A Meeting of the HUNTINGDONSHIRE

A meeting of the HUNTINGDONSHIRE COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE will be held in THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARYS STREET, HUNTINGDON on THURSDAY, 24TH AUGUST 2006 at 10:00 AM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-

Contact (01480)

APOLOGIES

1. MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING (Pages 1 - 4)

To receive and note the Minutes of the meeting held on 25th May A Roberts 2006.

2. MEMBERSHIP (Pages 5 - 6)

To consider a request from Huntingdon Business Against Crime to S Lammin join the Partnership.

3. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(a) Quarterly Crime Report (Pages 7 - 24)

To consider the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership D West Quarterly Crime Report April to June 2006.

(b) Working Group Reports (Pages 25 - 34)

To consider reports by Working Groups. C Waters

To receive a verbal report on the Partnership’s performance C Waters against its targets.

4. ANNUAL SEMINAR/NEIGHBOURHOOD PANELS (Pages 35 - 42)

To receive feedback from the Annual Seminar and an update on T Guinea Neighbourhood Panels. L Hunt P Griffin 5. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

(a) Data Sharing

To receive an update on the alignment of health and crime data. C Waters (Report to follow).

(b) Women's Safety Unit

To receive a verbal report on proposals to establish a women’s G Webb safety unit for domestic violence

6. DRUG AND ALCOHOL ACTION TEAM

To receive a verbal update on the Drug and Alcohol Action Team. E Pawson P Pescud 7. ALCOHOL HARM REDUCTION (Pages 43 - 56)

To consider a report on Alcohol harm reduction. J Owens

8. NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (Pages 57 - 62)

To consider a report by the Audit Commission entitled N Finney Neighbourhood Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour.

9. FUNDING

To receive an update on progress made by the Working Group G Webb looking at strategic funding issues.

10. HUNTINGDON BUSINESS AGAINST CRIME EXCLUSIONS (Pages 63 - 64)

To receive feedback on the progress of discussions on exclusions by S McRitchie HBAC. K Sismore

11. TESCO CAR PARK, ST NEOTS (Pages 65 - 74)

To receive an update on the introduction of crime reduction K Sismore measures at the Tesco car park, St Neots. C Waters

12. CCTV

To receive a verbal update on CCTV in Alconbury. C Waters

13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Partnership is scheduled to be held on 23rd November 2006.

Dated this 18th day of August 2006

Chief Executive

Please contact A Roberts, Democratic Services Officer, Tel No 01480 388009/e-mail: [email protected] if you have a general query on any Agenda Item, wish to tender your apologies for absence from the meeting, or would like information on any decision taken by the Committee/Panel. Specific enquiries with regard to items on the Agenda should be directed towards the Contact Officer.

Emergency Procedure

In the event of the fire alarm being sounded and on the instruction of the Meeting Administrator, all attendees are requested to vacate the building via the closest emergency exit and to make their way to the base of the flagpole in the car park at the front of Pathfinder House.

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1

HUNTINGDONSHIRE COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE

MINUTES of the meeting of the HUNTINGDONSHIRE COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE held in MEEETING ROOM 1, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARYS STREET, HUNTINGDON, PE29 3TN on Thursday, 25th May 2006.

PRESENT: S Lammin – Chairman.

J Bennett, T Bracken, H Caulfield, N Finney, J Fountain, P Griffin, D Hankin, S Hansen, C Howlett, S McRitchie, A Roberts, P Sharpe, K Sismore, C Waters and G Webb

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted on behalf of A Ajoni, M Bastin, B Harding, A Jarvis, J Owens, E Pawson and R Tristram

132. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30th March 2006 were received and noted.

133. HUNTINGDON BUSINESS AGAINST CRIME

The Partnership received a presentation by Katy Sismore, Manager, on the work of Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime (HBAC). HBAC covered Huntingdon, St Ives and St Neots and operated on behalf of businesses in partnership with other agencies to tackle business crime. Its specific aims were to reduce stock losses, exclude persistent offenders and protect staff. Mrs Sismore also reported on the tools HBAC used to achieve its aims and on recent iniatives.

Mrs Sismore went onto to refer to exclusion notices. She outlined the protocol and procedures involved and the individuals that took decision on behalf of HBAC. Seven individuals were currently the subject of exclusion notices. Details of one individual whose exclusion notice had been suspended were reported.

Mrs Sismore concluded by providing members with statistics on the success of HBAC in reducing shop theft and by putting forward plans to develop HBAC by increasing membership.

In the ensuing discussion members expressed concern at the inability of those who had been excluded to obtain everyday essentials and to become rehabilitated. In response Mrs Sismore pointed out that only certain stores operated exclusion orders and that only seven individuals had been excluded. It was agreed to undertake further work on whether a protocol could be established for the removal of exclusion notices.

In response to questions by members, Mrs Sismore confirmed that

1 HBAC did not have direct links with Pubwatch or the Drug Intervention Programme.

134. ANNUAL SEMINAR

Members were informed that the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership annual seminar would be held on 13th June 2006 at Huntingdon Race Course. The theme would be Neighbourhood Panels and the programme would include problem solving sessions.

135. NEIGHBOURHOOD PANELS

Paul Griffin of the Police provided the Partnership with an update on Neighbourhood Panels. A division-wide Steering Group had been established, chaired by Laura Hunt. The Steering Group was working on, amongst other things, aligning neighbourhood boundaries with police beats.

136. SAFER CAR PARKING

Consideration was given to a report on vehicle crime in the Tesco car park, St Neots. The report highlighted the number and type of vehicle crime incidents in the car park and outlined concerns at the lack of co- operation by Tesco in tackling vehicle crime. It was suggested that to do this Tesco should adopt Safer Car Parking and install CCTV and perimeter fencing.

Following discussion, it was agreed that the Chairman should write to the Area Manager seeking assistance with this matter and report back to the Partnership.

137. GOVERNANCE AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

A report setting out changes to the governance and funding arrangements for Community Safety Partnerships in Huntingdonshire was received and noted. Terms of Reference for the Cambridgeshire Community Safety Strategic Partnership were appended to the report. The Terms of Reference for the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership would be reviewed in due course.

138. BASIC COMMAND UNIT SPENDING PLAN

Consideration was given to the Central Division 2006/07 Basic Command Unit Spending Plan. Having noted that the amount for Targeted Policing Costs of Public Order Patrols Linked to Licensed Premises had been changed to £15,000, the amount of a Contribution Towards Funding of the Second Year of Fusion, a Youth Project that runs in the Huntingdon Area during School Holidays had been changed to £20,000 and the amount for Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime had been changed to £5,000, members were informed that the weighting of funding between Fenland and Huntingdonshire would be reviewed for 2007/8.

RESOLVED

that the Central Division 2006/07 Basic Command Unit Spending Plan be endorsed.

139. PERFORMANCE DATA

Consideration was given to the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership Quarterly Crime Report January – March 2006, which revealed that, with the exception of criminal damage, performance was in line with expectation. It was hoped to report on a resolution to a problem associated with different recording systems between the Police and the crime research team at the next meeting.

In response to a question by N Finney, C Waters agreed to refer the Partnerships performance in relation to criminal damage to the Anti- Social Behaviour Problem Solving Group.

140. ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR FORUM

The Partnership considered a proposal by Nigel Finney for the Executive to assume the role of the Anti-Social Behaviour Forum. The proposal was made in light of changes to the structure of Community Safety Partnerships in Cambridgeshire and, in his view as Chairman, the Forum had run its natural course. A robust framework of Partnership working had been established, which meant that the partnership would only be required to monitor progress. However, two outstanding matters also needed to be addressed, namely developing incentives for individuals to modify their anti-social behaviours and engaging health in anti-social behaviour work. While the Forum would not be disbanded, it would become dormant pending the need for it to be reactivated.

Having received the approval of the Partnership for his proposal, Mr Finnie thanked the members of the Forum for their work on its behalf.

141. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Having drawn members’ attention to a shortage of knowledge on domestic violence in Huntingdonshire, the Chairman outlined a proposal to augment Police data with data collected through health services. To this end a Data Sharing Working Group had been established which included the Director of Public Health. Potential sources of data included existing data sets, the Public Health Network, data on deprivation, accident and emergency records and a health visitor audit of domestic violence. To this it was suggested that similar work involving Addenbrookes Hospital should be taken into account. A report on this subject would be submitted to the Partnership’s next meeting.

142. ALCOHOL HARM REDUCTION

Having noted a report on Alcohol Harm Reduction, it was agreed to defer further consideration of it to the next meeting.

143. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

C McRitchie informed members that she would be submitting a report to the next meeting on the implications for the Drug and Alcohol Action Team of a decision not to increase it funding in the next year while its performance targets had increased by 80%.

Clody Howlett acquainted members with an event being run by Go East at Wyboston Lakes on 6th July 2006.

144. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Members noted that the next meeting of the Partnership would be held at 10am on 24th August 2006 at Pathfinder House.

Chairman

4 Agenda Item 2

To: HCSP From: Sonia Hansen, HDC Date: 24th August 2006

Request for Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime to join the HCSP Executive

1. Background Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime is an independent, non profit making organisation set up in March 2004 by Huntingdonshire Town Centre partnership to address crime related incidents in Huntingdon. This was in direct requests from businesses in Huntingdon.

Such was the success of the scheme in Huntingdon that 2005 saw the initiative change its name from Huntingdon to Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime (HBAC) , and expand to include St Ives and St Neots.

Working closely in partnership with Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership, CCTV at Huntingdonshire District Council and Town Centre Managers ensures the towns are safer places to live, work and shop.

HBAC is run by businesses for businesses and exists to help businesses reduce the cost of crime, fraud and anti social behaviour and to make it difficult for thieves to carry on offending.

2. HBAC representation on HCSP HBAC is not currently represented on the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership (HCSP) Executive. Katy Sismore is the Manager of HBAC and has been a long standing supporter of the work of the HCSP and has done much to help the partnership achieve its aims.

The HCSP does not currently have a business represtive on the Executive group. Katy Sismore, as a representative of HBAC, would ensure that the HCSP has better links with local business.

3. Recommendation It is recommended that the HCSP invite Katy Sismore to be a member of the HCSP Executive.

It is recognised that as the HCSP does give funding to HBAC Katy would not be able to be involved in decisions about funding from the HCSP to her organisation. This arrangement is already in place for DIAL drug link and Sue McRichtie who is a member of the HCSP Executive.

5 This page is intentionally left blank

6 Agenda Item 3a

CAMBRIDGESHIRE CRIME RESEARCH TEAM

Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership

Quarterly Crime Report

April 2006 to June 2006

AUTHOR: Debbie West CONTACT NO: 01480 428095 DATE: 19/07/2006 PRODUCED FOR: Huntingdonshire CSP

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 7 Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership Performance Summary

Strategy Targets1 (all by end 2007/08) Progress

Headline PSA1 Target • 16% reduction in British Crime Survey Comparator crimes 9 Vehicle Crime • 20% reduction in theft of vehicles 9 • 20% reduction in theft from and vehicle interference 9 • 10% reduction in malicious fires targeting vehicles - ASB • 25% reduction in criminal damage U • 5% reduction in people who think that ASB is a ‘fairly big’ or ‘very big’ problem - • 10% reduction in other malicious fires - Shop Theft • 30% reduction in theft from shops 9 Dwelling Burglary • 15% reduction in dwelling burglary 9 Violence Against the Person • 20% reduction in common assaults 9 • 20 % reduction in woundings 9 Domestic Violence • Increase reporting of domestic violence to the police by 10% U • Decrease the proportion of domestic violence incidents that are repeats to 10% See Below

Key CDRP not on track to meet target U CDRP Neither significantly on or off ▬ track CDRP on track to meet target 9

Areas for concern and Recommendations:

1. Violence Against the Person - Recorded Common Assaults have risen by 34% over the last quarter. Since this is a potentially serious offence, it is recommended that this be explored further and monitored closely.

2. Thefts From Shops - Recorded Shoplifting offences have increased by 21.6% this quarter, particularly in Huntingdon West. Whilst the Partnership is still on track to achieve its Strategy Target, this could be jeopardised if this trend continues. It is recommended that further analysis be conducted about this issue. 3. St Ives South – To monitor increasing levels of Criminal Damage and Violence Against the Person offences in St Ives South ward. 4. Youth Related Issues – To monitor and further consider issues and crime-types that are particularly related to Youth and could potentially rise over the school holiday period.

1 Based upon content of current strategy document

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 8 BCS COMPARATOR (PSA 1)

Figure 1: BCS Comparator Crime: Progress Against Target

2500 Baseline Year

2000

1500

1000

500

Count Crime Comparator BCS 0

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4

Q12003/04 Q12004/05 Q12005/06 2006/07 Q1 2007/08 Q1 Target TOTAL BCS Comparator

There has been a 3.3% decrease in BCS Comparator crime since the last quarter and Huntingdonshire CSP remains on course to meet the Strategy Target of a 16% reduction by 2007/08. Levels of police recorded crime over the last twelve months are 8.9% lower than the previous twelve month period, and 19.9% below the baseline year.

