Crime Against Small Businesses in Northern Ireland

CRIME AGAINST SMALL BUSINESSES IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Skills for Justice/Ipsos-MORI Survey 2012

February 2013

The Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) is based within the School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences (FIS) at the University of Central Lancashire. The School provides a range of academic qualifications and training courses for the police, fire and rescue services, forensic and related organisations.

The CRU builds upon these and the success of knowledge transfer work in crime related projects associated with the School including the ERDF funded project - PIKE (Partnerships; Innovation; Knowledge; Enterprises) - ‘ reducing crime, increasing profits’ project. Over the 2 years in which the project ran PIKE -

 assisted and supported almost 100 North West businesses in relation to security and crime related issues;  safeguarded more than 120 jobs in the region;  brought about an increase in sales for the businesses involved of over £13 million.

The Crime Reduction Unit focuses on the provision of crime reduction advice with an evidenced based approach to training and education for those working within the business crime reduction arena. In 2009 the Unit worked with North and Western Lancashire Chamber of Commerce on a project examining business crime and disorder on three industrial estates in Blackpool.

The CRU co-ordinates the North West Truckwatch scheme and the CRU recently completed an ESRC funded project on road freight crime. This project consisted of four workshops across England, followed by a national conference, and aimed to share with the road haulage industry, professionals and police, information on security issues for the road freight industry, including reporting and recording crime and the development and dissemination of good practice around crime prevention techniques. Approximately 120 delegates were given presentations by the CRU, the Road Haulage Association, Truckpol, DHL, Foster Tachographs, SOCA and representatives from the police. The events drove forward knowledge exchange through the facilitation of dialogue between stakeholders in and beyond the social science community and further developed the connections and understanding of security issues within the road freight industry whilst also identifying and sharing good practice.

The CRU, in collaboration with Lancaster University, has also been commissioned by Lancashire Constabulary to undertake evaluations of various PREVENT projects.

This Northern Ireland survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Skills for Justice Northern Ireland. However the analysis and report writing were conducted by the CRU using the information provided by Ipsos MORI. A spatial configuration analysis was also conducted by Adegbola Ojo from Skills for Justice and this will be available as a separate report.

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 5

1.1 Defining ‘Business Crime’ 5

1.2 The extent of business crime 5

1.3 Northern Ireland 6

2. The Survey Process 8

2.1 Aims and Objectives 8

2.2 Methodology 8

2.2.1 The Survey 8

2.3 Methodological Restrictions 9

3. The Survey Findings 10

3.1 The Response 10

3.2 Crimes Against Small Businesses in Northern Ireland 14

3.2.1 Experience of crime in the past 12 months 14

3.2.2 Cost of crime 23

3.2.3 Business security measures 25

3.2.4 Impact of crime on businesses 30

3.2.5 Repeat victimisation 34

4. Discussion of Findings 42

4.1 Extent of findings 42

4.2 Repeat victimisation 43

4.3 Reporting crime(s) to the police 47

4.4 Training and advice 47

4.5 The cost and effects of Business crime 52

4.6 Level of the problem 54

4.7 Perceptions of Neighbourhood Policing 54

5. Considerations and Recommendations 57

6. Conclusions 59

7. References 61

8. Appendices 65

iii

List of Tables

1. Crimes against businesses in the past 12 months by District Council area 15

2. Types of crimes experienced in the past 12 months 16

3. Types of theft experienced in the past 12 months 16

4. Types of criminal damage experienced in the past 12 months 16

5. Types of fraud experienced in the past 12 months 16

6. Type of crime by District Council area 17

7. Crime experienced by industry sector 18

8. Number of employees and type of crime experienced 20

9. Crimes by frequency in the past 12 months 21

10. Offences most likely to be reported to the police 23

11. Type of security measures in place and crime experience 26

12. Type of upgraded security measures in the past 12 months and crime experienced 27

13. Effectiveness of security measures in place 29

14. Reasons given why respondent thought the measures were ineffective 30

15. Significant financial loss and significant disruption to trading by respondents 31

16. Repeat victimisation by District Council area 35

17. Repeat victimisation by industry sector 36

18. Reasons for not reporting crimes to police and repeat victimisation 39

19. Security upgraded and repeat victimisation 41

20. Recorded crime in Northern Ireland 2010/11 and 2011/12 42

21. Businesses who had been the victim of burglary by industry sector 44

22. Businesses who had been victims of burglary by District Council area 45

23. Types of thefts by District Council area 65

24. Types of criminal damage by District Council area 66

25. Intimidation/threatening behaviour by District Council area 66

26. Types of fraud by District Council area 67

27. Reporting of crime by category – theft 68

28. Reporting of crime by category – criminal damage 68

29. Reporting of crime by category – fraud 69

30. Industry sectors by District Council area 71

31. Industry sector and operational hours 72

32. Employee numbers within industry sectors 73

33. Types of crimes committed by industry sector 74

34. Reporting of crimes to the police by industry sector 75

35. Reasons given by industry sectors for not reporting their crime experience(s) to the police 76

36. Direct costs of crime incurred for each industry sector 77

37. Indirect costs of crime incurred for each industry sector 78

38. Security measure in place by industry sector 79

39. Following your experience of crime, any additional security measures in place by industry sector 80

40. Type of security measure upgraded in the past 12 months by industry sector 81

41. Costs of security products in the past 12 months for each industry sector 82

42. Perpetrator prosecution by industry sector 83

43. Recorded crime statistics by policing district and policing area 84

List of Figures

1. The District Council area in which the business is located 10

2. The sector in which the business mainly operates 11

3. Position of the person within the business responding to the survey 11

4. Number of staff working within the business 12

5. Proportion of staff part-time / full-time 12

6. Does the business serve the day or night time economy or both? 13

7. Business experience of crime in the past 12 months 14

8. Number of employees for those businesses that had experienced crime 19

9. Single crime experienced in the past 12 months 22

10. Reporting instances to the police 22

11. Reasons for not reporting crime to the police 23

12. Direct costs of crime 24

13. Indirect costs of crime 25

14. Money spent on security measures in the past 12 months 28

15. Following your experience of crime does your business have any additional security measures? 28

16. Business experienced any negative effects in addition to financial loss 32

17. Was the perpetrator prosecuted for the crime(s)? 33

18. Number of employees per business and repeat victimisation 37

19. Additional security measures following experience of crime and repeat victimisation 37

20. Reporting crimes to the police for repeat victims 38

21. Reporting crimes to the police for victims of a single instance of crime 38

22. Direct financial cost of crime that has occurred in the past 12 months and repeat victimisation 40

23. Indirect financial cost of crime that has occurred in the past 12 months and repeat victimisation 40

24. Sector in which the business mainly operates 70

Acknowledgements: The Crime Reduction Unit would like to thank Ipsos-MORI and Skills for Justice for supplying the data on which this report is based. We would also like to offer thanks to all the businesses that took part in the survey and the Department of Justice and the PSNI for their helpful comments on the early drafts of this report.

vii

Executive Summary

It is estimated that there were 67,955 businesses in Northern Ireland that were either VAT registered or operating a PAYE system on the 31st March 2011, with 98.2% of them employing 50 or less staff. 24% of the businesses were in the Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing sector (Department of Finance and Personnel 2012).

Levels of crime generally are not high across Northern Ireland and there has been a general downward trend in the past 10 years – burglary, offences against vehicles and criminal damage are all at their lowest levels since 1998/99 (the first year for which crime data comparable under the revised Home Office Counting Rules is available) (PSNI, 2012). The total number of offences recorded in the period 1st April 2011 –31st March 2012 was 103,389.

This report is based on the findings from a survey carried out by Ipsos-MORI Northern Ireland on behalf of Skills for Justice Northern Ireland (in partnership with the Department of Justice, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the local District Policing Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships) to investigate the extent and impact of crime on small businesses in Northern Ireland. The sample used 1,000 businesses with less than 50 employees. The survey investigated crime experiences and security measures taken but did not explore other issues such as anti-social behaviour or the fear of crime. In order to provide more illuminative data it would have been beneficial to conduct some further qualitative research to explore issues such as ‘hidden costs’, ‘reluctance to report’ and ‘reticence in implementing security measures’ in order to provide a more comprehensive list of recommendations based upon a clearer understanding of these complex issues. However, time and financial constraints did not allow for this to happen.

Businesses located within 26 Districts Council areas in Northern Ireland contributed to the final 1,000 response data set and responses were received from a good mix of business types. The main respondents came from the ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’ sector (25.5%) with the next largest group the ‘Motor Trades/Wholesale and Retail’ sector (20.3%) and the smallest group of respondents came from the ‘Finance and Insurance’ sector (1.2%).

The majority of respondents were proprietors/owners of the business or a director/manager at a senior level (33% of the respondents were female and 67% were male). The vast majority of respondents were either employing less than 10 people or were sole traders; only 3% had more than 20 members of staff. The highest percentage of businesses operated solely in the daytime economy (68%) and 31% traded in both the day and night time economies. Only 1% operated solely in the night time economy.

