gone for those in care homes. Community homes don’t have the money to be able to entertain and educate residents. Not a fair distribution of resources. • Huge lack of social housing in the borough. Young people are being relocated out of the borough. Community Land Trusts need to be given serious consideration. • People are not treated as human beings by LBR staff. • Carers getting a raw deal. Can take 6 years to get a care plan in place. Financial assessments being carried out on carers is unfair to them. • Muslim Community Centre in George Lane/Mulberry Way been unable to get approval to extend. Paying £16.5k per year for use of land and provide all sorts of services to the local community. Feels that the Muslim community not accepted in spite of how long they have been in the UK, and problems of integration. Huge need for building to be extended. • Counselling services for carers. RCSS provide this service but have a 6 month waiting list. Stress and suicides rising, and a need for more and better access to counselling services. • There is a strong need to promote and publicise the fantastic range of work carried out by the voluntary and community sector in Redbridge.

Group A Issues discussed

South Woodford Mosque: • Planning permission for South Woodford mosque being refused several times for many years. Small group of people who are against the extension, all other local residents support it. • Some resident felt that they welcome multi-cultural activities at the community centre South Woodford mosque, but feel afraid when it is over the top and feel overwhelmed.

Health and wellbeing: • GP appointments: long waiting times – 2 weeks. Walk-in centres also turn away patients and send to hospitals. Management of GP appointments need to be improved so that patients can see their GP sooner. • Most participants not aware of the new hubs for out of hours & weekend GP appointments: it hasn’t been publicised enough. • Online GP appointments system does not work with everyone – especially elderly, and people with disabilities who find it difficult using the internet or don’t have access.

Community cohesion: • Better awareness of different faiths required in the borough. In some faiths, men don’t talk to women and have separate meetings for men and women. • Lack of understanding of different cultures within the community.

Housing: • The system of allocating housing for residents needs to be improved and better managed. • Many residents are housed outside Redbridge and the quality of those houses are very poor. • Young families housed outside Redbridge find it very difficult to commute long distances everyday to bring their children to school in Redbridge.

Young people: • Lack of things for young people to do meaning they areless physically active and engage in anti-social behaviour. • Council has closed down youth centres in the area and young people have nowhere to go. • There is a need to engage with parents of young people because many parents leave their teenage children on their own without any support or guidance.

Domestic Abuse • Lack of support services for Victims of domestic abuse

Environment and community safety • Rubbish and recycling – especially near public parks is lacking. Due to lack of bins around the parking areas of public parks, residents throw litter on the streets and it impacts on residents living in the area. • Safety of resident cars and vehicles is compromised, especially those who live near public parks e.g. Valentines park. Cars and vans get stolen due to lack of CCTV cameras and policing at night.

Key points reported back to main group: 1 Community Cohesion – more efforts by local residents as well as the Council to raise awareness on different faiths and cultural practices to bring more community cohesion and harmony. 2 GP provision needs to be increased 3 Improve and increase housing 4 Funding in South Woodford area for activities for young people 5 More policing required at night around public parks

Group B Issues discussed:

Education: • British Sign Language should be included within schooling (it “opens doors”) • People lack basics of Emergency First Aid – it helps others and builds confidence • First Aid could be added as an after-school activity (who would do it? – should it be made compulsory?) • Accountability of academies to the local education authority

Digital exclusion: • Housing department expects everyone to apply online - people don’t know how to use it and everything is demanded online (via email, applications, etc.) • A lot of people do not have or know how to use a computer, especially older carers who are struggling with basics without having to deal with new technology • People with mental health issues and learning disabilities • Expectation to do everything online and then bring all the documents again (and then pay for photocopying of it)

Limited funds for voluntary and community sector who are bearing the burden of the cuts: • No help from the council (constant cuts) • Application forms for funding (when finally available) very complicated and the only help available is from RedbridgeCVS as there is Community Fundraiser in place • No explanation or constructive feedback when funding refused • Putting extra burden and pressure on voluntary sector and volunteers, especially those who are working with most vulnerable societies

Training: • Not enough people or groups available to give advice • Lack of training for officers, front line staff • No training for people (3rd party reporting centres) • No follow up from the council on training • Lack of knowledge and communication of council staff • Training for frontline employees (knowledge, customer service, understanding of culture or language barrier, more positive approach, empathy)

Legal and advocacy help: • Has become a very commercialised field and lawyers’ fees are very expensive • If someone does not have funds it is difficult to get justice • Normal people are often on their own against lawyers (with no knowledge of the law) • If lay person is without legal representation they have no chance of winning • There is an increase in situations such as evict0no – need for representation • Redbridge needs a Law Centre • needed for people (domestic violence, learning disabilities, etc) – difficult to get the police to help – having knock on effects (mental health)

Domestic Abuse: • No specialist service in Redbridge • Awareness needs to be better • Men are also victims, and there is a mental impact also on children and whole families • Huge injustice for victims • Waltham Forest outreach worker helping with one of the Redbridge groups for a year (no one in place when funding runs out) – council should design a post of outreach worker • Gang Violence and Sexual Abuse – is there anything in place to raise awareness?