Data from iQuanta2 shows that Huntingdonshire has risen two places from 7th to 5th position compared to its similar CDRPs across the country3. Levels of BCS Comparator Crimes have declined to below the average for the group.

A breakdown of the priority areas is contained in the following sections.

2 Family Bar Charts taken from iQuanta July 2006. They are based on un-audited data from the Police Standards Unit. The figures are based on force monthly returns and are produced on the basis that timeliness and immediacy are more important that complete accuracy. Data should not be disseminated widely or made publicly available without appropriate supporting and contextual information. 3 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. BCS Comparator Crime. Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Mar 06 – 31 May 06.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 9 VEHICLE CRIME

Theft of Vehicles

Performance Monitoring: Levels of vehicle thefts over the last twelve months remain 38.4% below the baseline year and the Partnership is therefore still comfortably below the 20% reduction target.

Figure 2: Theft of Vehicle: Progress Against Target

160

140

120

100

Theft of a Vehicle Count Vehicle a of Theft 20

0 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 2003/04 Q1 Q1 2004/05 2005/06 Q1 Q1 2006/07 2007/08 Q1

Target Theft or Unauthorised Taking of a Vehicle

In relation to its family group on iQuanta, Huntingdonshire still has average levels of vehicle thefts and maintains 8th position (out of 15) 4.

Breakdown Summary:

A breakdown of the 71 theft of Figure 3: Theft of Vehicles: Breakdown of Offence Types (Apr-Mar 2006) vehicle offences 4% recorded by the 18% police over the Aggravated Vehicle last quarter Taking shows that 78% Unauthorised Theft of (55 offences) of a Motor Vehicle these were Thef t of Motor Vehicles classed as ‘Theft 78% of Vehicles’. This is 6 offences (10.9%) less than the previous quarter. There were also 3 ‘Aggravated Vehicle Takings’ and 13 ‘Unauthorised Thefts of a Motor Vehicle’. These proportions remain consistent with previous quarters.

4 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. Theft or unauthorised taking of a vehicle. Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Mar 06 – 31 May 06.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 10 Monthly Trends: This graph depicts current levels of vehicle theft in direct comparison to the same months in previous years. An overall reduction is clearly visible and there are no seasonal trends of note. Whilst offence levels Figure 4: Theft of Vehicles: Monthly Comparison in May and June were slightly higher 70 than the same months last year 60 there is a downward trend this quarter. 50

20 Theft of Vehicle of Count Theft 10

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

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7

Geographical Breakdown: Previous ‘problem wards’ Yaxley and Farcet and Huntingdon North have experienced a considerable decrease in vehicle thefts this quarter, dropping by 6 and 5 offences, respectively. However, levels still remain high in St Neots Eynesbury and are over three times the Huntingdonshire average (2.4 recorded crimes). Warboys and Bury ward exhibited the biggest increase in offences this quarter with 5 vehicle thefts, compared to none in the preceding three months.

Figure 5: Theft of Vehicles by Ward (Apr-Jun 2006)

Theft of Vehicles Count Vehicles of Theft 2

0 Earith Stilton Sawtry Ramsey Ellington Buckden Brampton Fenstanton Somersham St Ives East Little PaxtonLittle St IvesSt West St IvesSt South Godmanchester Huntingdon East Huntingdon Huntingdon West Huntingdon The Hemingfords Huntingdon NorthHuntingdon Yaxley and Farcet Warboys and Bury and Warboys St Neots FordSt Eaton St NeotsSt Eynesbury St Neots Priory Park Elton and FolksworthElton St NeotsEaton Socon Kimbolton and Staughton and Kimbolton Upwood and Theand Upwood Raveleys Gransden and The Offords Alconbury and The Stukeleys

Apr-Jun 2006 Huntingdonshire Average

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 11 Theft From Vehicle and Vehicle Interference

Performance Monitoring:

Over the last quarter Huntingdonshire has experienced a 16.6% decrease in the number of ‘Thefts from Vehicles’ and ‘Vehicle Interference’ offences recorded by the police. Overall, the Partnership is 33.8% below the baseline year and comfortably achieving the 20% reduction target.

Figure 6: Theft From Vehicles: Progress Against Target

450

400

350

300

250 200

150 Count 100

0 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 2003/04 Q1 2004/05 Q1 2005/06 Q1 2006/07 Q1 2007/08 Q1 Theft from a Vehicle and Vehicle Interference

Target Theft from Vehicles/Interference

In relation to similar CDRPs across the country, Huntingdonshire has risen 4 places from 11th to 7th position and is currently below the group average5.

Breakdown Summary: A breakdown of the 229 Thefts From Vehicles and Vehicle Interference offences shows that 199 (87%) of the crimes were ‘Thefts From Vehicles’. This is 16.1% lower than figures for the preceding quarter. The Figure 7: Theft From Vehicles: Breakdown of Offence Types numbers of ‘Vehicle (Apr-Jun 2006) Interference’ has also decreased by 40.7% to 12% 1% Theft From a 27 cases. The Vehicle decreases in these Vehicle Interference categories continue the declines exhibited Theft From Vehicle between January and Other Than a Motor March of this year. Vehicle 87%

There was 3 ‘Thefts From a Vehicle other than a Motor Vehicle’ recorded between April and June.

5 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. Theft from a vehicle. Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Mar 06 – 31 May 06.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 12 Monthly Trends: This graph depicts current levels of thefts from vehicles in direct comparison to the same months in previous years.

With regards to the Figure 8: Theft From Vehicles: Monthly Comparison current quarter, figures for May are 200 slightly elevated 180 compared to 2005. 160 However, this is offset 140 by offence levels in 120

April and June, which 100 are both less than the 80 same months last year. In fact, there 60 were only 62 recorded 40 Theft From Vehicle/Interference Count From Vehicle/Interference Theft offences in June and 20 this is the lowest 0 monthly figure since Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar the monitoring period 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 began in 2003.

Geographical Breakdown: Overall, 63% of the wards in Huntingdonshire have experienced decreases. The most substantial of these was in Huntingdon North. Whilst this area still remains in the upper quartile, offences declined from 31 to 12 compared to the previous quarter. Huntingdon East and St Neots Eaton Socon have also exhibited noteworthy decreases, as has Buckden Ward, which is now back to its previously low numbers. The ward with the biggest increase in offences over the last three months, compared to the preceding quarter, was Yaxley and Farcet, which rose from 8 to 26 recorded thefts and interference.

Figure 9: Theft From Vehicles by Ward (Apr-Jun 2006)

10 Theftfromf VehiclesCount 5

0 Earith Stilton Sawtry Ramsey Ellington Buckden Brampton Fenstanton St IvesSt East Somersham Little Paxton Little St IvesSt West St IvesSt South Godmanchester Huntingdon EastHuntingdon Huntingdon West Huntingdon The Hemingfords The Huntingdon NorthHuntingdon Yaxley and Farcet Warboys Bury and St Neots Eynesbury St NeotsSt Ford Eaton St Neots Priory Park Priory Neots St Elton and FolksworthElton St NeotsSt Socon Eaton Kimbolton and Staughton and Kimbolton Upwood and TheRaveleysUpwood and Gransden TheOffords and Alconbury The and Stukeleys

Apr-Jun 2006 Huntingdonshire Average

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 13 THEFT FROM SHOPS

Levels of ‘Thefts from Shops’ have risen by 21.6% since the last quarter. Whilst this should be closely monitored over the forthcoming months, current figures for the last twelve months still remain 33.4% below the baseline year. As such the Partnership remains on track to meet the strategy Figure 10: Theft From Shops: Progress Against Target target of a 30% reduction by 2008. 250

200 As a consequence of this increase, 150 Huntingdonshire CSP has dropped 5 100 rd th places from 3 to 8 50 position in its family Count Shops from Theft groups of most 0 similar CDRPs6. The Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4

figures for the 2003/04 Q1 2004/05 Q1 2005/06 Q1 Q1 2006/07 Q1 2007/08 current quarter Target Shop Theft remain slightly below the group average.

Summary: There were 134 ‘Thefts From Shops’ between April and June 2006. As outlined in previous reports, the majority of offences (40%) occurred in Huntingdon West ward. This ward also exhibited the biggest increase with double the number of recorded shop thefts than occurred in the previous quarter (27 to 54). This is a significant upsurge and further in depth analysis would provide the partnership with a clearer picture of what the problem is. Other wards with 10 or more offences were St Neots Priory Park and St Ives East and South.

Figure 11: Theft From Shops: Monthly Comparison Monthly Trends:

100 Levels of offences have remained fairly 90 stable over the last 80 three months, ranging 70 from 42-47 each 60 month. 50

30 TheftFrom Shops Count 20 10 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7

6 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. Shoplifting. Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Mar 06 – 31 May 06

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 14 DWELLING BURGLARY

Performance Monitoring: The previously noted stability of levels of ‘Dwelling Burglaries’ has continued into the current quarter. Consequently, the Partnership is currently 30.7% below the baseline year and still exceeding the 15% reduction target.

Figure 18: Dwelling Burglary: Performance Against Target

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Dwelling Burglary Count Burglary Dwelling 20 0 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 2003/04 Q1 2004/05 Q1 2005/06 Q1 2006/07 Q1 Q12007/08

Target Dwelling Burglary

In relation to Huntingdonshire’s most similar CDRPs however, the Partnership has dropped 6 places to 9th out of 15 and levels are slightly above the group average.

Breakdown Summary:

A breakdown of the figures for between April and June 2006 shows that the majority of offences (95%) were classed as ‘Dwelling Burglaries’. This is an 8% increase on figures for the previous quarter. Distraction and Aggravated Figure 19: Dwelling Burglary: Breakdown of Burglaries have both decreased to 4 Offence Types (Apr - Jun 2006) and 1 offences respectively. 4% 1%

Aggravated Burglary Dwelling Burglary

Distraction Burglary 95%

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 15 Monthly Trends:

When looking at the figures on a monthly basis, levels of domestic burglary have remained fairly consistent over the last three months and ranged between 33 and 35 each month. In comparison to Figure 110: Dwelling Burglary: Monthly Comparison previous years, figures for April 80 are the lowest 70 since 2003/04 but those for 60 May and June 50 are slightly elevated on 40 last year. 30

Count Burglary Dwelling 20

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

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7

Geographical Breakdown:

Overall, 17 out of the 29 Wards (59%) have experienced decreased levels of dwelling burglary or stayed the same since the last quarter. Huntingdon East has been surpassed at the top position by Warboys and Bury which has seen the biggest increase from 7 to 13 offences. This continues the upward trend highlighted in the last report.

The biggest decrease from 7 to no offences was exhibited in Sawtry. Other wards have fluctuated only slightly form last quarter’s figures.

Figure 111: Dwelling Burglary by Ward (Apr Jun 2006)

4 Dwelling Burglaries Count Burglaries Dwelling 2

0 Earith Stilton Sawtry Ellington Ramsey Buckden Brampton Fenstanton Somersham St IvesSt East Little Paxton Little St Ives West St IvesSt South Godmanchester Huntingdon East Huntingdon The Hemingfords Huntingdon WestHuntingdon Huntingdon NorthHuntingdon Yaxley and Farcet Warboys Bury and St NeotsEaton Ford NeotsSt Eynesbury St NeotsSt Priory Park Elton and Folksworth and Elton St NeotsEaton Socon Kimbolton and Staughton and Kimbolton Gransden andThe Offords Upwood andThe Raveleys Alconbury TheStukeleys and

Jan-Mar 2006 Huntingdonshire Average

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 16 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Apr – Jul – Oct – Jan – Apr – Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Offence Description 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 Abandoned Vehicle (Not Stolen) 213 243 222 186 219 Noise Complaints 28 39 17 18 58 Rowdy and Inconsiderate 776 662 885 900 1439 Rowdy and Nuisance Behaviour 667 698 434 178 211 Vehicle Related Nuisance 156 157 69 84 173 Other ASB 152 154 181 188 182 TOTAL ASB 1992 1953 1808 1554 2282

This quarter there has been a 31.9% increase in Anti-Social Behaviour incidents. By far the largest increase has been in incidents classed as ‘Rowdy and Inconsiderate’ which has risen by 539 incidents (37.5%) since the previous quarter. ‘Noise Complaints’ and ‘Vehicle Related Nuisance’ have also more than doubled over this time period.

Numerous reasons have been proposed for this sharp escalation including modifications to recording and coding procedures. As such, these figures should be treated with caution at the present time until it can be ascertained whether the increases reflect procedural changes or actual crime levels.

Geographical Breakdown:

Over the last quarter 27 out of the 29 (93%) wards have experienced increases in incidents of ASB and 12 wards (41%) reported incident levels above the average for the Huntingdonshire CSP area. The only wards to decrease were Alconbury and The Stukelys and Gransden and The Offords. The wards with the highest incidences of ASB over the last three months were Huntingdon North, East and West and St Neots Eynesbury. These are generally consistent with the findings in previous reports.