Small businesses experience of crime in the past 12 months demonstrates relatively low crime rates with only 160 respondents (16%) stating they had experienced crime. Theft, criminal damage and fraud were the most common crimes experienced with 76%, 31% and 14% of respondents who had

experienced crime stating they had experienced this type of crime. The Motor Trade/Wholesale/Retail sector had the most respondents stating they had experienced crime in the past 12 months (20%) with the Construction sector coming a close second (15%). The sole traders and those with less than four employees were identified as being the most likely to be a victim of crime, however, this figure could just be the result of the majority of respondents being from that category. 108 of the 160 businesses who were victims of crime were also repeat victims, with shoplifting, burglary and intimidation/threatening behaviour as the most frequent incidences.

Around 52% (n = 83) of victims reported the crimes they had experienced to police, 14% (n = 22) reported some of the crime and 34% (n = 55) did not report any of the crime to police. A number of reasons were given for not reporting crime with the highest responses being ‘lack of confidence in the police’, ‘minor crime’, and that it was ‘too time consuming’.

High levels of under-reporting of crime, particularly by businesses, mean that recorded crime figures may not reflect the true extent of crime in an area. Extrapolating the figures that relate solely to commercial crime would assist the development of appropriate and cost effective responses targeted at the business community. Also businesses may not necessarily have had to experience crime and disorder to feel that it is a problem in their area. It is often about perceptions not actual incidents. Neighbourhood Policing is not just about tackling crime, but also about tackling the fear of crime, making people and businesses feel safer and increasing confidence in policing (see Banbridge DPP Annual Report, 2010/2011: 10). Often this can be done by simply improving communication links.

Estimating the cost of crime can be problematic in that aside from the obvious cost of window replacement and cash/items stolen, there is the time taken to deal with the incident, to clean up after criminal damage, and the affect upon staff and customers. The direct and indirect costs of crime therefore present an expensive picture. Given the figures quoted by respondents, an approximated value of £0.5 million can be placed on the cost of crime for those within the sample. However if those figures are extrapolated out to the 67,955 VAT and/or PAYE registered business in Northern Ireland, taking the average cost to each as £3,627, we arrive at a staggering figure of almost £340 million. The security measures taken by our sample businesses averaged at a cost to each business of £2,284, with some obviously spending a huge amount of money and others none at all. If we added this cost into our estimates for all VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses in Northern Ireland then the amount would reach over £0.5 billion1.

It is clear that the social and economic benefits of seeking, and implementing crime prevention advice before the event, especially given the incidence and likelihood of repeat victimisation, could have far reaching impact on the local economy. However, when asked the question of whether the business had put in extra security measures following their experience of crime, 72% answered that they had not.

1 The mean figure from the indirect and direct cost figures provided by respondents e.g. 67 claimed less than £500, therefore £250 is used as the amount by which to multiply by 67. Add all the mean figures to provide a sum of £547,750 divided by those who identified direct costs, i.e. 151 to give the fig of £3,627.

In order to maximise the opportunity for promulgating crime prevention advice and correct usage of security measures, businesses and clusters such as trade associations, industrial and retail parks and business partnerships should be encouraged to share resources and information.

There are a number of sources for crime prevention advice and a confusing array of security equipment and measures that can be employed. The effectiveness of interventions is dependent on the correct identification of the problem that is being addressed, which, in turn, can have many aspects that need consideration including any on-going redevelopment or re-generation schemes. The police are seen as the most common source of information and advice, but are often not approached when problems arise.

However, it is important that advice is given and, indeed, taken and that there is a continuous process of re-assessment of the risks and mitigating measures used in order to maintain, or improve, any reduction levels in the incidence of crime and disorder. Staff training in crime prevention awareness and of reporting procedures may help to minimise the risks. Whilst respondents to the survey may have stated they had not received training and/or advice, it does not necessarily suggest that this has not been available or, indeed, provided, as examples of good practice in this type of training across Northern Ireland would indicate the opposite.

We recommend that partners involved in crime reduction in Northern Ireland consider the following:

 Pro-actively promoting crime prevention advice. There is a wealth of crime prevention advice available such as that on the PSNI website. The difficulty is that many businesses are unaware of where and how to obtain it.

 The potential for repeat victimisation is as high, if not higher, for businesses as for members of the public, and therefore a rapid response in terms of crime prevention advice which is tailored to the particular business or business sector should be offered. This is evidenced in the results from the survey where a number of businesses who did not report all or some of their crimes suffered repeat victimisation on more than one occasion.

 Encourage and enable the reporting of all crimes to the police. Crime prevention also includes reporting crimes in the first instance – if not reported it will not be seen as an issue to be addressed by those agencies involved.

 Neighbourhood Policing should involve the business community.

 PCSPs should continue the work already done by the DPPs and CSPs in consulting with businesses on the issue of crime.

 Establish and maintain communication between the agencies and businesses in respect of what is happening, what can, and is already being done.

 Consult widely and systematically with businesses as the Policing Board does bi-annually with residential communities.

 Businesses need to take a responsibility for their security by proactively seeking advice on security risk assessments and preventative action. They should also be encouraged to regularly review their security and ensure that all staff are properly appraised of the safety and security measures that the business employs.

 Encourage business communities to work together to reduce crime and disorder through schemes such as Business Watch, Farm Watch and Business Crime Partnerships.

 Undertake qualitative work to look in more depth at the business communities’ perceptions and experiences of crime and disorder.  Explore the potential for recruiting and training local business crime prevention advocates.

1. Introduction

This report is based on the findings from a telephone survey conducted by Ipsos-MORI Northern Ireland on behalf of Skills for Justice Northern Ireland in partnership with the Department of Justice, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the local District Policing Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships. The research aimed to explore issues centred around crimes against small businesses in Northern Ireland2. The survey involved collection and analysis of data investigating:  The extent to which businesses in this area had experienced crime;

 The impact of any victimisation experienced by the businesses.

1,000 businesses located in Northern Ireland responded to the survey. All the businesses contacted had less than 50 employees. 1.1 Defining ‘Business Crime’ Business crime is a term that covers a vast array of crimes, for example criminal damage, graffiti, vehicle damage, shoplifting, burglary, threatening behaviour, fly-tipping, robbery, card and cheque fraud, employee theft, and arson. However, despite the fact that it constitutes at least a fifth of all recorded crime in the UK, it is often regarded as an ‘invisible crime’ (British Chamber of Commerce, 2008). There is no separate category for recording crimes against business despite numerous calls for this to happen (NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008).

1.2 The extent of business crime Businesses are not a homogenous entity and vary in size, sector and experiences of crime and disorder. ‘The Home Office estimates that crime against commercial or public sector organisations is almost twice the estimated number of crimes against individuals and households’ (FSB, 2005: 17). According to a Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) survey conducted in 2008, 63.5% of respondents to the survey had experienced crime (FSB, 2008) but figures within various crime surveys tend to vary. The Northern Ireland Policing Board commissioned KPMG in 2007 to undertake a study of business crime in Northern Ireland and the subsequent research report was published in 2008. The study sought to better understand two key issues:

 The problem of business related crime in Northern Ireland;  How businesses, business organisations and other relevant stakeholders believe the problem could be tackled and reduced.

A mixed-methods consultation was deployed to garner the required information from a target group of nearly 5,000 businesses and stakeholders. One of the striking conclusions of the background literature review was that while the incidence of crime against businesses across the UK ranged from around 58% to 75%, ‘Northern Ireland was found to have the highest level of business crime in the UK’ (NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008: 4). The NI Policing Board/KMPG survey also found that 30% of

2 Whilst the survey concentrates on actual crimes committed issues such as anti-social behaviour were not included but can also adversely affect businesses

businesses had been the victim of crime in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months (NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008: 5). However, it is hard to determine the exact level of crime as many businesses do not report crimes committed against them to police (BERR, 2009b; NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008). This is most evident when the crimes are considered to be relatively minor, or if the offences were committed by employees (Carter et al., 2005: 4). Generally ‘businesses that are easily visible, that depend on high levels of customer traffic and that sell directly to consumers, such as the Retail, Wholesale & Motor Trades and the Hotels & Restaurant sector, report much higher levels of crime than other sectors’ (Carter et al., 2005: 3).

All too often businesses report that they are simply not getting the response to business crime that they need from the police. In one FSB survey, 40% of business owners who experienced crime did not report it to the police, largely due to negative perceptions of the criminal justice system, with three- quarters saying that they did not think reporting ‘would achieve anything or that the police would not be able to achieve a successful prosecution’ (FSB, 2007: 14). 1.3 Northern Ireland The Inter Departmental Business Register estimates that there were 67,955 businesses in Northern Ireland that were either VAT registered or operating a PAYE scheme on the 31st March 2011 (Department of Finance and Personnel 2012). However, it is worth noting that during 2010/11 businesses earning less than £70k per annum did not have to be VAT registered. Businesses with less than 50 employees accounted for 98% of all Northern Ireland based VAT and/or PAYE registered enterprises at this time (businesses with less than 10 employees accounted for 89% of the Northern Ireland total) (ibid). Of all the VAT and/or/PAYE registered businesses on the 31st March 2011, 24% were in the Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing sector (ibid). The impact of business crime to the United Kingdom economy cannot be over emphasised. Recently, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) deployed a UK-wide survey. A total of 52 retailers with approximately 1.6 million staff took part in the consultation exercise (BRC, 2012). The study found that the cost incurred by UK retailers as a result of crime has soared by almost a third to £1.4 billion.

Apart from the financial implications of business crime, non-monetary consequences are also borne by victims. There has been widespread publicity, for instance, on a range of victimisations suffered by business owners in some major English cities during the August riots (RCVP, 2012). However, when victimisations connected to riots were excluded the BRC study found that more than 35,000 shop workers suffered from physical attacks, verbal abuse and anti-social behaviour during the year (BRC, 2012). This is not helpful for a UK economy that badly needs growth across all sectors.