Refugees and migrants: • They have no legal representation/no access/no voice • Very tight budgets for running already established projects

Youth Services (affected by cuts): • Funding needed • Not a lot for young people to do • Unemployment • Difficulty of getting steady good youth leaders – taking examples from other boroughs to train young people as leaders so they can do the same (train) future generations • Apprenticeships: for those not academically minded – unrealistic criteria and only available for very young

Mental Health Services: • Difficulty of accessing, lack of support, exclusion • No follow up / floating support system • Not enough counselling services

Housing: • Rogue landlords • Little protection for good landlords from rogue tenants – no protection for homeowners or the neighbours • ASB in neighbourhoods – nothing being done • No responses from normal (day time) services – only if you call out of hours emergency service

Positives in borough: • Swimming for women only/ for over 60s (although no female lifeguard in Barkingside) o Pools used by clubs in evening hours limiting access for the public o Private pools – the council should allow for them to be used (subsidy from the council to charge less members of the public) • Dementia work: o Memory walks o Dementia clinics • Family Support Unit for families with difficulties (although should be advertised better as not a lot of people know about it) • A lot of good services already in place but not advertised properly • Directories (from RedbridgeCVS and Mental Health Directory)

Key points reported back to main group: 1. Voluntary and community organisations need more funding to provide services which are being cut by other bodies 2. Exclusion of older people/people with disabilities from accessing services because they don’t use computers 3. Advice and advocacy required – Redbridge needs a Law Centre

Group C Issues discussed:

Living with deafness • More meetings need to have BSL signers • Action on Hearing Loss always interested in finding people to act as signers • Making phone calls using type talk is a nightmare which provides an inadequate service which goes through a third party • Minicom: Some Council offices have equipment, but staff don’t know how to use it. They put the details about it on letters, but seems this is only so they can “tick the box”” • Needs to be an understanding that for deaf people, BSL is their first language, and written English comes second • Incredibly difficult for deaf people to access services • Email and chat lines provide better means of communication for them • Issues with social workers – lack of continuity meaning relationships can’t be built, and background notes and histories go missing meaning have to start all over again • Health services are very difficult to access when interpreters don’t turn up for appointments • Whipps Cross only provide interpreters for foreign languages, not BSL • Vital to have an interpreter to be able to get relevant medical information conveyed from consultants and other staff • If medical appointments are running late interpreters sometimes have to leave before the person has been seen • Find it hard to get information about what is going on – those present didn’t know about today until their daughter informed them. Also didn’t know about Healthwatch meeting to be held on next day (listening event for Queens Hospital) • Easy Read formats are very useful for deaf people • No interpreters means no access to services and information • Large number of deaf people in Redbridge who feel very let down by the Council and therefore don’t participate in things •

Living with learning disabilities: • People with learning disabilities living in community homes unable to get ambulance transport home from hospital and not eligible for Dial A Ride • Lack of help in hospital for people with learning disabilities especially with eating – food often taken away because no-one helped them with it • Very hard for groups of people with learning disabilities living in residential homes to go out • Very hard to get the views of those with learning disabilities living in small residential homes heard • People in homes get a poor deal • Those living in care homes feel excluded • These adults are getting a raw deal • Don’t get information about meetings and things • Most of them don’t get to vote so disenfranchised

Police: • Reporting to police very difficult if not an internet user • Police don’t record crimes committed against deaf people or those with learning disabilities • No way of identifying if there are any trends or issues

Training: • Need for much more training and awareness of front line staff on deafness and other disabilities • Those living with disabilities find accessing services very frustrating • All staff need training on how to deal with all people in a fair way

Key points reported back to main group: 1. BSL is the first language for most deaf people 2. Needs to be better access to information and services for those with disabilities 3. Health services need to take on board the vital role of interpreters for deaf people 4. All staff need better training on dealing with all types of disability 5. Those with disabilities need to feel that their voices are being heard

Redbridge Fairness Commission Public Meetings 2015



