Figure 112: ASB by Ward (Apr - Jun 2006)

250

200

150

100 ASB Incident Count

0 Earith Stilton Sawtry Ellington Ramsey Buckden Brampton Fenstanton Somersham St IvesSt East Little Paxton Little St Ives West St IvesSt South Godmanchester Huntingdon EastHuntingdon The Hemingfords Huntingdon West Huntingdon NorthHuntingdon Yaxley and Farcet Warboys and Bury and Warboys St Neots Eaton Ford St NeotsSt Eynesbury St Neots Priory Park Elton and FolksworthElton St Neots EatonSocon Kimbolton andStaughton Kimbolton Gransden and The Offords Upwood and The Raveleys Alconbury and TheStukeleys

Apr-Jun 2006 Huntingdonshire Average

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 17 CRIMINAL DAMAGE

Performance Monitoring:

Levels of Criminal Damage (including Arson) have dropped slightly since the previous quarter. The Partnership is currently 0.4% below the baseline year but is still not on track to meet the strategy target of a 25% reduction by 2008.

Figure 113: Criminal Damage: Progress Against Target

900

800

700

600

500

400

300 200

Criminal Damage Count 100

0 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 2003/04 Q1 Q12004/05 Q12005/06 2006/07 Q1 Q12007/08

Target Vandalism (Criminal Damage)

In relation to its family group, Huntingdonshire CSP has risen 4 places from 12th to 8th in comparison to the most similar CDRPs. Its levels are slightly below the group average7.

Breakdown Summary:

Over the last three month period, the majority (35%) of Criminal Damage offences in Huntingdonshire were ‘Damage to Vehicles’ (234 crimes). As reflected in the overall decrease, there has been a reduction in all but one of the sub-categories, most notably in the number of Arsons which has fallen from 32, between January and March, to 21 in this quarter. The only offence type that has increased over the last three months is ‘All Damage to Other Buildings’ which has gone from 92 to 116 crimes, an Figure 114: Criminal Damage: Breakdown of increase of 26.1%. Offence Types (Apr - Jun 2006)

3% 18% 26% All Damage to Dw ellings All Damage to Other Buildings All Damage to Vehicles 18% All Other Damage Arson 35%

7 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. Criminal Damage (exc 59). Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Apr – 30 Jun 06.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 18 Monthly Trends:

The figures for Figure 115: Criminal Damage: Monthly Comparison both April and June are both 350 below those for 300 the previous two years. Most 250 notably, levels of Criminal Damage 200 this quarter have 150 remained very 100 stable, ranging Count Damage Criminal from 217 to 218 50 crimes per month. 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7

Geographical Breakdown:

The Wards experiencing the highest levels of Criminal Damage this quarter are Huntingdon West (60 counts), Huntingdon North (53) and St Neots Eynesbury (51). These three wards are generally in the upper quartile for the area but both Huntingdon West and North have experienced increases since the previous quarter.

The Ward exhibiting the biggest increase over the last three months is St Ives South which has grown from 17 to 47 crimes, an increase of 63.8%. Consequently, this ward has moved from below the Huntingdonshire average to markedly exceeding it. In contrast, St Neots Priory Park8 and Yaxley and Farcet9 have exhibited definite decreases this quarter and as such are no longer occupying the top positions in the partnership area.

Figure 20: Criminal Damage by Ward (Apr - Jun 2006)

20 Criminal Damage Count Damage Criminal

0 Earith Stilton Sawtry Ellington Ramsey Buckden Unknown Brampton Fenstanton Somersham St Ives East Little PaxtonLittle St IvesSt West St IvesSt South Godmanchester Huntingdon East Huntingdon Huntingdon West Huntingdon The Hemingfords Huntingdon North Huntingdon Yaxley and Farcet Warboys and Bury St NeotsSt Eynesbury St Neots Eaton Ford Neots St Eaton St Neots Priory Park Elton and FolksworthElton St Neots SoconEaton Kimbolton and Staughton Kimbolton Upwood and The Raveleys Gransden and The Offords Alconbury The and Stukeleys

Apr - Jun 2006 Huntingdonshire Average

8 Reduced from 69 to 31 offences.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 19 VIOLENCE

Performance Monitoring: Common Assault

Recorded Common Assaults have risen quite considerably over the last quarter by 34%. Whilst the Partnership is currently 30.1% below the baseline year and therefore still on track to meet the strategy Figure 21: Violence Against the Person – Common Assaults: target of a 20% Progress Against Target reduction, this should be 200 monitored closely. 180 160 At present, 140 Huntingdonshire is 120 th 100 7 in its family 80 group of most 60 similar CDRPs 40 with levels close to 20 0 the group Count Assault Common average10. Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4

2003/04 Q12003/04 2004/05 Q12004/05 2005/06 Q1 2006/07 Q1 2007/08 Q1

Target Common Assault

Performance Monitoring: Woundings

Levels of records Wounding offences have also slightly increased this quarter. The Partnership is currently 21.3% below the baseline year and remains on track to achieve the 20% reduction target in 2008.

Figure 22: Violence Against the Person – Woundings: Progress In relation to its Against Target family group on iQuanta, Huntingdon 350 CSP has risen two th nd 300 places from 4 to 2 and considerably 250 below the group 200 average11. 150

100

50 Wounding Count Wounding 0 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4

2003/04 Q1 2003/04 Q1 2004/05 Q12005/06 2006/07 Q1 2007/08 Q1

Target Woundings

9 Reduced from 76 to 42 offences. 10 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. Common Assault (inc on PC) Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Apr – 30 Jun 06

11 IQuanta. Huntingdonshire. Wounding (serious and other). Most Similar CDRPs. 01 Apr – 30 Jun 06

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 20 Breakdown Summary:

When combining the two categories into all violence against the person offences, it is clear that the majority (54%) of crimes were classed as ‘All Other Wounding’. These proportions continue previously noted trends. Figure 23: Violence Against the Person: All three categories have increased Breakdown of Offence Types (Apr-Jun 2006) since the preceding quarter but the All Common biggest increase has been in Assault common assaults, which has risen 43% Wounding from 79 offences between January Endangering Lif e and March to 144 this quarter. All other 54% Wounding

Geographical Breakdown:

Compared to the preceding quarter 18 out of the 29 wards (62%) have demonstrated increases in the number of Common Assaults and Wounding offences recorded by the police.

The biggest reduction was in Huntingdon West which fell from 39 to 26 offences. However, this ward still remains in the top three wards across the partnership area. Adjacent wards Huntingdon East and North experienced the biggest increases this quarter rising by 18 and 19 offences respectively. Whilst these wards have consistently had higher levels of violence against the person crimes than much of the partnership area this oscillation in neighbouring wards could suggest that the offences are being displaced from Huntingdon West for some reason and moving into adjoining areas. St Ives South Ward has also exhibited a substantial increase this quarter.

Figure 24: Violence Against the Person by Ward (Apr - Jun 2006)

40 35

20 15 10

5 Violence Against the Person Count Person the Against Violence

Earith Stilton Sawtry Ramsey Ellington Buckden

Brampton Fenstanton St Ives East Somersham Little Paxton Little St Ives West St Ives South Godmanchester Huntingdon EastHuntingdon Huntingdon WestHuntingdon The Hemingfords Huntingdon NorthHuntingdon Yaxley and Farcet and Yaxley Warboys and Bury St Neots Priory Park St NeotsEynesbury St Neots FordSt Eaton

and FolksworthElton St Neots Eaton Socon

and Staughton Kimbolton Gransdenand The Offords Upwood Theand Raveleys Alconburyand The Stukeleys Apr-Jun 2006 Huntingdonshire Average

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 21 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Performance Monitoring:

Figures for the number of offences displaying a marker for Domestic Violence have risen slightly over the last quarter by 4 offences (6.7%). The Partnership is currently 59.4% below the baseline year meaning that Huntingdonshire CSP remains extremely unlikely to meet the strategy target of increasing Domestic Violence reporting to the Police by 10%.

Figure 25: Domestic Violence: Progress Against Target

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Offences with DV Marker Count Marker DV with Offences 0 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 2003/04 Q12003/04 2004/05 Q1 2005/06 Q1 Q1 2006/07 2007/08 Q1

Target Total Offences with a DV Marker

As noted on several previous occasions, the reasons behind this sharp drop are still unclear and as such, the figures should be treated with extreme caution. It is likely that a procedural change has caused the steep reduction rather than it being a true reflection of levels of Domestic Violence.

As part of the exploration into this issue incident data that has been classified as ‘Domestic’ has been examined in order to ascertain whether the same downward trend is evident. Figure 26: Domestic Violence Incidents The available figures for 120 incidents since April 2005 clearly 100 portray a 80 contrasting picture. These 60 reveal a slight 40 upward trend in which incident DV Incidents TOTAL 20 reporting has 12 0

increased . Jul Jun Jun Oct Jan Feb Mar Sep Nov Dec Aug May May Apr-06 Based on this Apr-05 information it is DV Incidents Linear (DV Incidents) suggested that

12 All of this data relates to Adult on Adult Domestic incidents.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 22 incident data may provide a more accurate representation of incident reporting and its use should be considered in future monitoring reports.

Domestic Violence – Repeat Victims

A system has now been devised for generating figures relating to the number of repeat incidents of domestic violence. Due to multiple constraints this has proven to be a very difficult operation and the system only came into effect in April 2006. Figures for this target will be available for the next quarterly report.

Produced by Cambridgeshire Crime Research Team (July 2006) 23 This page is intentionally left blank

24 Agenda Item 3b Agenda Item 5

Anti-Social Behaviour Problem Solving Groups (PSGs) 2006-2007 Quarterly Progress Report

Quarter: Quarter 1, April - June 2006

Priority Area: Anti-Social Behaviour

Lead Officer: Barbara Gowling

I. Key Achievements (What has gone well):

During the first quarter a total of 49 cases have been considered. Four ABCs were signed, 4 were signed off, however there were two reported breaches of ABC. Six ASBOs were granted (4 of which were post conviction) and a further two are in the process of being applied for.

There has been greater involvement from the Youth Offending Service with the work of the PSG and assistance with some intervention. Although attendance is not as high as some other agencies, information is passed on to Barbara Gowling on a weekly basis therefore attendance is not always necessary. Resources are not yet available for early intervention with young people not yet registered in the criminal justice system when they might most benefit. It is hoped that the Youth Inclusion Support Program (YISP) will be made available in the district also the roll out of resources for Individual Support Orders (ISO) will also be constructive in supporting intervention work of the groups.

The attendance of case relevant RSL representatives has improved. Attendance by Luminus has been 100% in all areas, however some of the other RSL attendance has dropped. This said, communication between RSLs and HDC/Police is improving therefore information is made available even in the event of non-attendance.

The implementation of the local information sharing agreement has also ensured that new members are aware of the purpose of the meetings and requirements of attendees.

II. Areas of Concern (What has not gone well):

There is still a feeling that ASBOs are not being looked into properly when they reach the courts. On two occasions ASBOs have fallen through due to problems at court. This has been discouraging for all involved and wasted many man hours.

Attendance of an appropriate Social Services officer at PSG meetings remains inconsistent, however contact is made more regularly with Sue

25 Agenda Item 5

Howard at St. Neots. Furthermore, extra support is being conducted in St. Ives through the Children’s Trust headed by Sue Mills and Sarah Tabbitt.

Where a recommendation for a Social Service referral is made, this has to be done through the duty social worker system leading to lack of consistency and feed back to the group. This may also lead to a lack of understanding of the process so that when a case has proceeded to further action eg an ASBO, a case conference may be called to discuss appropriate prohibitions, use of a parenting control order and requirements of associated publicity etc; conflict may arise with representatives and previous PSG decisions revisited in order to proceed as a cohesive group.

There is a limited number of nominations received for the PSG agendas in North Hunts and when we do receive nominations we are not receiving enough evidence to move the cases forward. Furthermore, the names which are currently on the PSG are not necessarily causing ASB specifically. Names are frequently mentioned within the PSG but never brought forward and information is not shared as fluently as some of the other PSGs. North Hunts has been problematic as it is so close to Peterborough that not all agencies within Huntingdonshire are used (eg. social services, schools, etc.)

III. Changes to be made to address concerns:

To ensure the attendance of an appropriate social services representative.

To maintain representation of main PSG partners e.g. Police, HDC, YOS, Education and relevant RSLs.

To maintain regular contact with CPS/Criminal Justice Unit to ensure better understanding of criminal justice process so that all partner agencies are providing the appropriate input as required. To improve the reporting of outcomes of all PSH cases to relevant lead partner agency.

Ensure either a member of the Constabulary or HDC attends cases whereby ASBOs are being pursued in order to avoid the courts missing the files or failing to address what has been raised within the files.

Raise issues with North Hunts at next PSG meeting.