In 2010, the Statistics and Research Branch of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (DOJNI) published a comprehensive report on the cost of crime in Northern Ireland (DOJNI, 2010). The study concluded that the estimated total cost of crime in Northern Ireland in 2006 to 2007 was approximately £2.9 billion (DOJNI, 2010). Part of the study also quantified the cost of crime against businesses in Northern Ireland. The report found that in 2006 to 2007 (excluding anticipation and response costs):  the cost of non-domestic burglary was estimated at approximately £40 million  the cost of business robbery was estimated at approximately £39 million  the cost of commercial theft was estimated at approximately £67 million

 the cost of commercial fraud was estimated at approximately £110 million  the costs of criminal damage was estimated at approximately £129 million  the cost of other notifiable offences was estimated at approximately £40 million The economic and potentially social benefits of reducing the cost of crime as detailed above, to businesses can have a far reaching impact on the economy of Northern Ireland.

2. The Survey Process 2.1 Aims and Objectives The survey was developed to get a more realistic picture of crime from representatives of businesses located within Northern Ireland than police figures would suggest. As many crimes against businesses are not reported to the police (BERR, 2009b; NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008) and most crimes against business are not recorded as a separate category it is often difficult to distinguish which recorded crimes are ‘crimes against businesses’. The survey aims to provide data on crime experienced by businesses. The report will inform organisations such as Skills for Justice, PSNI, the recently established Policing and Community Safety Partnerships and organisations working with businesses in Northern Ireland to combat crime.

2.2 Methodology A telephone questionnaire was chosen to best meet the aims of the study. Quota sampling was used. The survey was undertaken by Ipsos-MORI NI. Below is an explanation of their sampling strategy: ‘A survey of 1,000 businesses with under 50 employees was conducted. Quotas were set to ensure that these businesses were representative of all businesses (with fewer than 50 employees) in Northern Ireland in term of size (number of employees), business sector and geographical location.

As it was a quota sample the number of businesses contacted was not recorded and in a survey based on a quota sample, response rates cannot be calculated. A response rate can only be calculated when a finite amount of sample is issued and is the % of successful interviews over the number of eligible businesses in the sample.

In a quota sample we continue interviewing until we achieve the target number of interviews issuing as much sample as is required until we reach this number.’

(Communication between Ipsos Mori NI and Skills for Justice NI)

To provide more illuminative data it would have been advisable to do some qualitative work, for example interviews with businesses, organisations working with businesses and the police to explore some of the responses given in more detail, however, this was not possible given the short time scale.

2.2.1 The Survey The survey mainly consisted of quantitative questions to collect baseline data of what crimes had been experienced and what security measures had been in place before and after the crime. Respondents were told that the research was being undertaken by Ipsos-MORI NIwho were calling on behalf of Skills for Justice (working in partnership with the Department of Justice, the PSNI and the local District Policing Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships). The businesses contacted were informed that the study was being undertaken to gather information with regard to the levels of crime against small businesses. Prior to the call information had been distributed by local partnerships and firms working with small businesses to inform people that they may be being

contacted e.g. Women in Business NI posted the following message on their website on the 30th January 2012:

Attention Small Business Owners

During January & February, a telephone survey will be conducted in your area

The survey, conducted on behalf of Skills for Justice in partnership with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Local Councils, will explore the economic and personal impact of crime on small business in Northern Ireland

*10 minutes of your time could help European small businesses, like yours, reduce their

loss through crime*

For further information call: 02890258030

(http://www.womeninbusinessni.com/news/member-news/business-crime-research-2012.aspx). The caller then asked to speak to the owner of the business. If this person was not available they asked to speak to a senior manager. When the person within the business who could give the caller information about crimes against the business was located the caller from Ipsos-MORI again repeated the purpose of the survey and reassured the person that all data would only be used for the purposes of the research and to assist in reducing crime against business. They were informed that any information given would be confidential and anonymised in the findings.

2.3 Methodological Restrictions As already mentioned the major restriction imposed on the consultation was time: the process had to be completed within an extremely short timescale i.e. February-March 2012. This restricted the methods which could be used to engage businesses in the consultation process. For example, it would have been preferable to have supplemented the quantitative data with qualitative work, such as in depth interviews. Additionally, a full environmental audit would have added to the depth of data collected. This would have involved visiting the District Council to fully map the area, logging any security issues such as those created by the layout, or visible indications of crime or disorder in the location, rather than those experienced by specific businesses. Additionally, this may also have involved visiting the sites outside of standard working hours, in order to gain a clearer picture of how this factor affects actual crime and disorder and influences perceptions of these issues.

3. The Survey Findings

3.1 The Response All the businesses contacted were located in Northern Ireland and had fewer than 50 employees. 1,000 surveys were completed. Figure 1 below shows the number of businesses per district.

Figure 1. The District Council area in which the business is located (1,000 respondents)

District Council area in which the business is located 140 124 120

100

80 64 65 60 52 52 48 48 45 43 40 40 34 33 32 35 35 30 30 28 24 25 27 21 21 19 20 16 9

Ards

Derry

Larne

Down

Moyle

Belfast

Antrim

Omagh

Lisburn

Armagh

Strabane

Limavady

Coleraine

Craigavon

Banbridge

Ballymena

Cookstown

Fermanagh

Dungannon

Ballymoney

Castlereagh

NorthDown

Magherafelt

Carrickfergus

Newtownabbey Newryand Mourne

Twenty-six Districts councils within Northern Ireland contributed to the final 1,000 data set. The contribution from the districts ranged from nine respondents from Carrickfergus (1%) to 124 respondents from Belfast (12%). Responses were received from a good mix of business types. As Figure 2 (below) shows the main respondents came from the ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’ sector (255 respondents, 26% of the overall respondents). The next largest group came from ‘Motor Trades/Wholesale and Retail’ (203 respondents, 20%) and the smallest group of respondents came from the ‘Finance and Insurance’ group with only 12 respondents (1%).

Figure 2. The sector in which the business mainly operates (1,000 respondents)

The majority of respondents were proprietors/owners of the business (682 respondents – 68%) or a director/manager at a senior level (see Figure 3 below). 330 of the respondents were female (33% of respondents) and 670 were male (67% of respondents).

Figure 3. Position of the person within the business responding to the survey (1,000 respondents)

Figure 4 below shows the majority of respondents (91%) to this survey had fewer than 10 employees or were classified as a sole trader, similar to recent figures in the number of VAT/PAYE registered businesses in Northern Ireland. Only 3% (28) respondents stated that the business had 20 or more employees.

Figure 4. Number of staff working within the business (1,000 respondents)

Figure 5 highlights that the majority of employees were employed on a full-time basis. Over 600 businesses had between 0 to 20% of their employees working part-time. Those with part-time workers making up 81-100% of their staff accounted for 10% of respondents.

Figure 5. Proportion of staff part time/full-time (1,000 respondents)

Q5 - What proportion of your employees is part-time rather than full-time?

59 6% 98 10% 143 0 > 20% 14% 21 > 40% 98 602 41 > 60% 10% 60% 61 > 80% 81 > 100%

Respondents were asked whether the business operates in the daytime economy, night time economy or in both daytime and night time economies. As Figure 6 below illustrates, most respondents stated that their businesses operated in the daytime economy (683 respondents, 68%).

Those operating in both day and night time economies accounted for 306 of respondents (31%) and only 11 respondents (1%) stated that they operated solely in the night time economy.

Figure 6. Does the business serve the day or night time economy or both? (1,000 respondents)

Q3d - Does your business serve the daytime or night time economy or both?

306 31% Daytime

683 Night time 11 68% Both 1%

3.2 Crimes against Small Businesses in Northern Ireland

3.2.1 Experience of crime in the past 12 months Having established what sector the business came from, the number of employees and the operational hours of the businesses, respondents were asked about their experiences of crime in the past 12 months. The majority of respondents stated that they had not been a victim of crime in the past 12 months (839 respondents, 84%). 160 respondents (16%) stated that they had been a victim and one respondent stated that they did not know whether the business had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months.

Figure 7. Business experience of crime in the past 12 months? (1,000 respondents)

The frequency that a District Council area had experienced crime in the past 12 months ranged from 0 in Carrickfergus to 32 in Belfast (see Table 1 below). When individually looking at each area’s contribution, the highest percentage that reported they had been a victim of crime was Moyle. Of the 16 respondents from Moyle, six (38%) had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months. Other District Council areas with more than 25% of respondents stating they had been a victim of crime included Newtownabbey (28%), Down (28%) and Belfast (26%).

Table 1. Crimes against businesses in the past 12 months by District Council area District Council area Has your business experienced crime in Number of respondents the past 12 months?3 Yes No Antrim 7 (21%) 27 (79%) 34 Ards 4 (8%) 44 (92%) 48 Armagh 4 (12%) 29 (88%) 33 Ballymena 9 (21%) 34 (79%) 43 Ballymoney 3 (9%) 29 (91%) 32 Banbridge 1 (4%) 23 (96%) 24 Belfast 32 (26%) 92 (74%) 124 Carrickfergus 0 9 (100%) 9 Castlereagh 1 (5%) 20 (95%) 21 Coleraine4 7 (15%) 40 (83%) 48 Cookstown 3 (10%) 27 (90%) 30 Craigavon 2 (6%) 33 (94%) 35 Derry 6 (11%) 46 (89%) 52 Down 11 (27%) 29 (73%) 40 Dungannon 5 (17%) 25 (83%) 30 Fermanagh 11 (17%) 53 (83%) 64 Larne 3 (14%) 18 (86%) 21 Limavady 2 (11%) 17 (89%) 19 Lisburn 10 (15%) 55 (85%) 65 Magherafelt 3 (9%) 32 (91%) 35 Moyle 6 (38%) 10 (62%) 16 Newtownabbey 7 (28%) 18 (72%) 25 Newry and Mourne 7 (14%) 45 (86%) 52 North Down 4 (15%) 23 (85%) 27 Omagh 6 (13%) 39 (87%) 45 Strabane 6 (21%) 22 (79%) 28 Total 160 839 1,000

Respondents were also asked what type of crime(s) they had experienced in the past 12 months. The largest category was theft (which includes shoplifting, burglary, attempted burglary, theft of vehicle, theft of equipment, robbery where an employee was held up, theft by an employee, non-payment, theft of materials, theft of fuel, theft of an animal, and theft of a fence). 121 respondents said they had experience this type of crime (76% of all respondents).

3 The number in brackets represents the percentage of respondents that gave the response in that District Council area. 4 One respondent in Coleraine stated ‘don’t know’

Table 2. Types of crime experienced in the past 12 months

Type of crime Number of % of respondents who respondents had experienced crime by type of crime Theft 121 75.6% Criminal damage 50 31.3% Fraud 23 14.4% Intimidating/threatening behaviour 22 13.8% Violent crime against owner or staff including assault 8 5% Other 4 2.5% Electronic crime 4 2.5% Arson 2 1.3% Hate crime through racism or sectarianism 1 0.6%

Respondents were also asked if there was any other type of crime experienced by their business in the past 12 months that had not already been mentioned. Three respondents replied that there was: two had experienced trespassing, and one had experienced anti-social behaviour. Respondents may have suffered more than one type of crime. The most frequent crime types have been further broken down in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Table 3. Types of theft Table 4. Types of criminal Table 5. Types of fraud damage Theft Frequency Criminal damage (n Frequency Fraud Frequency (n = 121)5 = 50) (n = 24) Shop lifting 45 Vandalism 36 From someone outside 10 the business Burglary 39 Graffiti 10 Cheque fraud 5 Theft of vehicle 14 Damage to vehicle 10 Cash fraud/counterfeit 5 Attempted 13 Fly tipping 6 Credit card fraud 4 burglary Theft of 7 Damage to 4 Non-payment of bills 3 equipment property Robbery (held- 6 ‘Other’ damage 1 Identity fraud 1 up) Theft by 6 From someone inside 1 employee the business Non-payment 4 Invoice fraud 1 ‘Other’ Theft 3 ‘Other’ fraud 1 Theft of materials 3 Theft of fuel 3 Theft of animal 3 Theft of a fence 1

5 The frequency numbers for each of the offences in Table 3, 4 and 5, may not add up to the total (e.g., theft, n = 121), as one business may have experienced various types of theft.

Table 6. Type of Crime by District Council Area District Council area Type of crime committed (number of businesses Theft Criminal Violent crime Intimidation Hate crime Fraud Electronic Arson Other that reported crime) damage against /threatening through crime owner/ staff behaviour racism or sectarianism Antrim (n = 7) 6 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 Ards (n = 4) 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Armagh (n = 4) 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Ballymena (n = 9) 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Ballymoney (n = 3) 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Banbridge (n = 1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belfast (n = 32) 29 12 7 7 1 9 0 0 6 Castlereagh (n = 1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coleraine (n = 7) 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 Cookstown (n = 3) 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Craigavon (n = 2) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Derry (n = 6) 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Down (n = 11) 10 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 Dungannon (n = 5) 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Fermanagh (n =11) 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Larne (n = 3) 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Limavady (n = 2) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lisburn (n = 10) 3 3 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 Magherafelt (n = 3) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moyle (n =6) 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Newry & Mourne (n = 7) 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Newtownabbey (n = 7) 7 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 North Down (n = 4) 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Omagh (n = 6) 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 Strabane (n = 6) 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 121 50 8 22 1 23 4 2 24

Table 6 above shows the categories of crime by District Council. Appendix 1 breaks down the categories of crime further by District Council area.

It must also be noted that the business could have had crimes committed against them but the respondent does not know about them. For example, if someone has been shoplifting, or if an employee has been stealing from a business this may only become evident at stock taking and in some cases is never uncovered.

As Table 7 below shows the sector that had the most respondents that reported crime was the ‘Motor trade/Wholesale/Retail’ sector with 64 of the 139 respondents in this sector reporting that they had experienced crime in the past 12 months6.

Table 7. Crime experienced by industry sector Industry Sector Has the business experienced crime in the past 12 months? Yes No Number of respondents in Sector (% of overall respondents) Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 27 228 255 (26%) Production 6 75 81 (8%) Construction 20 133 153 (15%) Motor trades /Wholesale/Retail 64 139 203 (20%) Transport and Storage (incl. postal) 9 23 32 (3%) Accommodation and food services7 5 33 39 (4%) Information and communication 2 16 18 (2%) Finance and insurance 0 12 12 (1%) Property 6 21 27 (3%) Professional, scientific & technical 6 85 91 (9%) Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services 13 48 61 (6%) Business admin and support services 2 26 28 (3%) Total 160 839 100

Respondents were asked if the crime against their business was hate motivated, i.e., because of their religion, race, gender, age, nationality or sexual orientation. 154 respondents stated that it was not (96% of all respondents). Five respondents stated that they thought it was (3%) and one respondent (less than 1%) stated that they did not know.

Operational hours Of the 160 respondents who reported having crimes committed against them, 95 (59%) stated that they operated solely in the day time economy, 64 (40%) stated that they operated in both the day

6 Appendix 3 shows a more detailed breakdown of crime by sector

7 One respondent in the ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ sector responded ‘don’t know’.

and night-time economies, and one (less than 1%) stated that they operated solely in the night-time economy.

Number of employees and experience of crime As indicated earlier in the report (Figure 4) most of the 1,000 businesses surveyed reported having fewer than 10 employees (90%) with 27% of these sole traders. For those who had been a victim of crime, the number of employees within the business was also explored. The figure below indicates that the majority of businesses that were a victim of crime were likely to be sole traders (35 respondents, 22%) or 1-4 employees (70 respondents, 44%), accounting for 66% of all respondents. Those that had 20-49 employees accounted for less than 3% of businesses that had been victimised.

Figure 8. Number of employees for those businesses that had experienced crime

How many members of staff are there in your organisation or business? 50 44% 45 40 35 30 25 22% 18% 20 14% 15 10 2% 5 0 Sole trader 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49

Number of employees and crime type experienced Table 8 below indicates the type of crimes experienced by the size of the business (in terms of number of employees). Just under half of reported theft offences occurred in businesses with 1-4 employees. Those businesses with 20-49 employees were only victims of one category of crime - theft. Interestingly sole trader businesses also experienced electronic crime. In addition, sole traders reported they had not experienced violent crime against owner or staff. This may be due to the working nature of many sole traders (for example, they may work online and/or from home).

Table 8. Number of employees and type of crime experienced

Type of crime Number of employees (categories) Sole 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 Total trader (n = 35) (n = 70) (n = 28) (n = 23) (n = 4) (n = 160) Theft 20 57 23 17 4 121 (17%) (47%) (19%) (14%) (3%) Criminal damage 10 21 9 10 0 50 (20%) (42%) (18%) (20%) Other 6 13 2 2 0 23 (25%) (54%) (13%) (8%) Fraud 6 9 5 3 0 23 (26%) (39%) (22%) (13%) Intimidating/threatening 4 9 4 5 0 22 behaviour (18%) (41%) (18%) (23%) Violent crime against owner 0 3 2 3 0 8 or staff including assault (38%) (25%) (38%) Electronic crime 4 0 0 0 0 4 (100%) Arson 1 1 0 0 0 2 (50%) (50%) Hate crime through racism or 0 0 0 1 0 1 sectarianism (100%)

Frequency that crime occurred Out of the 160 businesses experiencing crime in the past 12 months, 108 businesses (68%) reported that they had been victims of repeat victimisation8. Table 9 shows the extent of victimisation per offence and Figure 9 illustrates the number of businesses who have experienced only one instance of crime.

8 Repeat victimisation refers to a business that has experienced one crime type on more than one occasion and/or experienced more than one crime type.