Huntingdonshire Domestic Violence Forum 2006 - 07 Quarterly Progress Report

Quarter: Quarter 1, April - June 2006

Priority Area: Domestic Violence

Lead Officer: Claudia Waters

I. Key Achievements (What has gone well):

• Domestic Violence Forum – A number of additional agencies were invited to attend the first Forum meeting that was chaired by Claudia Waters. All agencies invited attended and representation was seen from over 15 different agencies. At this meeting the mission statement and terms of reference were agreed and agencies were asked to sign up to the Forum as members. This has ensured that agencies have made a commitment to the Forum.

Forum members also agreed to hold a training and awareness event in November 2006 and members signed up to becoming trainers in DV awareness within their own organisations.

• Sanctuary Project -

• The project is now fully up and running and the contract in place with Luminus to install the Sanctuary Scheme where agreed. It is intended that a review meeting will be held after 6 months to look back on what has happened to date and lessons to be learnt. • A directory of domestic violence services is now available, please contact Claudia Waters if you would like copies.

II. Areas of Concern (What has not gone well):

• The reduction in reported incidents of domestic violence during 2005/06 is still of concern as we continue to be unsure as to the reason for such a dramatic reduction. There is no obvious explanation. Southern Division are currently working on a project to identify why DV targets are not on track – update awaited.

III. Changes to be made to address concerns:

• The DV Forum is to consider new terms of reference in an attempt to ensure a commitment of attendance and participation. –Action

complete which has resulted in a great improvement in commitment from agencies. • The County Domestic Violence Steering Group has agreed to look into the possible reasons for the reduction in reported domestic violence during 2005/06. – Awaiting update

28 .

Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership 2006-2007 Quarterly Progress Report

Quarter: Quarter 1, April - June 2006

Priority Area: Hate Crime

Lead Officer: Simone Russell

I. Key Achievements (What has gone well):

Since the Spring of 2006, the Hate Crime strategy in Huntingdonshire has continued to deliver excellent partnership working outcomes and has actively developed links within the Housing Sector where is was felt that the relationship between Housing providers and a large segment of the population provided an excellent opportunity to promote Open Out with little/no cost implications to the scheme. The strategic direction of the project continues to operate by agreement within the Open Out Reference Group which, comprises locally based representatives of agencies from the statutory, non- statutory and voluntary sector, which also monitors the progress of individual depersonalised cases.

The work of the group whilst encompassing the wider community specifically deals with hate crime against target groups based on race, religion, sexuality, disability and age. However, anyone can be a victim of hate crime.

The Huntingdonshire scheme has worked closely with the Cambridge City scheme to develop a county wide branding for the scheme in order to raise the profile of the scheme and to look into the impact of hate crime on individuals, groups and communities from a county perspective. Peterborough has undergone staff changes and are currently relying on temporary staffing.

New, hard-hitting posters were released in June which were the result of the Art Competition run by Maxine West, the response to these by both victims and reporting centres has been profound and there has been an increase in reports received which may be in correlation to this.

New postcard size flyers have been distributed to reporting centres and schools which provide easy access to contact numbers and these have worked well at presentation and seminar events.

Some of the specific outcomes have been: • To date Open out has carried out community engagement at Hinchingbrooke Hospital, PREC - Migrant Workers Conference, Refugee Centre, Learning Disabled Centre, Neighbourhood Wardens- Luminus, Anchor Housing, BPHA Housing, Cambridgeshire Early Years Partnership Conference, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Ramsey Town

29 .

Centre and Hunts Mind. The response to presentations delivered has been good and we hope to further develop resources to meet the needs of the client group. • As a particular point of note during the World Cup 2006, a strategic decision was made to visit Ramsey which has a large Portuguese community to alleviate any concerns or tensions and the response from the locals was really rewarding. • As we continue to forge partnership links the scheme has appealed to other agencies and we are currently in the process of negotiating service level agreements with HMP Littlehey, as the preferred partner to provide independent assessment of all hate crime incidents within the prison. • Cambridgeshire Constabulary chose the Huntingdonshire Open Out Scheme to provide external partnership experience for newly trained Officers and the response was that they rated the work we do very highly and the community links we have to be very useful for their future careers. • There have been 13 reports received during this quarter, 3 are still current and 10 have been closed. We continue to provide quality support and encouragement to all victims of hate crime to report incidents, enabling us to develop more effective monitoring tools across the district which will aid in the development of effective impact assessments.

Case Studies:

• Mixed race couple experiencing verbal abuse on a random, yet regular basis. Working with Housing agency, re-housing of family is under discussion, whilst eviction of perpetrators is a potential outcome, still under assessment at this stage. • Asian family subjected to verbal abuse and damage to property, family successfully, enabled to move by offering to sell their home to local housing association and moving from the area. Perpetrators have been raided by the Police for drugs and other ASBO offences and have been evicted. • Leafleting of Public House after victim was verbally abused and called homosexual names by staff and customers.

II. Areas of Concern (What has not gone well):

Effectiveness of some Open Out reporting centres remains an issue a Seminar is planned for September,14, 2006 to address the issues and to re- educate organisations about the scheme and the role they play in ensuring its success.

Through a successful and determined funding drive £23,000 to date has been secured and we gratefully acknowledge this show of commitment by our partners. We continue to develop links with agencies with the option for them

30 .

to contribute towards the funding stream and are under discussions with Cambridgeshire Constabulary Central Division about long term funding for the post.

III. Changes to be made to address concerns:

A Community Fun Day is planned for September, 9, 2006 at Huntingdonshire Regional College, from 12:00-17:00, where Open Out and its partner agencies will have an opportunity to promote the scheme in an informal and fun environment. Key agencies supporting the day will be the Criminal Justice Board, Commission for Racial Equality - East of England and Huntingdonshire District Council.

We encourage promotion of the scheme internally and externally and offer training to all our partner agencies amongst key staff, promotional material is available for in-house use. Additionally, external training can be offered by Open Out in conjunction with Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

All partner agencies who have contributed to funding are welcome and actively encouraged to run their own media campaigns promoting Open Out activities.

Next meeting of the Open Out reference group is Thursday, 7 September, 2006 from 10:00-11:00 this will be followed by the Diversity Forum meeting at Brook House, Ouse Walk, Huntingdon., Cambs, PE29 3QW

31 This page is intentionally left blank

Thematic Groups 2006 - 07 Quarterly Progress Report

Quarter: Quarter 1, April - June 2006

Priority Area: Priorities identified in the CS Strategy 2005 - 08

Lead Officer: Claudia Waters

I. Key Achievements (What has gone well):

• Representatives from agencies as well Town and Parish Councils are continuing to regularly attend the ASB Thematic Working Group to discuss specific issues. This has resulted in many issues being addressed through the use of time limited action plans. • Attendance at this meeting is outstanding and representatives are making use of best practise and the sharing of information. • All agencies that attend are willing to complete actions on behalf of the group and this has taken the pressure off the Local Authority and Cambridgeshire Constabulary who historically were left to complete all actions.

II. Areas of Concern (What has not gone well):

• It is felt that they acquisitive crime thematic group has not been as focused as it could have been and this has resulted in very few action plans being put in place. • A meeting has been organised for 28th September 2006 involving the appropriate officers to discuss the immerging issues that have come out of the quarterly crime report. These issues relate to areas of concern for vehicle crime and an increase in shop theft.

III. Changes to be made to address concerns:

• It is proposed that the acquisitive crime thematic group will meet on a quarterly basis after the quarterly crime report has been received. The group will develop their action plans around the immerging issues identified within each crime report.

33 This page is intentionally left blank

34 Agenda Item 4

Huntingdon Community Safety Partnership Annual Seminar - Feedback

Flip chart paper

Ramsey workshop

• Definitive list of parishes in each neighbourhood – send panel info to all parish clerks • Panels can not be too large or they will become unmanageable • Two way communication the key • Need someone to collate and distribute the information • Visible policing key concern • Real value in ensuring police attend parish council meetings • Panel meeting represented in Ramsey: Ramsey / Somersham / Warboys / Bury town and parish councils / 1x District and 1x County Cllr to represent other parishes. Notes to be sent to all parish clerks. Who will be responsible for the admin this will generate.

St Ives workshop

• Reps from relevant areas • Set agenda for individual areas, to include: amending ‘beats’, officers in right area, support from other areas at hotspots • Not only panels, but other forms of engagement – surgeries, attendance at parish council meetings etc • How do we promote the panels, who gets to come along? (promotion, advertising, inaugural meeting etc) • How can we ensure problems will be resolved (problem solving approach – review analyse the whole panel involved) • Fresh start, not task group continuation • Build in proper feedback of opinions on how the panel is working

Huntingdon / Oxmoor workshop

• Number of members on Panel, ideal no 11, composition is likely to change relative to the problem • May need the core of group to be agencies • Need reps from all sections of the neighbourhood from community group • Reserve a minimum number of places on a panel to the public • Include youth groups in the process (target college school council members, include in citizenship program, certification) • Challenge to find true representatives of the community • T of R – Bimonthly meetings may require larger pool of members for better commitment • More focused and relevant to area / community – tangible result • Consultation document to be circulated to prospective members • Newsletter to publicise results (new and exciting) • Who will pay for venue, stationary, refreshments etc • Family tree of where neighbourhood panels fit into whole scheme of neighbourhood policing • Clearly defined action plans with actions and designated officers for each priority • Venue – Oxmoor, fixed venue / Hunt, Godman, hunt, Brampton rotating • Early evening time • Alternative format, not all sitting around a table • Better publicity of meeting – feedback on success (agenda item 1), different media text, DVD etc.

St Neots / Eynesbury workshop

• Rural Issues likely to be overlooked if the panel includes a busy town centre • Issues coming from parish councils through district council • Confidence in reporting to the police needed • Community Representatives • Sub group made up of smaller villages – passes info on to the panel • Perception of exclusion (rural) • Engagement with the community • Effective feedback to the wider area • Use of parish magazine • Regeneration of NHW • Members - Local Vicar, Schools, Major Employers, NH wardens, Connexions, Land owners / RSL’s, Residents, Doctors, Youth service, Domestic violence contacts, young people • Marketing, publicity and Communication essential • Working in partnership • New developments – additional needs

North Hunts workshop

• Parish Council meetings must feed into neighbourhood panels • Task groups good • North Hunts is a huge area, how does a panel cover the whole area? • Rotating venues for meetings • HHP Warden • Youth reps – Yaxley youth group, Yaxley motor cycle project, youth service • Prime Parish Council reps – cluster Parish Councils, one rep for a group of Parishes • NHW needed • Not just Police reps • Yaxley, Haddon, Sawtry are hotspots • Yaxley very big representation on panel

Feedback Forms

I have found the evening useful….

Average score 4 / 5, comments included:

• Workshops were the best part • Clarified Neighbourhood Policing and Neighbourhood management • Good understanding of the principles • Too much management speak • North Hunts Neighbourhood too big

Task groups can be adapted to create safer neighbourhood panels….

Average score 4 / 5, comments included:

• They cover similar tasks • May take time to adapt • New initiative that needs a new approach • Task groups are the basic foundation

Presentations were clear….

Average score 4 / 5

Would like to be involved in a Safer Neighbourhood Panel for your neighbourhood….

75% of respondents were keen to be involved in panel meetings when they get going.

Next Steps….

• Each Community Safety Task Group is discussing the formation of Safer Neighbourhood Panels at their next meeting. This discussion has been had at the St Neots and North Hunts task groups • First Safer Neighbourhood Panel meetings will be held in September and October, the initial meeting will be a public meeting for the neighbourhood, the meeting will be advertised across the neighbourhood and certain key individuals will receive an invitation • The seven Huntingdonshire Neighbourhood Teams will engage with the communities in their neighbourhood to obtain as much community information as possible to ensure that panels have the correct information with which to set priorities • Reports regarding the position and progress of Neighbourhood Policing will be presented at each Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership Strategic Meetings

37 This page is intentionally left blank

Introducing Safer Neighbourhood Panels (Results of HSCP Seminar held on 13th June 2006 and common questions and issues raised at recent Task Group Meetings)

1.0 HCSP Seminar

1.1 HCSP Seminar 2006 focused on Neighbourhood Policing and Neighbourhood Management.

1.2 Presentations were given by: Dr Sue Lammin, HDC – an introduction to HCSP; Ch Supt David Hankins on the background to Neighbourhood Policing and the Picture by 2008; Dave Griffin, Police - The Role of Area Based Community Safety Task Groups and Neighbourhood Arrangements; Ch Insp Laura Hunt - Problem Solving Overview – SARA / PAT, and Dan Smith – Neighbourhood Management. In addition, there were workshops based on the current area Community Safety Task Groups, to look at the issues that might arise with the introduction of Safer Neighbourhood Panels.

1.3 Over 100 people attended from various agencies, plus members of the public and Neighbourhood Watch.

1.4 Feedback from the Workshops is attached.

1.5 Feeback received after the event about the Seminar was generally positive, with many keen to be involved in the new Safer Neighbourhood Panels.

2.0 Area-based Community Safety Task Groups – concerns and issues raised

2.1 All recent meetings of the area-based Community Safety Task Groups have been attended by an officer from the Police to explain the background to Neighbourhood Policing and the introduction of Neighbourhood Panels as a replacement for area based Task Groups.