Table 9. Crimes by frequency in the past 12 months Crimes by frequency Once 2-5 6-10 10+ Monthly Weekly Daily Don’t Total no. times times times Know respondents Shoplifting 8 18 1 1 7 7 1 2 45 Other thefts 16 1 1 1 2 1 - 2 24 Theft of vehicle 9 5 ------14 Theft by an employee 2 2 1 - - - - 1 6 Robbery where 5 1 ------6 employee was held up Burglary 24 15 ------39 Attempted Burglary 7 6 ------13 Vandalism 17 9 3 4 - 3 - - 36 Graffiti 2 3 - 2 - 2 1 - 10 Damage to vehicle 5 2 2 1 - - - - 10 Fly tipping - 4 - 1 - - - 1 6 Violent crime against 4 2 1 - - 1 - - 8 owner or staff Intimidation/threatening 4 13 2 1 - 2 - - 22 behaviour Hate crime - - - - - 1 - - 1 Fraud from somebody 3 3 3 - - - - 1 10 outside the business Fraud from somebody - - - 1 - - - - 1 inside the business Cheque Fraud 2 2 1 - - - - - 5 Invoice Fraud 1 ------1 Credit card fraud 3 - 1 - - - - - 4 Other fraud 1 4 1 - - - - 2 8 Identity theft - 1 ------1 Electronic crime 3 - 1 - - - - - 4 Arson 1 1 ------2 Other - 2 - 1 - - 1 - 4 Damage to property 4 1 ------5

As indicated in Table 9 above, the most frequent crime experienced was shoplifting, with this most likely to occur between 2-5 times in the past 12 months. Crimes that were reported to have occurred on a daily basis were shoplifting, graffiti and ‘other’. One business reported experiencing hate crime on a weekly basis.

Figure 9. Single crime experienced in the past 12 months

Single Crime Experienced 16 14 14 12 10 10 8 8 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0

Reporting crimes against business The 160 respondents who said they had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months were also asked if they had reported all instances to the police. As can be seen from Figure 10 below the majority had reported at least some of the crimes committed against them to the police, with 52% reporting all of the crime(s), 14% reporting some of the crimes and 34% not reporting any of the crimes.

Figure 10. Reporting instances to the police

Q9 - Did you report all instances to the police?

22 14% 83 Yes 52% 55 No 34% Some of them

The 55 businesses that had not reported the crime(s) were asked their reasons for not reporting the crimes, more than one response may have been obtained. Figure 11 below highlights the main reason given for not reporting was lack of confidence in the police (18 respondents), followed by the response that the crime(s) were not reported because the respondent considered it to be too minor (17 respondents).

Figure 11. Reasons for not reporting crime to the police

Reasons for not reporting crime

Other 2 Fear of damage to reputation 2 Knew who did it/dealt with it 2 Would not get anything back 2 It was only an attempt 2 Nothing could be done/found out too late 4 Lack of confidence in the criminal justice system 4 Didn't know the crime had been committed 5 Too time consuming 12 Minor crime 17 Lack of confidence in the police 18

0 5 10 15 20

Table 10 below shows a breakdown of what offences were most likely to be reported. It illustrates that theft and criminal damage were the most common categories of crime experienced by small businesses in Northern Ireland. However, of the four businesses that reported electronic crime, three of them did not report it to the police.

Table 10. Offences most likely to be reported to the police Crime Type Yes No Some of Total them Theft 65 39 17 121 Criminal damage 24 13 13 50 Fraud 9 9 5 23 Intimidation/threatening 7 8 7 22 behaviour Violent crime against 5 1 2 8 owner/staff member Electronic crime 1 3 0 4 Arson 1 0 1 2 Hate crime 0 0 1 1

Appendix 2 shows a more detailed breakdown by certain offence types.

3.2.2. Cost of crime Estimating the costs of crime can be problematic. Sometimes the costs can be clear and direct, for example theft of a vehicle, in other cases it can be more problematic, for example shoplifting. As Figure 12 below shows, of the 151 respondents that were able to quantify the direct cost, the vast majority of respondents estimated the loss to be less than £1,000 (58%), and only two respondents stated that they had experienced losses of over £20,000. It should be noted that nine businesses

stated they did not know how much money the businesses had lost as a direct result of crime. This may be due to the respondent not having this information immediately to hand or the business may not be accurately recording the crimes and losses that occur. It is important both for business and the police to be able to quantify the value of crimes committed against businesses.

Figure 12. Direct costs of crime

How much money has your business lost in total as a direct result of all crimes in the past 12 months

Don't know 9 More than £20, 000 2 £10,000 - £19,999 7 £5,001 - £9,999 10 £1,001-£5,000 40 £501- £1,000 25 less than £500 67

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Indirect costs such as staff time to deal with incidents, interruption to production, improvements to security or increased insurance costs are often ignored and are difficult to measure. Results suggest that the indirect cost of experiencing crime was difficult for businesses in this sample to quantify. Out of the 160 respondents who had experienced crime four were not willing to answer this question and 27 did not know what the indirect costs were (this contrasts with the direct costs where all respondents were willing to answer, however, nine did not know the costs). As Figure 13 below shows the biggest category response to the indirect costs was less than £500 (77 respondents, 48% of respondents), the second biggest category response was ‘don’t know’ with 27 respondents, 17% of respondents, and the third biggest category was £1,001-£5000 with 29 respondents (18% of respondents).

Figure 13. Indirect costs of crime

How much money has your business lost as an indirect result of crime in the past 12 months?

Don't know 27 Not willing to answer 4 £10,000- £19,999 3 £5,001-£9,999 6 £1,001- £5,000 29 £501- £1,000 14 less than £500 77

0 20 40 60 80 100

3.2.3. Business security measures All businesses were asked what security measures they had in place and if the business had taken any steps in the past 12 months to upgrade security. 1,000 respondents replied to each of these questions. The most popular type of security measure in place within businesses was a security alarm (326 respondents). Of these 326, 85% stated they had not experienced crime in the past 12 months. A similar high proportion of business had not experienced crime in the past 12 months had CCTV installed (130 from 174 respondents: 75%) and new locks/locking up (147 from 167 respondents: 88%). However, out of the 16 businesses that used staff training as a security measure 63% (10 respondents) had been a victim of crime.

Table 11. Type of security measures in place and crime experience 1,000 respondents Experienced crime in past 12 months Yes No Total (n = 160) (n = 840) (n = 1,000) Security alarm 48 (15%) 277 (85%) 326 None of these 30 (11%) 245 (89%) 275 CCTV 44 (25%) 130 (75%) 174 New locks/locking up 20 (12%) 147 (88%) 167 Shutters 14 (20%) 56 (80%) 70 Security lights 8 (13%) 53 (87%) 61 Strengthening doors/locks/windows 6 (20%) 24 (80%) 30 Not willing to answer 2 (8%) 24 (92%) 26 Extra/security gates 3 (12%) 23 (88%) 26 Dogs 3 (12%) 21(88%) 24 Security guard/someone on premises 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 Staff training 10 (63%) 6 (37%) 16 Fencing 6 (40%) 9 (60%) 15 Bars on windows 1 (11%) 8 (89%) 9 Panic button 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 8 Equipment stored out of sight 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 7 Internet/IT security 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 7 Access control 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 7 Don’t know 0 5 (100%) 5 Safe 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 5 Vehicles/machinery tagged/tracked 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 5 Security tags on goods 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 Mirrors 3 (100%) 0 3 More vigilant 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 Obtained advice from Police 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 Joined Business Watch Scheme 0 1 (100%) 1 Mosquito/high pitched sound device 1 (100%) 0 1

Upgrade of security measures in the past 12 months Businesses were asked whether any steps had been taking in the past 12 months to upgrade their security measures. Table 12 below shows the majority of respondents had taken no steps to upgrade their security in the past 12 months (766 respondents). For those who did upgrade in the past 12 months, this was most likely to be CCTV (61 respondents). Those businesses that had been a victim of crime were more likely to utilise measures such as shutters, extra/security gates, bars on windows, staff training, fencing and equipment stored out of sight. Ten respondents stated that they did not know whether any steps had been taken in the past 12 months to upgrade the security of the business. This may be due to the information known by the respondent of the survey. Figure 3 reported earlier that 68% of respondents were proprietors/owners or directors/managers at senior level.

Table 12. Type of upgraded security measures in the past 12 months and crime experienced 1,000 respondents Experienced crime in past 12 months Yes No Total Not taken any steps 83 (11%) 682 (89%) 766 CCTV 20 (33%) 41 (67%) 61 Security alarm 11 (20%) 45 (80%) 56 New locks/locking up 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 23 Security lights 6 (29%) 15 (71%) 21 Shutters 12 (57%) 9 (43%) 21 Not willing to answer 3 (23%) 10 (77%) 13 Strengthening doors/locks/windows 4 (36%) 7 (63%) 11 Don’t know 2 (20%) 8 (80%) 10 Extra/security gates 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 7 Vehicles/machinery tagged/tracked 0 6 (100%) 6 Bars on windows 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 5 Staff training 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 5 Internet/IT security 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 5 Obtained advice from Police 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 4 Fencing 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 Equipment stored out of sight 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 More vigilant 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 Panic button 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 Joined Business Watch Scheme 0 1 (100%) 1 Access control 1 (100%) 0 1 Safe 1 (100%) 0 1 Security guard/someone on premises 1 (100%) 0 1 Dogs 0 1 (100%) 1 Mirrors 0 0 0 Security tags on goods 0 0 0 Obtained advice from other organisations 0 0 0 Mosquito/high pitched sound device 0 0 0

Respondents were also asked how much they had spent on security products in the past 12 months. As Figure 14 below illustrates the majority of respondents had spent less than £500 on security products in the past 12 months. Only two respondents had spent more than £10,000 on security products. In addition, 74 respondents stated they did not know how much the business had spent on security products, with six respondents not willing to answer.

Figure 14. Money spent on security measures in the past 12 months

Figure 15 below indicates that the majority of respondents who had experienced crime in the past 12 months had not taken any steps upgrade their security measures following the crime (116 respondents, 72%). The one respondent who stated they did not know whether the business had any additional security measures following their experience of crime was the owner/proprietor of a business within the Accommodation and Food Services sector.

Figure 15. Following your experience of crime, does your business have any additional security measures

353 Businesses responded about the most effective and least effective security measure they had in place to prevent/reduce crime against their business. 75 respondents stated that they believed all security measures they had in place were equally effective. Security alarms (49 respondents) and CCTV (47 respondents) were the two measures that were deemed most effective. In contrast, when

asked which security measure were the least effective, respondents were most likely to state ‘don’t know’ (153 respondents), and 61 respondents were not willing to answer this question. ‘New locks/locking up’ (26 respondents) and ‘security alarms’ (25 respondents) had the highest frequency regarding least effective security measure.

Table 13. Effectiveness of security measures in place 353 respondents Which of the security Which of the security measures was measures was the most least effective in preventing/reducing effective in crime against your business? preventing/reducing crime against your business?

All equally effective 75 28 Security Alarm 49 25 CCTV 47 16 Shutters 30 9 Don’t know 24 153 New locks/locking up 24 26 Security lights 22 10 Strengthen doors/windows/locks 13 2 Dogs 11 0 Extra/security gates 8 3 Other 8 5 Security guard/someone on premises 7 2 Staff training 6 2 Not willing to answer 6 61 Fencing 4 0 More vigilant 4 0 Vehicle/machinery tagged and tracked 3 1 Equipment stored out of sight 3 0 Access control 3 0 Bars on windows 1 1 Security tags on goods 1 0 Mirrors 1 2 All equally effective 1 0 Panic button 0 1 Safe 0 2 Mosquito/high pitched sound device 0 1 Obtaining advice from police 0 2 Joined business watch scheme 0 1

It is important to remember that different industries may need different crime prevention measures put in place. Also some measures such as CCTV are only effective in preventing crime if the CCTV cameras are being monitored, although they could possibly have a deterrent effect.

Respondents were also asked ‘In respect of the least effective measures, can you tell me why you think they were ineffective?’ 111 respondents replied to this question. Just under a quarter of respondents stated their reason for believing the security measures were ineffective was that ‘it doesn’t stop/prevent crime’ (22.5% of the 111 respondents). Seventeen respondents stated they ‘did not know’ why the security measures were ineffective and 17 gave ‘other’ reasons.

Table 14. Reasons given why respondent thought the measures ineffective Number of Why were the security measures ineffective? respondents Doesn't stop/ prevent crime 25 Other 17 Locks can be broken 9 CCTV not effective 7 Criminals ignore/don’t care about security measures 6 Not been tested/used 6 Easy to disarm 4 Police response not effective 4 People ignore alarms 4 Draws attention 2 Lights help criminals 2 By the time the alarm goes off it’s too late 2 Did not receive training to use security measures 2 Human error 1 Guards not there when you need them 1 Total 111

3.2.4. Impact of crime on businesses Participants were also asked about the impact of crime on their business. Question 11 asked respondents who had been a victim of crime ‘which type has resulted in the most significant financial loss for your business?’ They were then asked which type of crime ‘has resulted in the most significant disruption to trading?’ (See Table 15 below).

Table 15. Significant financial loss and significant disruption to trading by respondents Most significant Most significant financial loss by disruption to trading by Type of crime number of number of respondents respondents Burglary 11 13 Vandalism 7 4 Theft of vehicle(s) 6 7 Shoplifting 5 3 Non-payment of bills 4 2 Robbery where an employee was held up 3 4 Damage to property 3 2 Intimidation/threatening behaviour 3 7 Attempted burglary 2 0 Arson 2 2 Cheque fraud 2 1 Other 1 2 Theft by an employee 1 1 Fraud from somebody outside the 1 1 business Credit card fraud 1 0 Non-payment 1 2 Theft of fuel 1 0 Theft of equipment 1 1 Violent crime against owner/staff 1 0 including assault Damage to vehicles 1 1 Theft by employee 1 0 No disruption to trading 1 0 Electronic crime 1 0 Trespassing 0 1 Total 59 59

Respondents were also asked whether the crime experience had any other negative impacts in addition to financial loss. As Figure 16 below shows the majority of respondents answered that their crime experience had not had any other negative impacts in addition to the financial loss (97 respondents, 61%).

Figure 16. Business experienced any negative effects in addition to financial loss

Of the 63 respondents who thought that their crime experience had negative impacts in addition to financial loss:

 Thirty-three thought it had affected  Two thought it led to difficulties staff morale obtaining insurance

 Five thought it had caused damage to  Two stated that it led to reduced the business reputation trust in staff

 Four thought it had reduced business  Two thought that it had an emotional/ customers health impact

 Three reported feeling insecure  Two said it had led to them feeling it had been a poor police response  Three said that they did not know  One was not willing to answer  Three gave other as the response  One thought it was a nuisance  Three though that it had an effect on neighbours/other tenants

 Three said that it had made them more vigilant

 Three thought it led to reduced investment

 Three reported feeling insecure

 Two thought it led to a high turnover in staff

Question 25 asked if the perpetrator of the offence(s) had been prosecuted9. The responses given to the question are shown below (Figure 17). However, it must be noted that of the 141 who answered that the perpetrator had not been prosecuted 53 had not reported the crimes to the police.

Figure 17. Was the perpetrator prosecuted for the crime(s)

The majority of the respondents who had crimes committed against them stated that they did not think the crimes were hate motivated (i.e. were committed because of their religion, gender, age, race, nationality or sexual orientation). Five respondents stated that they thought the crime was hate motivated and one respondent did not know.

3.2.5. Repeat victimisation As stated earlier 160 businesses experienced crime in the past 12 months, of these 108 businesses (68%) reported that they had been victims of repeat victimisation10. Table 16 indicates that from the 25 District Council areas that experienced crime in the past 12 months, 17 District Council areas had respondents that reported that they were more likely to be repeat victims of crime than not11. Both Banbridge (one respondent) and North Down (four respondents) had repeat victimisation for all the respondents located in their area. Derry, Dungannon, Omagh and Strabane had 80% or more of their respondents stating they had been repeat victims of crime.

9 It must be noted that it was not recorded how the respondent knew if they perpetrator had been prosecuted, whether this was from the police, their appearance in court, local media or other sources. 10 Repeat victimisation refers to a business that has experienced one crime type on more than one occasion and/or experienced more than one crime type.

Table 16. Repeat victimisation by District Council area District Council area Repeat victim of crime Yes No Total respondents Antrim* 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 7 Ards 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4 Armagh 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4 Ballymena* 7 (78%) 2 (22%) 9 Ballymoney 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 Banbridge* 1 (100%) 0 1 Belfast* 25 (78%) 7 (22%) 32 Castlereagh 0 1 (100%) 1 Coleraine* 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 7 Cookstown* 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 Craigavon 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 Derry* 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 6 Down* 6 (55%) 5 (45%) 11 Dungannon* 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 Fermanagh 5 (45.5%) 6 (55.5%) 11 Larne* 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 Limavady 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 Lisburn* 6 (60%) 4 (40%) 10 Magherafelt* 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 Moyle 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6 Newry and Mourne* 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 7 Newtownabbey* 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 7 North Down* 4 (100%) 0 4 Omagh* 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 6 Strabane* 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 6 Total 108 (67.5%) 52 (32.5%) 160 *indicates District Council area had 51% or more of respondents who stated they were a repeat victim of crime

Table 17 below highlights repeat victimisation by industry sector. Those who were most likely to be repeat victims of crime were those from the Motor trades/Wholesale/Retail sector (80%). The only sector that recorded a higher proportion of single experience of crime in the past 12 months was the professional, scientific and technical sector. Out of the six respondents from this industry sector two (33%) had been repeat victims of crime.

11 Those with 51% or more of respondents who stated they were repeat victims of crime.

Table 17. Repeat victimisation by industry sector Repeat victim of crime Industry sector Yes No Agriculture, forestry & fishing 15 12 Production 3 3 Construction 11 9 Motor trades/Wholesale/Retail 51 13 Transport & storage (inc. postal) 5 4 Accommodation & food services 5 0 Information & communication 1 1 Property 6 0 Professional, scientific & technical 2 4 Business administration and support services 1 1 Arts, entertainment, recreation and other services 8 5

As the Motor trades / Wholesale / Retail sector recorded the highest proportion of repeat victimisation this was broken down further. Of the seven Motor trades businesses that had experienced crime, six had been repeat victims (86%). For Wholesale respondents 10 out of the 11 businesses were repeat victims (91%). Although the lowest proportion of repeat victimisation from the three sectors, the Retail sector had been repeatedly victimised in 76% of cases (35 out of 46 respondents).

Operational hours Similar proportions were found for repeat victims of crime regardless of whether they operated in daytime (68%) and both daytime and night (67%) economies. Only one business operated solely in the night time economy and this business had been a repeat victim of crime.

Number of employees and repeat victimisation As 108 of the 160 businesses reported being repeat victims of crime (68%), the number of employees and repeat victimisation was explored in greater detail. As illustrated in Figure 18 below, when exploring the proportions of repeat victimisation, businesses with 20-49 employees were repeat victims in 100% of cases (although it must be noted that only 4 businesses were included within this category). 71.4% of businesses with 5-9 employees were repeat victims, and sole traders recording the lowest proportion of repeat victimisation (63%).