2.2 Cambridgeshire has already seen the introduction of 7 Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) across the District (St Neots Police Sector – Eynesbury NPT and St Neots area NPT; Huntingdon Police Sector – North West Hunts (Yaxley, Sawtry and down to Bythorn), Huntingdon area NPT (including Alconbury, etc) and Oxmoor NPT; and St Ives and Ramsey Police Sector (St Ives area NPT and Ramsey area NPT). Issues raised: • Why the need for separate NPT teams for Oxmoor and Eynesbury – this has been decided on because of the volume of calls for service in these areas. • Some neighbourhoods (especially North West Hunts) are very big. How can one team realistically manage such a large geographical area – Unfortunately, the national model does not ideally suit rural areas, such as Huntingdonshire. However, Central Divison has always worked on the basis of Police Sectors, who already have a good understanding of their local areas. The alignment of Police and District Council boundaries has also enabled North West Hunts to have its own dedicated team, who have now been in place since October 2005 and are managing their area well.

2.3 All NPTs are headed by a Police Sergeant, with a team of Community Beat Officers and PCSOs dedicated to the area.

39 2.4 HCSP, which is the organisation under which the Task Groups work, is fully supportive of the national model for Neighbourhood Policing and the introduction of Safer Neighbourhood Panels (Panels).

2.5 It is intended that each NPT area will have its own Panel. Issues raised: • What about combining the St Neots and Eynesbury, and Huntingdon and Oxmoor panels - this is a possible consideration and can be reviewed in future.

2.6 It is intended that Task Groups will form the basis for the new Panels, and it is hoped that current members will wish to be involved. Issues raised: • How will smaller organisations such as Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime, which cover a large area, be represented across the Panels? - this might be done through contact with Police, or a representative prior to Panel meetings. • What will happen to the Task Groups? Some Task Group members feel that the current Groups work well and would like to see them continue – Task Groups will cease to exist and will be replaced by Panels. To continue the Task Groups would be to duplicate this type of work and Neighbourhood Policing is the national model for the future. Neither the Police nor HDC have the staff to support two such groups, although consideration might be given to continuing with a limited number of Task Group meetings for a very short time to allow a settling-in period.

2.7 Initial Panel meetings will be advertised in the local area. Issues raised: • How will these meetings be advertised? – word of mouth, press articles, posts, invites to key community members and organisations, victims of crime and Neighbourhood Watch members. Any other suggestions are also welcome. • It should be made clear that Panels are to be different to Task Groups, in order to attract interest from people – it is understood that careful marketing needs to be done to engage people’s interest and that Panel meetings must be run in a businesslike manner in order to obtain continued commitment.

2.8 Panels will be formed of key members of the community, including the public, to enable a wide range of people to have a say in directing local policing priorities. Issues raised: • How are local people to be encouraged to participate? - different methods of engagement, which will not rely solely on attendance at meetings, will be used, ie: newsletters, surveys, press articles, poster campaigns, etc. • Some Task Group members feel that they do not currently have enough power to get anything done – Panel meetings are intended to be more businesslike and focussed and members should expect to take away actions and be responsible for reporting back on what they have or have not done. Action plans will be properly formulated and followed. • What role will young people have to play? – young people are a very important part of their communities and will be encouraged to participate, as will people and organisations who represent their interests, such as youth workers. • What role will voluntary and community organisations have to play? – anyone or any organisation that has an interest in reducing crime in their neighbourhood will be welcome to participate. • How will hard to reach community members, such as ethnic minorities, elderly and disabled be able to participate? – Neighbourhood Policing does not begin and end with Panels. There were will a lot of engagement activity happening between

40 meetings: newsletters, surveys, police attendance at Parish Council meetings, surgeries, etc.

2.9 Panel meetings will include a Neighbourhood profile and recommended priorities. People will also bring their own concerns to the Panels. Members will then use a problem solving approach to decide on 3 priorities in their Neighbourhood. Issues raised: • How will rural areas be able to have a fair chance of having their priorities addressed, over the needs of urban areas? – this will need to managed carefully by all members, but especially Chairmen and Police reps. Continual engagement with rural communities is key. Rotation of meeting venues will also be considered. • How can one panel realistically manage the priorities of large geographical areas (especially North West Hunts). Would it be better to have more Panels in these areas? – As previously mentioned, the national model does not ideally suit rural areas, such as Huntingdonshire. However, the North West Neighbourhood might be managed through careful representation by Ward, rather than individual Parishes. Rotating meetings will also help members feel that priorities across the geographical area are important. It also needs to be recognised that the NPTs in these areas have responsibility to manage their Neighbourhood as a whole. • How will the ‘he who shouts loudest’ problem of managing priorities be resolved? – Chairmen will to expected to manage Panel meetings to allow all members to have a fair say and Terms of Reference include respectful behaviour. Representatives from key crime reduction agencies will be members, and their knowledge will be able to help direct the Panels to deal with the most appropriate priorities.

2.10 There is no set format for how Panel meetings will run, but one suggestion might be to hold a two part meeting, with the first part open to the public and general discussion and the second part for members to make decisions on priorities.

2.11 Panels will be initially administered primarily by the Police with some support from HDC, but it is hoped that this work will eventually be taken over by Panel members.

2.12 Confidential issues will always crop up now and again. Representatives from agencies such as the Police are aware of the need to deal with these matters delicately and will normally to available after Panel meetings or through their usual contact to speak with people about their concerns.

2.13 Dealing with common and frequent problems experienced by numerous types of groups, such as apathy, disappointment in performance of the group and lack of commitment are acknowledged as ongoing challenges. This can be managed through a process of regular review of the work of the Panels, openness and honesty being a policy and members understanding their roles.

2.14 Feedback is important to people and it is recognised that this is some-thing the Police have not necessarily been very good at in the past. It is expected that anyone who becomes a member of the Panels will understand that they will have accountability for giving feedback on their actions, so that the whole Panel has a full picture of what is happening with each priority.

3.0 Way Forward for Safer Neighbourhood Panels

3.1 St Neots – It has been decided that a public meeting will be held on 20th September at Buckden Community Centre in the evening. The Neighbourhood Profile will be presented at the meeting, after which attendees will be invited to become members.

41 The second part of the meeting will be for members to discuss and decide on the first priorities.

3.2 Eynesbury – a meeting will be arranged after the St Neots Panel, which will allow time to review that meeting.

3.3 North West Hunts – This will involve members from the current Sawtry and North Hunts Task Groups. It has been decided that a public meeting will be held early in October 2006. The likely venue will be Sawtry College. Actual date and venue to be confirmed.

3.4 Presentations to Ramsey and St Ives Task Groups are yet to take place, and decision on Panels will be made at the meetings by mid September.

42 Agenda Item 7

Discussion paper

Alcohol harm reduction: summary of key issues for public health in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

1 Background

1.1 Alcohol harm reduction is identified as a national priority in the White Paper ‘Choosing Health’ and the ‘Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England’ published in 2004. The Local Area Agreement for Cambridgeshire is due to undergo a ‘refresh’ in 2006 and it is intended that this process will include setting targets and indicators for a local alcohol harm reduction strategy.

1.2 This discussion paper is intended to provide a brief summary of the key public health issues, together with references for the effectiveness evidence-base and some examples of good practice from elsewhere.

2 Introduction

2.1 Over 90% of adults in the UK population consume alcohol, with many enjoying the social and health benefits that moderate consumption can confer, however alcohol is associated with considerable social, economic and health costs, and is identified as a major contributor to a range of harms including:

• Health: harm to individual health particularly from chronic and binge drinking with an estimated annual cost to the NHS of up to £3 billion

• Crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour - including arrest for drunkenness and disorder, victims of alcohol-related domestic violence and drink driving

• Loss of productivity and profitability - including lost working days, alcohol-related deaths and absenteeism

• Harm to family and society - social breakdown including problems within relationships and families, marriage breakdown, homelessness and rough sleepers with alcohol problems

2.2 Alcohol-related mortality and morbidity are increasing, whilst the proportion of deaths prevented by the protective effect of alcohol is decreasing. There is also increased crime and economic cost related to alcohol use.

43 2.3 Some of the key evidence of the burden of alcohol on health and social care systems includes:

• A survey in 2002 estimating that 12% of men and 3% of women were dependent on alcohol • Between 0.78 –1.3 million children are affected by alcohol misuse in the family • Around a third of incidents of domestic violence – approximately 360,000 - are linked to alcohol misuse • There are up to 20,000 street drinkers in the UK • Alcohol misuse accounts for almost 10% of disease burden, surpassed only by tobacco and blood pressure • Alcohol related disease accounts for 1 in 26 NHS bed days • Up to 35% of all A&E attendance and ambulance costs, £500 million, are estimated to be alcohol-related • 40% of A&E admissions are alcohol-related • Up to 22,000 deaths each year and 150,000 hospital episodes are related to alcohol misuse • Alcohol is associated with up to 1,000 suicides per year

Sources: Health Development Agency: Prevention and reduction of alcohol misuse: Evidence briefing 2nd edition – March 2005 Alcohol Needs Assessment Research Project (ANARP), DoH 2005 ERPHO 2006

2.4 The Department of Health and the Home Office are jointly responsible for implementing the national strategy, which includes measures to change attitudes for responsible drinking and behaviour, including:

• Making the sensible drinking message easier to understand and apply • Targeting messages at groups such as binge drinkers and chronic drinkers • Providing better information for consumers, on products and at the point of sale • Providing alcohol education in schools to change attitudes and behaviour, informed by the findings of the ‘Blueprint’ research • Providing more support and advice for employers.

3 Alcohol misuse and its effects

3.1 The context for understanding and responding to alcohol misuse in the UK is that of a society within which alcohol is freely available and acceptable, and in which only a minority choose not to drink alcohol at all.

3.2 The World Health Organisation categorises alcohol use disorders as:

• Hazardous drinking: people drinking above recognised ‘sensible’ levels but not yet experiencing harm

44 • Harmful drinking: people drinking above ‘sensible’ levels and experiencing harm • Alcohol dependence: people drinking above ‘sensible’ levels and experiencing harm and symptoms of dependence.

3.3 Alcohol misuse can be defined as the personal use of alcohol such as to threaten or damage health or social adjustment of the user or those other persons directly affected by his or her drinking.

3.4 The DOH study found that 38% of men and 16% of women (age 16-64) have an alcohol use disorder – equivalent to approximately 8.2 million people in England:

• The prevalence of alcohol dependence overall is 3.6% (6% of men and 2% of women) – equating to 1.1 million people with alcohol dependence

• Normally 38% of men and 23% of women exceed recommended maximum levels for the heaviest drinking day of the week – higher than the numbers exceeding the previous weekly limits (21 units for men and 14 for women). Rates of drinking in men have not increased in the last 10 years, but rates in women have increased by over 50% - and doubled in young women. There is also evidence of a recent increase in binge drinking in women

• Alcohol is known to cause 3% of cancers

• The World Health Organisation believes that 9.2% of the overall disease burden in developed countries is due to alcohol use

• Alcohol misuse causes liver disease, pancreatitis, accidents (including road traffic accidents), crime and anti-social behaviour, child abuse and domestic violence, sexual assault and unprotected sex, leading to unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, foetal alcohol syndrome in babies whose mothers drink in pregnancy, divorce and family breakdown.

• It is associated with mental illness and is a key contributory factor to increased health inequalities, for example through homelessness.

4 Evidence of effectiveness in alcohol interventions

4.1 ‘Choosing Health’ reinforces the government’s commitment to tackle alcohol misuse, with measures including guidance and training to identify alcohol problems early; piloting screening and brief interventions within primary care and hospital settings, and a social responsibility scheme for alcohol producers and retailers. Additional alcohol intervention funding is due to become available in 2007-2008, to improve local arrangements for commissioning and delivering alcohol treatment services.

45 4.2 Evidence of effective interventions is building and key sources include:

• Royal College of Physicians - Alcohol: can the NHS afford it? RCP2001

• Health Development Agency evidence briefing: Characteristics of review-level evidence of interventions to prevent or reduce alcohol misuse HDA 2005

• Violent Britain: People, Prevention and Public Health; McVeigh et al 2005

• ERPHO PHISER Day presentation slides Feb 06: Alcohol and health in the East of England, Subu Iyer and Stuart Lines

• Director of Public Health reports

• Alcohol misuse interventions: guidance on developing a local programme of improvement: DOH 2005

• National Treatment Agency: Models of Care for Alcohol Misusers (NTA 2005)

There are also examples of good practice from other parts of the country where work on alcohol harm reduction has progressed. Including:

• Suffolk, Manchester, Leeds, Greenwich, Hampshire Local Area Agreements

• Taking measures: a situational analysis of alcohol in the North West, Centre for Public Health, John Moores University, Liverpool 2004

• Preston Alcohol Brief Intervention training pack evaluation report, Centre for Public Health, JMU Feb 06

4.3 The interventions for which there is evidence of effectiveness include:

• Reduction of alcohol-impaired driving – through breath testing; training for those serving alcohol; blood/alcohol concentration and minimum legal drinking age laws

• Strict enforcement of age restrictions in on- and off-licensed premises

• Preventing the sale of alcohol to intoxicated individuals and street drinking bans

• GP and other primary health care professionals – screening and brief interventions (particularly extended brief interventions over several visits in primary health care settings for women) including incorporating screening for alcohol misuse into routine health care

• Screening to identify individuals who have, or are at risk of developing alcohol-related problems using screening tools e.g. AUDIT

• Education and training on alcohol misuse for health professionals, for a range of settings

• Advice about hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption given by GPs and other health professionals in a range of settings.

5 Alcohol services in Cambridgeshire

5.1 Alcohol services are commissioned by the PCTs, and provided mainly in primary and community settings in partnership with other organisations, both statutory and voluntary, and through the Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT). Primarily GPs and practice staff and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership Trust are the statutory providers.

5.2 Voluntary sector organisations include, for example, Drinksense, who provide a professional counselling, information and support service for people with alcohol related problems, their carers and families.

5.3 The aim is to offer a seamless route from referral into specialist treatment, where this is needed. Clients are offered multi-disciplinary medical and psychiatric assessments, community detoxification, in-patient detoxification, prescribing and group work. Individual, group or family therapy, detoxification, assessment for longer rehabilitation and counselling are also available.

5.4 The DAAT also works closely with the five Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CRDPs) to ensure local crime reduction priorities are addressed.

See Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Public Health and Health Inequalities Dataset 2005 pages 70 to 73 for alcohol statistics.

6 National needs assessment

6.1 The Department of Health commissioned the Alcohol Needs Assessment Research Project (ANARP) in 2004, whose key conclusions include:

• There is a large gap between the need for alcohol treatment and actual access to treatment, with only approximately 1 in 18 (5.6%) of alcohol dependent individuals accessing specialist alcohol treatment nationally per year

• Approximately a third of alcohol dependent individuals referred to treatment actually access treatment, suggesting considerable potential to increase engagement with services

• Approximately 36% of referrals to alcohol services are self-referrals – pointing to potential need for improved access, including better public information

47 • Waiting lists/times are the main barrier to accessing treatment – it is likely that increased capacity in alcohol services would lead to increased actual demand and access

• There is considerable scope for increased identification and referral to specialist care from generic services including primary care, general hospitals, mental health services, criminal justice agencies and social services

• There needs to be adequate capacity in specialist alcohol services to meet increased demand from initiatives to increase screening and referral activity in non-specialist services

• GPs expressed the need to have more training in dealing with alcohol in primary care

7 Practical measures for inclusion in planning and commissioning, and Local Area Agreements:

7.1 Bearing in mind the outcomes of the research above and some of the examples from elsewhere in the country, the following is a menu of measures, which can be included in a partnership approach to strategic planning for alcohol harm reduction

1. Assess local need, current investment and provision of screening, brief interventions and services across health, social care and criminal justice pathways and to consider the different needs and priorities within communities through health equity audit

2. Establish a baseline of provision within primary, secondary and specialist care, including public information and advice, and including non-NHS services, and produce action plan for improving access

3. Establish local indicators e.g. reduction in A&E attendance; emergency call-out; access to services; crime and public disorder reduction targets

4. Conduct local research - pilot projects within primary care, using screening and brief interventions

5. Agree explicit criteria for referral and treatment thresholds within SLAs and contracts

6. Develop a programme for improvement of alcohol treatment services, alongside drug misuse treatment needs, including service users in planning

7. Develop a programme for improving public information and general advice; including alcohol awareness events

48 8. Produce guidance and training to ensure that all professionals are able to identify alcohol problems; map the training needs within primary care

9. Join up strands of health improvement – such as sexual health; healthy lifestyles, with the promotion of safe drinking and alcohol services

10. Work within LSPs and CDRPs to reduce the social and economic impact of alcohol misuse – particularly public disorder and violent crimes such as domestic violence incidents

11. Increase young people’s education and awareness through PHSE.

Julie Owens Associate Director, Public Health Projects Huntingdonshire PCT Tel 01480 308241

April 2006

Appendix 1: Numbers in treatment with alcohol as primary drug (2004-5) ERPHO Regional Drugs Information Unit – hard copy Appendix 2: Examples of objectives from CDRP/LAA sources

References

1 Alcohol harm reduction strategy for England: Cabinet Office Strategy Unit: March 2004: http://ww.strategy.gov.uk/su/alcohol/alcohol_harm_pdf.htm 2 Choosing Health : making healthy choices easier: White Paper: Department of Health: November 2004 http://www.dh.gov.uk 3 Alcohol – can the NHS afford it? Recommendations for a coherent alcohol strategy for hospitals. Report of a Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians: February 2001 4 Health Development Agency: Prevention and reduction of alcohol misuse: Evidence briefing 2nd edition: March 2005 5 Violent Britain: People, Prevention and Public Health; McVeigh et al 2005 6 ERPHO PHISER Day presentation slides Feb 06: Alcohol and health in the East of England, Subu Iyer and Stuart Lines 7 Director of Public Health for Huntingdonshire report 2005: Health Awareness 8 Alcohol misuse interventions: guidance on developing a local programme of improvement: DOH 2005 9 National Treatment Agency: Models of Care for Alcohol Misusers (NTA 2005) 10 Suffolk Local Area Agreement 11 Taking measures: a situational analysis of alcohol in the North West, Centre for Public Health, John Moores University, Liverpool 2004

Appendix 2

Selected examples of Local Area Agreement alcohol harm reduction action plans

[NB In many of these areas there is no baseline, and the targets are not precise enough to carry specific indicators]

1 Greater Manchester (extracts from action plans)

• Undertake a training needs analysis of front-line workers in Tier 1 services, as part of the Models of Care – assess capacity; identify gaps • Provide training regarding alcohol awareness and brief interventions for social care, health, housing, voluntary sector, criminal justice, children and family workers • Undertake local research to look at impact of alcohol assessment, screening and brief interventions in primary care relieve pressure in other areas of the health service • Plan to include alcohol assessment, screening and brief interventions in the Enhanced Services of GP contract • Develop a city-wide Hospital Alcohol Strategy – to include A&E departments • To ensure that chronic disease case managers have alcohol focus • Develop a joint commissioning plan for alcohol treatment services • Develop a performance management framework for alcohol services including a baseline dataset • Develop care pathways for people whose alcohol use is harmful, including transitional arrangements for young people, the homeless and drinkers with mental health problems • To increase the knowledge and understanding of front-line staff and community groups of the treatment services available • To capacity-build within domestic violence agencies to address alcohol-related issues • To develop housing-related support services • Develop targeted prevention service for vulnerable young people • Develop services for parents whose children misuse and services for children affected by parental alcohol misuse • Develop joint working protocols between drug and community alcohol teams • To encourage employers to develop and implement alcohol and drugs in the workplace policies • Develop alcohol/substance misuse policy for staff • Develop an alcohol toolkit • Develop a local action plan with licensees relating to how they can meet the objectives of the Licensing Act and the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy • Develop and deliver universal and targeted alcohol public health campaigns

2 Suffolk

• Suffolk drug and alcohol harm reduction strategy 2005-2008 • Alcohol development officer appointed – part of DAAT

50 • Local needs assessment and local action plan in preparation: raising awareness; increasing access to and effectiveness of treatment • Screening and brief interventions • Placing information for the public on alcohol containers and in retail outlets

Suffolk LAA targets:

• Increase drug and alcohol education and awareness events delivered to local communities by 15% • Reduce the number of violent crimes in public places related to alcohol misuse by 10% • Reduce the proportion of reported domestic violence incidents where alcohol was a factor by 10% • Link to teenage pregnancy, sexual health, antisocial behaviour and other targets

Suffolk local initiatives:

• Night safe – public transport • Ipswich alcohol harm reduction project • Homeless outreach project for street drinkers • Under-18 drinkers project • Young people education • Domestic violence alcohol project • PHSE harm reduction project in schools

3 Greenwich LAA

• Introduction of a new system for hospital reporting to create a database and establish a baseline • Reduction in the number of town centre crimes where alcohol is contributory factor

4 Leeds LAA

• Reduction of perceptions of public drunkenness • Reduction in re-offending behaviour of perpetrators of domestic violence where alcohol is a contributory factor • Police survey to establish baseline • Reduction in alcohol-related violent crime in city centre

51 This page is intentionally left blank

52 CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH PUBLIC HEALTH NETWORK

FOR INFORMATION/DISCUSSION

Subject of report: Alcohol harm reduction: a summary of key issues for public health in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Report of: Julie Owens, Associate Director, Public Health Projects, Huntingdonshire PCT

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to present a discussion document for partner agencies outlining key public health issues related to alcohol misuse; with a view to developing priorities for an alcohol harm reduction strategy and targets for possible inclusion in the Local Area Agreement (LAA) refresh process.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The current Local Area Agreement for Cambridgeshire includes a target to address underage sales of alcohol, which will conclude in March 2007. Following feedback from stakeholders, the proposal for further areas of work on alcohol harm reduction in future was included in the ‘aspirations’ section of the final submission of the LAA.

2.2 The intention of the annual refresh of the LAA is to review outcomes, indicators and targets and to develop more detailed action plans aligned to the priorities adopted by partners.

2.3 The LAA Board will establish the process for the annual refresh, and work will need to commence around the agreed priorities in order to develop a submission to GO East by March 2007.

3 CONTEXT

3.1 The discussion paper attached was included in a learning set session held by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Public Health Network held on 2nd May 2006.

3.2 Key points emerging in discussion included:

53 • The wide impact of alcohol misuse on several partner agencies • Potential for improving demand management through measures to tackle alcohol misuse • Potential to build on existing targets and networks • Potential for local as well as countywide targets: e.g. through partnership working with licensing authorities – see the example of Greater Manchester • Need for further work to determine specific priorities – e.g. community safety/health/social inclusion • At present alcohol would cut across three LAA blocks – healthy communities and older people (Choosing Health), safer communities (crime reduction) and children and young people.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Partners are requested to consider the attached paper and give views and comments in preparation for a submission for the LAA refresh. All contributions are welcome and can be sent to:

Julie Owens Huntingdonshire PCT Tel: 01480 308241 Email: [email protected]

54 Crime and disorder/health data-sharing in Huntingdonshire

Notes of working group meeting 4.4.06

Present: Dr Christine Macleod (CM); Julie Owens (JO); Claudia Waters (CW); Debbie West (DW); Dr Chee Yung (CY); Dr Lisa Gibson (LG)

CM introduced the background to the meeting – a conversation with Susan Lammin, head of environmental health at Huntingdonshire District Council regarding the relationship between health equity audit, crime and disorder and public health issues, particularly substance misuse and domestic violence. The outcome of the conversation was a shared objective to make sources of data available across agencies, with a view to updating and adding to the bank of information building a profile of the area.

Already established sources of data include the Public Health and Health Inequalities Dataset; CDRP six monthly assessments; DAAT annual audit, but it was recognised that links between health, crime and disorder remain an under-developed area. Records in acute and mental health sectors, together with case records held in primary and community settings would also need to contribute to the overall profile.

DW circulated a data collection summary from the crime intelligence unit and initial list of potential sources from other agencies. CM explained how data are extrapolated from e.g. the health survey for England, and predictors identified in order to apply data and estimate statistically for Huntingdonshire’s population.

CW highlighted concerns about the accuracy of recording and reporting of domestic violence incidents, and the coding of non-accidental injury.

The group agreed some initial steps, summarised below, and proposed widening the group for further discussions:

• CM would circulate the PH dataset, A&E/hospital admissions statistics and DAAT returns, and would keep the group informed about the LAA refresh

• DW would circulate the data summary

• A health visitor audit of domestic violence records had taken place, but it was unclear how the data had been collected and who had been surveyed (i.e. all or just those at risk)

• It was suggested that perhaps Christine Griffiths, Caroline de Cates and Barbara Cannon at Hinchingbrooke may be able to clarify hospital

55 recording of domestic violence and non-accidental injury, and that they should be invited to the group

• JO would summarise the Royal College of Physicians report on the cost of alcohol to the NHS

• A Public Health Network learning set would be held during the first week of May, and would focus on the LAA refresh (obesity and alcohol)

The group agreed to meet in 4/5 weeks to review progress.

56 Agenda Item 8

To: HCSP Executive Date: 24th August 2006 From: Sonia Hansen, HDC & Nigel Finney Luminus

Neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour (Audit Commission Report May 2006) - Implications for Huntingdonshire

1. Background

The Audit Commission published the report ‘Neighbourhood Crime and Anti- Social Behaviour – Making places safer through improved local working’ in May 2006.

The Summary of the report is in the appendix. The full report can be downloaded from www.audit-commission.gov.uk

The report sets out a number of recommendations that partners should take to improve joint working at a neighbourhood level, in particular around improving intelligence gathering and sharing of information amongst partners and in working more closely to tackle problems at a neighbourhood level.