Figure 18. Number of employees per business and repeat victimisation

How many members of staff are there in your organisation or business? 50 47 45 40 35 30 22 23 Repeat victim 25 20 20 15 Single instance 15 13 10 8 8 4 5 0 0 Sole trader 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49

Security measures For those that did not have any additional security measures following their experience of crime 69% were repeat victims, compared to 66% of those who did have additional security measures.

Figure 19. Additional security measures following experience of crime and repeat victimisation

Following your experience of crime, does your business have any additional security measures? 70 60 60

40 36 27 Yes 30 No 20 14

0 Repeat Victim Single Instance

Reporting crimes to the police

Figure 20. Reporting crimes to the police for repeat victims

Figure 20 above indicates that for repeat victims of crime 36% (39 respondents) did not report all crimes, with 44% (47 respondents) reporting all crimes and 20% (22 respondents) some of the crimes. In contrast, Figure 21 below illustrates that those who were victims of a single instance of crime were reported by just under a third of respondents (31%: 16 respondents) with 69% (36 respondents) not reporting their crime.

Figure 21. Reporting crimes to the police for victims of a single instance of crime

Did you report all instances to the police? Single instance victims of crime

16 31%

Yes 36 No 69%

Reasons for not report crimes to the police Those that were repeat victims of crime were most likely to state they did not report crimes against their business to the police due to’ lack of confidence in the police’ (15 of 18 respondents: 83%). The other main reason given was that reporting crime is ‘too time consuming’ (83%, compared to 17% of

non-repeat victims). Although low frequencies, 100% of those who gave the reasons for not reporting their crime to the police as: ‘nothing could be done/found out too late’, ‘lack of confidence in the CJS’, ‘fear of damage to reputation’ and ‘would not get anything back’ were all repeat victims of crime.

Table 18. Reasons for not reporting crimes to police and repeat victimisation Why the business did not report crimes to police? Repeat victimisation Yes No Total Lack of confidence in the police 15 (83%) 3 (17%) 18 Minor crime 11 (65%) 6 (35%) 17 Other 11 (73%) 4 (27%) 15 Too time consuming 10 (83%) 2 (17%) 12 Didn’t know crime had been committed 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 Nothing could be done/found out too late 4 (100%) 0 4 Lack of confidence in the CJS 4 (100%) 0 4 Was only an attempt 0 2 (100%) 2 Fear of damage to reputation 2 (100%) 0 2 Would not get anything back 2 (100%) 0 2 Knew who did it/ dealt with it 0 2 (100%) 2

The above table shows that those who were not identified as repeat victims were likely to not report their crime to the police because they either ‘knew who did it/dealt with it’ or ‘believed it was only an attempt’.

Financial loss from crime in past 12 months When exploring the direct financial loss categories of those that were repeat victims of crime, a third had losses of less than £500 (33%), and 32% estimated the cost between £1,001 to £5,000, with under a fifth estimating this at between £501 to £1,000 (see Figure 22 below). The categories of cost above this (£5,001 to more than £20,000) accounted for 11% of the repeat victim businesses. For those who experienced only one crime, 60% had incurred costs of less than £500, with no businesses reporting cost of £20,000 or more (costs between £5,001 and £19,999 accounted for 14% of single crime businesses).

Figure 22. Direct financial cost of crime that has occurred in past 12 months and repeat victimisation

Indirect financial cost of crime in the past 12 months Those businesses that were repeat victims of crime were most likely to incur indirect costs of less than £500 (41%), with just under a quarter costing between £1,001 and £5,000 (23%). Cost between £5,001 and £19,999 accounted for 6% of repeat victims (see Figure 23). No repeat victims had incurred costs more than £20,000. Those who reported one experience of crime in the past 12 months approximated their indirect costs at less than £500 in 64% of cases.

Figure 23. Indirect financial cost of crime that has occurred in past 12 months and repeat victimisation

Upgraded security measures in the past 12 months Table 19 below highlights the security measures used and whether the business had suffered repeat victimisation. Interestingly, those who did not taken any steps to upgrade security were repeat victims in 64% of cases.

Table 19. Security upgraded and repeat victimisation Upgrade security Repeat victimisation Yes No Total Staff training 2 (66%) 1 (33%) 3 Security alarm 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 11 CCTV 14 (70%) 6 (30%) 20 Obtained advice from Police 1 (100%) 0 1 Shutters 10 (83%) 2 (17%) 12 Security lights 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 New locks/locking up 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 10 Strengthen doors/windows/locks 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 Extra/security gates 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 5 Internet/IT security 0 2 (100%) 2 Panic Button 0 0 0 Security guard/someone on premises 1 (100%) 0 1 Fencing 2 (100%) 0 2 Safe 1 (100%0 0 1 Bars on windows 2 (100%) 0 2 Equipment stored out of sight 0 2 (100%) 2 Access control 1 (100%) 0 1 More vigilant 1 (100%) 0 1 Not taken any steps 53 (64%) 30 (36%) 83 Not willing to answer 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3

Negative impact from crime experience From the 160 businesses that had experienced crime, 63 (39%) stated this had a negative impact in addition to financial loss. Those that stated it had a negative impact were also most likely to be a repeat victim of crime (70%) compared to those who were not repeat victims (30%). Regarding the type of negative impact, analysis indicated that from the 33 who stated a negative impact on staff morale, 23 (70%) were repeat victims of crime, compared to 10 who were not repeat victims (30%).

4. Discussion of findings

4.1. Extent of Crime Only 16% of respondents (160 respondents from an overall sample of 1,000) indicated that they had experienced crime against their business in the past 12 months. This contrasts with the other surveys of crimes against business in Northern Ireland which have found much higher levels, for example, the business crime survey that KPMG conducted on behalf of the NI Policing Board in 2007/8 found that 30% of businesses had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months (NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008: 5). As Table 20 and Appendix 4 show, levels of crime generally are not high across Northern Ireland and there has been a general downward trend in the last 10 years. Burglary, offences against vehicles and criminal damage are all at their lowest levels since 1998/99 (the first year for which crime data comparable under the revised Home Office Counting Rules is available, PSNI, 2012). The total number of offences recorded in 1st April 2011 –31st March 2012 was 103,389.

Table 20. Recorded crime in Northern Ireland 2010/11 and 2011/12 Recorded crime Offence group 2010/11 2011/12 change % change Violence against the person offences 29,794 30,922 1,128 3.8 Violence against the person - with injury 15,156 15,545 389 2.6 Violence against the person - without injury 14,638 15,377 739 5.0 Sexual offences 1,933 1,836 -97 -5.0 Most serious sexual crime 1,605 1,574 -31 -1.9 Other sexual offences 328 262 -66 -20.1 Robbery offences 1,306 1,221 -85 -6.5 Robbery of business property 479 420 -59 -12.3 Robbery of personal property 827 801 -26 -3.1 Burglary offences 11,849 10,580 -1,269 -10.7 Burglary in a dwelling 7,081 6,650 -431 -6.1 Burglary in a building other than a dwelling 4,768 3,930 -838 -17.6 Offences against vehicles 6,933 6,017 -916 -13.2 Theft from a vehicle 3,350 3,126 -224 -6.7 Theft or unauthorised taking of a motor 2,719 2,290 -429 -15.8 vehicle1 Interfering with a motor vehicle 864 601 -263 -30.4 Other theft offences 18,505 19,809 1,304 7.0 Of which: shoplifting 6,371 6,201 -170 -2.7 Fraud and forgery offences 3,023 2,750 -273 -9.0 Criminal damage offences 24,996 23,255 -1,741 -7.0 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIME 65,306 62,411 -2,895 -4.4 Drug offences 3,485 3,780 295 8.5 Drug trafficking 762 846 84 11.0 Drug non-trafficking 2,723 2,934 211 7.7 Other miscellaneous offences 3,216 3,219 3 0.1 TOTAL RECORDED CRIME - ALL OFFENCES 105,040 103,389 -1,651 -1.6

The new ‘Building Safer, Shared and Confident Communities’ Strategy states that:

Northern Ireland is one of the safest places to live in Europe, with levels of crime and anti-social behaviour lower than other comparable regions. Crime rates have been on a downward trend in recent years. Recorded crime in 2011/12 was at its lowest level in a decade, and anti-social behaviour incidents have fallen by almost 25% over the past three years (DoJ, 2012: 15).

The total number of offences recorded in the period 1st April 2011 –31st March 2012 was 103,389. However, despite this the DoJ are not complacent and state that ‘there remains much to be done to build on this success’ (ibid). As we have stated earlier it is extremely difficult to know what crimes specifically relate to businesses as they are generally not separately identified within police figures.

4.2. Repeat victimisation As has been show earlier in this report many of the respondents to this survey who had experienced crime also experienced repeat victimisation12 . One type of crime where repeat victimisation has received a lot of attention has been burglary. Given that this is one crime which a large number of respondents have experienced and also a crime that has had lots of attention by academic studies (Tilley, 1993; Farrell et al 1995) we decided to explore this in more detail in terms of repeat victimisation. The table below shows the number of respondents by sector who had experienced burglary

12 Repeat victimisation occurs when the same person or place suffers from more than one criminal incident over a specified period of time’ (National Board for Crime Prevention, 1994: 2)

Table 21. Businesses who had been the victim of burglary by industry sector Industry Sector Number of respondents who Number of respondents have experienced burglary Agriculture, forestry and fishing 9 255 Motor trades/Wholesale/Retail 9 203 Arts, recreation and other 6 61 services Construction 6 153 Professional, scientific & 3 91 technical Accommodation & food 2 39 services Property 2 27 Transport & storage (inc. 1 32 postal) Production 1 81 Business admin and support 0 28 services Information and 0 18 communication Finance and insurance 0 12 Total 39 1,000

We then analysed the number of respondents who had experienced burglary by District Council area, but as the table below shows none had enough respondents in them to allow any detailed analysis. The areas where 50% or more of respondents who had experienced crime had been the victim of burglary are shaded.