The report has a number of recommendations which are set out below along with some comments on progress or areas to develop in Huntingdonshire for consideration by partners.

Some of the recommendations mirror the recommendations coming out of other recent government reports, such as the review of Crime and Disorder Act partnership provisions which will be discussed at the next HCSP executive meeting.

2. Report Recommendations

Report Recommendations Comments Local Partnerships Analyse and understand specific crime The NIM model is already being used by and anti-social behaviour problems in the police in Cambridgeshire and it is their neighbourhoods using the principles planned to use the model to collect data of the police national intelligence model at a neighbourhood level as part of the (NIM) to collect community intelligence, development of the neighbourhood including local information provided by panels. More consideration should be frontline workers given to how intelligence from partner agencies will feed into this system and how to ensure there is sufficient data at a neighbourhood level. Deploy resources cost-effectively, Countywide Community Safety Strategic respond quickly to local concerns and Partnership needs to take strategic role inform people when action has been on ensuring CDRPs maximise resources taken and evaluate interventions in a way that demonstrates value for money.

The development of the neighbourhood

57 panels will help to involve the community and keep them informed about when action has been taken. Other methods will need to be developed to ensure wider dissemination of information. Evaluate neighbourhood interventions As part of the development of the regularly, assessing cost-effectiveness neighbourhood panels adapt the current and value for money through a rigorous performance management framework performance management framework used for task groups for the which focuses on neighbourhood neighbourhood panel areas. improvement Local Government Ensure that the data they hold on anti- HDC ASB team have established a new social behaviour is reliable, up to date, database for ASB cases which is along easily accessible to other partners and the lines of the NSIR (although does not conforms to the National Standard for strictly comply) but is joined up with the Incident Recording (NSIR) Environmental Health database.

Reliable and up to date information from the database is available to partners through the case workers Make better use of their frontline workers This is an area for development as part in gathering information and community of neighbourhood management and intelligence, empowering them to take linking in to the Neighbourhood police swift action teams and panels Enable frontline workers to perform an This is an area for development as part effective two-way communication role of neighbourhood management between the council and local people with an emphasis on keeping residents well informed of action taken Use their enhanced scrutiny powers to HDC Scrutiny Panel does already support improved performance in CDRPs consider some community safety items but there could be closer involvement of members of the committee and regular themes taken to panel rather than just on an ad hoc basis as happens currently

3. Conclusions

Partners are asked to discuss the comments in the table above and agree action to take forward.

58 Annex

Neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour – Audit Commission Report May 2006

Summary

1 How safe or unsafe people feel in their neighbourhoods is not always related to the actual incidence of crime. People’s concerns are often about very local anti-social behaviour issues. The achievement of national targets to reduce crime and to reassure the public by reducing the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour depends upon the police, councils and other local services working effectively together at the neighbourhood level. Consequently a sound understanding is needed of what makes people feel safe in a particular area.

2 National targets for reducing crime and anti-social behaviour need to be underpinned by neighbourhood approaches by all local services delivering community safety:

• local authority-wide targets can mask under-performance at a neighbourhood level and present the risk that resources are wasted; • making communities safer requires agencies to combine the knowledge and information of frontline workers at neighbourhood level; and • local partners need to be able to distinguish between the concerns of different types of neighbourhoods and deploy appropriate resources, evaluating the cost and impact of their actions.

3 To do this well, good multi-agency reporting systems and up-to-date information about problem areas are needed. In some areas, local partners have many of these elements in place. But further action is needed for local services to have a full picture of neighbourhood problems and prioritise their activities well to ensure effective use of their combined resources.

4 By most measures, the general trend of crime has been falling nationally since 1995. But the public, whose lives are affected by crime and anti-social behaviour on their local streets, often do not recognise this. In fact, nearly two-thirds of people believe that crime is rising and one in three people living in more deprived areas thinks that anti-social behaviour is damaging their quality of life.

5 Our findings show that the actual incidence of crime, including serious crime, is not the principal factor determining how safe people feel. For a majority of people, it is their daily experience of anti-social behaviour in their immediate neighbourhood, on their street or estate, or their perception of what is happening locally, that shapes their view. Fear of crime is fuelled by dirty streets cluttered by abandoned cars and anti-social behaviour such as noisy neighbours.

6 Despite recent advances by the police and councils, most data on low-level crime and anti-social behaviour still take too broad-brush an approach. Government targets and national performance results are measured using the local authority area, which can have up to a quarter of a million residents, as the smallest measurement unit. In other words, information is aggregated at far too high a level to paint a faithful picture of life in individual neighbourhoods which may have populations counted in a few thousands. This makes it hard to target the pattern of crime in different neighbourhoods effectively.

7 Precise and detailed data are particularly important in relation to anti-social behaviour where real-time intelligence can best single out what response is needed.

59 Councils and the police do understand people’s concerns but are not fully exploiting their combined intelligence and the knowledge and skills of frontline workers to analyse and respond to local issues. High-quality information is needed for areas smaller than a ward.

8 This has important implications for the 373 crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) in England and community safety partnerships (CSPs) in Wales. These are the key partnerships for addressing local crime and anti-social behaviour problems. The government is keen to ensure that their ways of doing business are brought up to date. The recent review of the Crime and Disorder Act proposes new national standards for CDRPs to improve their consistency.

9 The government has selected the 40 CDRPs with the highest levels of crime (a crime rate almost twice the national average) for particular attention. Yet measuring crime outcomes at CDRP level can conceal huge differences in local neighbourhoods. A typical CDRP covers a population of over 100,000 people. So even if government targets on crime reduction are achieved, many people living in pockets of crime or in areas where anti-social behaviour is rife may not feel any better off.

10 Solutions may be at hand since local agencies collectively hold a great deal of information, about crimes, incidents, victims, offenders and problem locations. But this information is collected in different ways. CDRPs could pool this information and adopt the principles of the police national intelligence model (NIM) to respond to local problems. Then they could create a detailed profile of crime and anti-social behaviour in their local neighbourhood and devise long-term solutions.

11 Frontline workers such as neighbourhood wardens, police community support officers (PCSOs) and housing officers are in daily contact with local people. They are well placed to identify the issues that concern people and tell them what actions have been taken. But frontline workers need the authority to take quick and effective action. Failure to act in a timely way dents the confidence of residents.

12 CDRPs have been targeting resources in problem neighbourhoods. But they need to get better at evaluating whether their choice of action represents value for money. Performance monitoring systems also need to measure improvements at a neighbourhood level and record whether residents think these actions have made a difference.

13 Addressing crime and anti-social behaviour must be linked to other improvements in the environment to enhance the quality of life for people. To be successful, CDRPs need to work with other partners to develop short- and long-term solutions based on local knowledge of what people really want.

Summary of recommendations

14 Local partnerships

CDRP partners should tackle crime and anti-social behaviour at the neighbourhood level. To do this, partners should:

• analyse and understand specific crime and anti-social behaviour problems in their neighbourhoods using the principles of the police national intelligence model (NIM) to collect community intelligence, including local information provided by frontline workers; • deploy resources cost-effectively, respond quickly to local concerns and inform people when action has been taken; and

60 • evaluate neighbourhood interventions regularly, assessing cost- effectiveness and value for money through a rigorous performance management framework which focuses on neighbourhood improvement.

15 Local government

Local government has an important local leadership role to play as well as specific responsibilities to address anti-social behaviour and environmental nuisance. To contribute to better neighbourhood outcomes councils should in addition:

• ensure that the data they hold on anti-social behaviour is reliable, up to date, easily accessible to other partners and conforms to the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR); • make better use of their frontline workers in gathering information and community intelligence, empowering them to take swift action; • enable frontline workers to perform an effective two-way communication role between the council and local people with an emphasis on keeping residents well informed of action taken; and • use their enhanced scrutiny powers to support improved performance in CDRPs.

16 Central government

Central government should support, encourage and enable local partners to tackle neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour. To do this government should:

• ensure that the new strategic police authorities and forces maintain a focus on providing neighbourhood solutions; and • review the performance framework for policing and community safety, shifting the focus to improving services at the neighbourhood level and providing assurance to people that CDRP partners are working together effectively to deliver shared outcomes.

17 Regulators

Regulators need to support a neighbourhood-focused and joined-up approach to service delivery. The new Justice, Community Safety and Custody Inspectorate and the Audit Commission should assess how well public bodies are collectively delivering safer and stronger communities to a local area, examining local community safety outcomes, disseminating good practice and providing clear and accessible information to local people.

Full report is available on www.audit-commission.gov.uk

61 This page is intentionally left blank

62 Agenda Item 10

HBAC Exclusion Notices (EN)

Katy Sismore Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime (HBAC) Update for HCSP meeting on 24 August 2006

Following the meeting held on 29 June 2006 with Sonia Hansen – HDC, Sue McRichtie – Dial Drug Link, Jasmine Bennett – YOS, Katy Sismore – HBAC and Nigel Finney - Luminus the suggested protocol has been discussed at the HBAC monthly Board of Management meeting in July 2006.

It is possible to forward names to the PSG as requested.

To date no additional names have been put forward for an HBAC EN so the system has not been tested. In addition there are no names likely to be put forward in the next month.

It is worth repeating that there are currently 6 HBAC EN’s in place and in two and a half years only 9 individuals have received an HBAC EN.

An HBAC EN is a civil matter and excludes an individual from all HBAC members’ premises which now applies to the members in the following three towns: Huntingdon 40 businesses St Ives 20 businesses St Neots 20 businesses

Possible addition to the system – “Exclusion Notice – Warning letter”

This is a possible improvement to the current scheme which may help flag up to all agencies that an HBAC Exclusion Notice may be issued if a pattern of behaviour continues – in effect an early warning letter. It is currently used by Eastbourne.

This was also discussed at the July HBAC Board of Management meeting and it is something that we would like to discuss with Cambridgeshire Constabulary before progressing.

All HBAC EN’s are checked with the Constabulary as being “reasonable” before issue, and it is felt that an early warning letter of a possible issue of an HBAC EN should follow the same procedure.

The HBAC protocols for issuing Exclusion Notices already contains the following procedure:

“Pre exclusion notice letter In some instances it may be considered necessary to issue a warning letter in the form of a pre exclusion notice. This decision will be taken in conjunction with the Partnership manager and the local Police Inspector or their deputy.”

The fact a warning letter has been issued could be shared with other agencies to help them work with clients to avoid the next step – an HBAC EN.

I am on annual leave for the HCSP meeting and return w/c 28 August. I hope to address the matter then. If there are any comments from the meeting I would be pleased to hear them.

63 This page is intentionally left blank

64 Agenda Item 11

To: Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership (HCSP) From: Claudia Waters, Community Safety Team Leader Date: Thursday 24th August 2006

Subject: Vehicle Crime in Tesco Car Park, Eynesbury, St Neots

1.0 Purpose

1.1 To provide the Partnership with an update on contacting Tesco to advise them of the consistent high levels of vehicle crime in their car parks.

2.0 Background

2.1 At the last HCSP meeting held on Thursday 25th May 2006, the Partnership agreed to write to the Store Manager at Tesco, St Neots, expressing their concerns about the continued high levels of vehicle crime that have been occurring in their car park.

2.2 A letter was sent to Mrs Mills, Trading Law and Technical Manager for Tesco Stores, on Tuesday 13th June 2006, see Appendix A, but a response to this letter has never been received.

2.3 On 10th July 2006 Katy Sismore, Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime (HBAC) Co-ordinator visited the Tesco Store in St Neots and spoke to Glenda Maloney who is responsible for security at the store. Ms Maloney advised Katy that she was too busy to speak with her at this time and promised to contact Katy to arrange to meet with her in the very near future. Katy has not since heard from Ms Maloney.

2.4 Whilst visiting the store in July, Katy spoke with a member of the security staff who was very supportive of what HBAC and HCSP are trying to do, but advised that she is unable to help because she is not management.

2.5 HBAC have made numerous efforts since Autumn 2005 to try and encourage Tesco, St Neots to engage but all attempts have been unsuccessful.

2.6 The impression that has been given by security staff at the Tesco store is that Management does not perceive the crime levels at this store to be a priority compared to other stores throughout the country.

2.7 The store security currently has two way radio that links them to other retail outlets in the St Neots area. This radio is due for renewal in January 2007 and at this time the store management will be advised that they cannot have another radio unless they become a member of HBAC.

3.0 Discussion

3.1 The latest quarterly crime report for the period April – June 2006 highlights that vehicle crime in the St Neots area continues to be a problem:

‘levels still remain high in St Neots Eynesbury and are over three times the Huntingdonshire average (2.4 recorded crimes).’

65 3.2 Historically, the vehicle crime that occurs in the St Neots Tesco car park has been an area of concern for the Partnership. It is necessary to now consider further action to address the consistent levels of vehicle crime in the area.

4.0 Recommendations

4.1 Information has been received about a project involving the use of a trap car in Doncaster, see Appendix B. It has been suggested that this exercise could be tried at the St Neots area.

4.2 That the Partnership considers any other action that can be taken to try and address this long standing problem.

66 Appendix A

Mrs Christine Mills Trading Law and Technical Manager –Regional Trading Law & Technical Department Tesco Stores Ltd PO Box 266 Cirrus Building A Shire Park Welwyn Garden City Herts AL7 1GA

Tuesday 13th June 2006

Dear Mrs Mills

Re: Reducing vehicle crime in Tesco car park, St Neots

I am writing to you, on behalf of the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership, to ask for your support and assistance in making changes to a consistent hotspot for vehicle crime in the Huntingdonshire area. This hotspot is Tesco’s car park in St Neots.

The Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership has been established since 1998 when the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 placed a statutory duty on local agencies and the Police to work in partnership to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. The Partnership is currently working to their third Community Safety Strategy which commenced in April 2005. This strategy will run until April 2008. Vehicle Crime is one of the six priority areas within the Strategy.

The Tesco car park at St Neots has consistently been found to be a local crime hotspot for more than eight years. The first crime audit was undertaken in 1998 and within this audit and all the audits since the car park at Tesco has been identified as a problem area for vehicle crime. I have attached for your information a ‘Problem Profile’ that was carried out for the St Neots Tesco car park.

Since 1998, a number of agencies, including Huntingdonshire District Council and Cambridgeshire Constabulary, have been trying to engage with Tesco to encourage the introduction of additional security measures to try and help address vehicle crime. Over this period Huntingdonshire DC has received national awards for the initiatives in the car-parks that they manage. However, to date agencies have been disappointed with the response that they have received.

To try and make some improvements, and to reduce the local perception of this car park as a problem area, representatives from the Community Safety

67 Partnership would like to meet with you to discuss the way forward. I would therefore be grateful if you could contact Claudia Waters, Community Safety Team Leader on 01480 388233 to arrange a meeting date that is suitable for you.

I look forward to hearing from you and working with you to reduce the problems in St Neots.

Yours sincerely

Dr Sue Lammin Chair, Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership

68 Appendix B

DONCASTER “TRAP CAR”

Sir As requested a brief report on the set up and use of our “Trap Car”

Firstly may I mention that it was Doncaster’s intention to refer to it as the “Sting Vehicle” when publicising it to refer to it as the “Stinger” however in order to coincide with an existing force wide crime reduction campaign entitled “Am I the Trap Car” which entails stickers being displayed in vehicles designed to make car thieves think twice.” We have therefore labelled it in the media as the “Trap Car”

My observations and that of some of my colleagues however is that firstly the term “Trap Car” implies that the offenders are in effect trapped in the vehicle, the use of such a vehicle being decreed unlawful by stated case. Secondly that the phrase “Trap Car” can too easily be associated with “Entrapment” another legal issue with which we would not want to get embroiled.

My recommendations to the other forces that have already shown an interest in the vehicle is consider the above issues before deciding how to label their own vehicle.

Design and specifications for the Doncaster Vehicle, also technical specifications and cost implications are shown at Appendix A

The concept of this vehicle is quite simple

• Fitted out with good quality high resolution covert cameras with a low lux capability • Low frequency infra red lighting • A “SmartWater” spray system • A Tunstall alarm

The cameras that are fitted each look out towards the opposite window, thus a thief approaching the vehicle can be captured on video actually looking into the vehicle before he actually breaks in as well as giving a clear image once inside the vehicle. The bait i.e. a Satellite Navigation System, mobile phone etc is linked to the covert “Smartwater” spray system, when the item is removed this activates the spray system covering the offender with “SmartWater”. Experience has taught us that the bait should be secured by a length of 3mm cable (serves as a delaying tactic). Even a second or two while the offender is tugging at the item gives more time for the cameras to record facial images thus better identification of the offender. The offender gets a more liberal dousing of Smartwater. Lastly the removal of the bait also triggers the Tunstall alarm which goes through to the Police Control Centre.

The concept and intended use of this vehicle is such that it is specifically designed not to be resource intensive.

69 The vehicle has proven to be most effectively used where we have a hot spot area i.e town centre car crime, together with intelligence about known offenders and the route that they take to commit crime and appropriate resources in the area to respond. However some areas suffer sporadic crimes patterns where the deployment of resources is totally impractical i.e. overnight vehicle crime in out lying areas. It is these crime areas as well that the vehicle seeks to address.

It is intended that this vehicle can simply be parked up at suitable location within a hot spot area. The cameras are left running shortly before deployment. The thief comes along enters the vehicle and tries to steal the item, he is immediately sprayed with SmartWater and the alarm is activated. Officers are directed to the area to carryout a search of the area. It is accepted that in the majority of cases particularly in remote areas that the offender will be long gone. The vehicle is then driven to a suitable location where the video evidence can be recovered and examined hopefully the offender will be known to local officers and can then be arrested. Overnight vehicle crime areas can even be targeted. The low lux cameras together with the special frequency infra red lighting invisible to the human eye enable the cameras to record a satisfactory image in total darkness sufficient for officers to recognise an offender, the presence of SmartWater on the offender provides the conclusive evidence for a prosecution.

You have requested details of the deployments that have led to the arrest of the three prolific offenders in Doncaster.

These are as follows:

We opted for a three door version of a vehicle that is regularly attacked in the town centre the reason for this being that it limits the number of entry points that the thief can gain access to the vehicle thus reducing the number of cameras required to cover these points. i.e. the vehicle requires only two cameras to cover both driver and passenger doors, a four door or five door hatchback would require four cameras.

CASE STUDY 1

The vehicle was deployed in a hot spot area within the town centre, the vehicle was observed from some distance and officers in plain clothes were in the area but well out of the way to avoid being seen. The offender a PPO smashed the glass of the window and snatched the property within. He was sprayed with SmartWater and the alarms activated… (The Kevlar cable securing the property snapped easily) This was observed and a description was circulated as he fled the scene, he was pursued on foot however he was lost in the park. He emerged from the other side of the park and was walking down the main road when a police vehicle responding to the incident saw him. He was clearly out of breath and matched the general description of the offender, being a well-known car thief he was arrested on suspicion of the theft. Upon arrival at the custody area the UV lights in the air lock scanned him and the presence of SmartWater was clearly visible on his face, hair and hands.

Issues arising. The observing officer could only describe the offender and not positively identify him. There was a break in continuity of evidence in that he was lost sight of as he fled through the park, by the time he had emerged at the other side he had discarded the stolen item and his outer coat, which formed part of his description. It is submitted that based on this evidence alone we would not have been in a position to charge him with the offence at that time and he would have been released on bail and no doubt continue to commit further offences. However the video evidence was of extremely good quality and good enough for court, in addition the SmartWater evidence on his person would have proved conclusive. Despite making “No comment” in interview he was charged remanded in custody to court the next day when he pleaded guilty. He was remanded in custody for a further 7 days. Upon his return to court despite being a PPO with an extensive criminal record he was then sentenced to a 12-month drug rehabilitation order and released.

CASE STUDY 2

The vehicle was parked up as was intended, unattended, unobserved and with no specific resources assigned, in one of the Town Centre car parks. When officers returned to the vehicle a few hours later it was found that it had been entered by forcing the lock on the drivers door and the property had been stolen. Due to technical wiring issues the alarm had not activated and the offender had not been sprayed. He had left the scene unaware that he had been filmed. The video evidence was later examined the suspect is clearly identified and was well known to the officer’s It transpired from the film that he had disconnected the wiring taking the charging cradle as well as the PDA leaving an open circuit. This has now been remedied. Having been identified on film officers attended at his home that evening and arrested him. He was shown the video evidence in interview and admitted the offence together with 5 other offences, which were, made subject of tic’s forms. He appeared at court the next morning when he was remanded in custody for 14 days. When he next appeared at court he was remanded on bail for 7 days to a bail hostel out of the district for assessment as to suitability for a drug rehabilitation order. When he next appeared at court he had complied with the drug-testing regime at the bail hostel and was therefore sentenced to a 12-month drug rehab order.

Issues arising.

Had the offender been sprayed with SmartWater at the scene he would be aware of this and the question arises would he have returned home that evening. As stated he was another PPO on bail with conditions to reside at his home address and subject of a curfew. Had he failed to comply and gone to ground he would be committing further bail offences he would also then be circulated as wanted. Was he able to avoid capture for several weeks i.e. until the effects of SmartWater had worn off the skin. This would not have helped him because the video is of sufficient standard to prove a prosecution and he would also be further punished for breaching his bail conditions.

71 It is further submitted that had he gone to ground to avoid apprehension then this would also have taken him out of is comfort zone and curtailed some of his criminal activities. Thus a Win-Win situation.

CASE STUDY 3

The vehicle was again deployed in a town centre car park observed from a distance with officers in the area (not too close by). The vehicle was attacked by breaking the passenger’s side window. The offender was sprayed with SmartWater, he attempted to make his escape through a nearby park, however his description was circulated. As plain-clothes officers approached him he tried to escape but was apprehended, covered in SmartWater. He was subsequently interviewed shown the video evidence and the SmartWater evidence on his person but he also made no reply. He was charged and put before court the next day where he pleaded guilty. He was remanded in custody for 21 days for probation reports. When he next appeared at court he was again remanded in custody for a further 21 days pending further psychiatric reports. He is still in custody at this time.

Issues arising Had the suspect succeeded in fleeing the scene. We would have had a similar situation to that referred to in Case Study 2 i.e. breach of bail etc. We again would have the video evidence which clearly identifies a well known criminal, the video evidence alone is of sufficient quality to prosecute. In addition we also would have the “Smartwater” evidence present on his hair, face and hands etc.

RESULTANT IMPACT ON VEHICLE CRIME

Following arrest and incarceration of these three prolific offenders (despite two of the three subsequently being released from custody)

The Vehicle Crime figures showed a reduction of 75.8% in the Town Centre A Reduction of 42.9% in Hyde Park the area in which the three offenders reside Giving a total reduction in vehicle crime for the district of 39%

I was present in court when two out of the three offenders were due to be sentenced.

The above figures were quoted in court by the prosecution, the prosecution lawyer stated that he was not trying to assert that these three criminals were responsible for 75% of the crime in the town centre merely that they were responsible for a considerable proportion of it. The defence then stood up in court and stated that “within 2 days of Wales being arrested, (the first of the three offender’s) their clients were telling them of the vehicle that sprays people breaking into cars” The lawyer submitted that news of the “Trap car” would have spread like wild fire and that this was what had led to the dramatic reduction in car crime figures”. The defence lawyer went on to commend the use of the vehicle as an excellent deterrent to vehicle crime.

To a large extent it is hoped that this is the case. The intention of the “Trap Car” is not merely to trap and convict but to also reduce crime by putting criminals in fear that the next car they attack might be the “Trap Car” The Sticker “Am I the Trap Car” initiative seeks to promote this fear.

FUTURE PLANS FOR THE TRAP CAR

Such has been the success of the “Trap Car” Doncaster district is in the process of purchasing and equipping a second vehicle. Other districts within our force area are also looking to purchase and equip similar vehicles. The anticipation then is that these will be exchanged between districts so as to keep the criminals guessing.

Conclusion

For a budget of around £6k per year the district has a piece of kit that has already proved itself to be a highly effective tool in the fight against vehicle crime.

APPENDIX 1

COST IMPLICATIONS

The estimated cost implications of running a Trap Vehicle for 12 months are broken down as follows:

Suitable target vehicle £2500

2 x Good quality monochrome cameras ivi – 70 with a 3.6 focal length and a low lux capability of .0003 lux £240

To replace the existing interior light and fit with 10 infra red LED’s at a frequency of 940 nanometers (totally invisible to the human eye) £112

The hire of a Smartwater Index unit @ £120 per month 1440 NB In the event of a criminal activation the unit is replaced Entirely free of charge! In the event of a negligent i.e. accidental Activation there is a charge of £175

2 x heavy duty batteries 105 –110 amp hours £50 each £185 Heavy duty charger £85

Costs of repairs dependant upon make and model of vehicle ours was £103 per window £200 to repair damaged door lock and door.

Based upon 3 attacks per quarter, a budget of £1200 is estimated for repairs. £1200

TOTAL RUNNING COSTS excluding VAT £5,677 (Excluding alarm and video recorder see note below)

Please note

Tunstall Alarm with GSM Transmitter this needs to be one of the latest models i.e Tunstall Lifeline 4000++ Existing District Equipment most forces utilise Tunstall or similar equipment to protect vulnerable properties. No costs incurred. However if the equipment has to be purchased the costs are £150 for a Tunstall 400 Unit £400 for a Tunstall GSM transmitter

The better system which we have now used is the ruggedadised version which is far more robust and not as temperamental when it comes to the voltage required. However this costs £1200

2 x 12-volt video recorders – Again District equipment already in stock… no costs incurred. However I am informed that these are now obsolete and can no longer be purchased due to the introduction of Digital Video Recorders (DVR’S) a good quality 4 channel DVR showing time date etc costs in the region of £1,000.