Table 22. Businesses who had been victims of burglary by District Council area District Council area Has your business experienced burglary in the Number of respondents past 12 months? in the District Council area Yes No. of respondents who had been victims of crime in the District Council area Antrim 2 6 34 Ards 0 3 48 Armagh 0 3 33 Ballymena 4 6 43 Ballymoney 1 1 32 Banbridge 0 1 24 Belfast 7 29 124 Carrickfergus 0 0 9 Castlereagh 0 1 21 Coleraine 1 4 48 Cookstown 1 2 30 Craigavon 1 2 35 Derry 3 4 52 Down 3 10 40 Dungannon 1 5 30 Fermanagh 3 8 64 Larne 1 2 21 Limavady 1 1 19 Lisburn 1 3 65 Magherafelt 0 2 35 Moyle 2 5 16 Newry and Mourne 2 5 52 Newtownabbey 1 7 25 North Down 1 4 27 Omagh 2 4 45 Strabane 1 3 28 Total 39 160 1,000

Twenty-four of the respondents stated that they had experienced burglary once in the past 12 months and 15 respondents had experienced burglary 2-5 times in the past 12 months. However, of the 24 respondents who had only experienced burglary once, 14 had experienced repeat victimisation with other offences being committed against them. Some of these might have been one offence, for example vandalism, but some suffered several different types of offences. For example, one respondent stated that they had experienced various other crimes such as

intimidation and threatening behaviour, theft of vehicle, criminal damage and violent crime, with some of these offences being committed against them 6-10 times. Of the 39 respondents who had experienced burglary 29 had experienced some form of repeat victimisation.

Of the 39 respondents who had been victims of burglary in the past 12 months, four said they had no security measures in place. When asked the question ‘Following your experience of crime does your business have additional security measures?’ 24 of the 39 respondents said that they had not, 14 said that they had put additional security measures in place and one answered that they did not know.

Of the 15 respondents who had experienced crime 2-5 times in the past 12 months 12 said that they had not taken any additional security measures after the crime (burglary was the only crime committed against them in 7 of these cases). Of the 24 respondents that said they had been a victim of burglary once, 11 said they had not taken any additional security measures following the crime (for five of these respondents, burglary was the only crime committed against them), one respondent stated that they did not know if the business had taken any additional security measures and 12 said that they had taken additional security measures following the crime.

It must be noted that whilst 24 respondents stated that they had not put additional security measures in place following the crime, nine of these respondents listed security measures put in place in the past 12 months, these ranged from CCTV to new locks.

It is important to tackle repeat victimisation as this is costly both economically and socially. As the ‘Wise After the Event’ Repeat Victimisation Conference Report stated:

The phenomenon of repeat victimisation is important because it points clearly to the individual, the place, or the property, which is in need of support and protection. It enables limited resources and effort to be directed towards those with the greatest problems (Home Office Police Research Group, 1993).

At a time of cut backs tackling repeat victimisation is especially important. The DoJ have acknowledged that in a ‘challenging period of resource constraints across the public sector, the focus will be on directing resources where they can make the greatest impact, and focussing on earlier interventions to prevent and reduce crime and anti-social behaviour’ (2012: 7). Repeat victimisation has been shown to be predictable in that high crime areas are more likely to be victimised again and usually within a short time period. Tilley (1993) found that in small businesses ‘half of re-burglaries were committed within six weeks of the first incident’ and 39% of businesses were found to have been re-burgled at least once in a year (cited in National Board for Crime Prevention, 1994: 7). There is also lots of guidance available about how businesses can tackle repeat victimisation of commercial premises (see for example Tilley, 1993; Farrell et al, 1995; Home Office, 2004).

There is a need for a prompt response and action. It is also important to speak to the victims and find out if there is a pattern of unreported incidents13 and to determine when the offences are occurring. Security measures put in place need to be suitable for that individual business. Just as the crime problems can vary by sector, season and geographical locations so can the solutions. Staff may also need training in how to implement the measures and also in how they can reduce the opportunities for crime to take place. Also, whilst there is some evidence that ‘security upgrading can effectively reduce the vulnerability of individual businesses…the protection of whole areas requires cooperation and a coordinated approach’ (I M Burns the Deputy Under Secretary of State at the Home Office in the Foreword to Tilley 1993). Whilst larger businesses may be able to employ security managers and security guards and install expensive crime prevention measures this is not always possible for small businesses and they need have easily accessible advice on what measures they can put in place to reduce crime.

4.3. Reporting crime(s) to the police Around 85% of businesses who had been a victim of crime in Northern Ireland claimed, in the NI Policing Board/KPMG survey undertaken in 2007/08, that they had reported the crimes to police (NI Policing Board/KMPG, 2008). This survey found that 66% of respondents said they reported some or all crimes to the police. The main reason given for not reporting crime was lack of confidence in the police (18 respondents) followed closely by the reason that the crime was too minor (17 respondents) or too time consuming (12 respondents).

If businesses do not report crimes committed against them it is difficult for the police, government and local partnerships to get an accurate indication of the levels and types of crimes being committed, this in turn makes it more difficult to target resources and put in crime prevention measures. A more detailed picture of business crime can also ‘allow police performance in tackling business crime to be measured’ (FSB, 2005: 17; BERR, 2009b). Also, as the Banbridge DPP Annual Report 2010/2011 states ‘Encouraging people to report crime and suspicious incidents combined with effective handling of calls from the public are fundamental to increasing public confidence in policing’ (p.3). Building confidence in communities to report crime and feel confident in both policing and the criminal justice system is integral to the safer, shared communities’ agenda (DoJ, 2012).

4.4. Training and advice It appears that the respondents to this survey have received little help and advice from either the police or other organisations. Only four respondents stated that they had received advice from the police in the past 12 months and no respondents stated that they had received advice from other organisations. However, one did state they had joined a Business Watch Scheme. Also very few reported training their staff in security precautions or using security measures. Sixteen respondents

13 The levels of repeat victimisation may not always apparent due to under reporting and different categories of offences being reported.

said they had done this in the past and only five said they had provided staff training in the past 12 months. Only seven respondents stated they had internet/IT security and this reduced to five when asked if they had taken steps to upgrade security measures in the past 12 months. This is probably an oversight as they may have automatic upgrades, etc. However, it may be worth looking to e-crime Wales and e-crime Scotland and their model of e-crime websites/training (http://www.ecrimewales.com/ and http://www.ecrimescotland.org.uk/) for, as the Get Safe Online website tells us:

staff training is critical to business security. An educated workforce is the main line of defence against online threats in business. For example, the best anti-virus program in the world is no good if employees don’t know how to use it. Proper training not only reduces the risk of problems at work but it can also improve their IT skills, make them more confident online and encourage them to use better security at home too (Get Safe Online website January 2012).

It may be that businesses do not have the time for training but surveys in the past have shown there is an appetite for this to happen. For example, a survey of town centre traders in Banbridge found that ‘over a third of traders would welcome training in security issues for staff and of those traders who had not received advice from the Crime Prevention Officer (PSNI) 30% would appreciate receiving such advice’ (Banbridge Community Safety Strategy, 2005-2008:25-6).

Staff training in crime prevention awareness and reporting procedures could help minimise potential threats and many businesses are doing this, although not in a structured or strategic way. However, ‘for crime prevention advice to be effective it must be acted upon by the business’ (WM Enterprise, 2009: 39). In the 2008 survey undertaken by KMPG ‘41% of businesses that had received advice from police CPOs on preventing/reducing crime had not implemented the advice’ (NI Policing Board/KPMG, 2008: 6). Whilst the respondents to this survey stated they have not received training and/or advice this does not necessarily mean that this has not been happening as the examples below illustrate:

. In the Banbridge District in 2011 a training session was held for retailers on the Radiolink system and over 600 rural crime leaflets had been distributed across Dromore and Rathfriland by NPT officers who were also carrying out crime prevention assessments and providing advice on securing and marking

In Omagh businesses have been invited along to crime briefings organised by the Omagh Safer Streets Initiative and supported by Omagh Police. The aim of these is to update businesses on developments in projects aimed at deterring and reducing commercial crime.

In PSNI D District which covers Antrim, Carrickfergus, Lisburn and Newtownabbey there is crime prevention advice on the PSNI website for

businesses (http://www.psni.police.uk/crime-prevention.htm), for example:

 A Crime Reduction Risk Assessment for the farming community

(this Risk Assessment tool was also included in the May 2012 edition of the United Dairy Farmers magazine which goes out to several thousand dairy farmers across Northern Ireland and four NFU Mutual offices in D District were given it to distribute to customers);  An Advice leaflet for Retailers

 A Business Risk Assessment Document  Information on Retailers Against Crime (RACNI) which was set

up in the Lisburn area in 2008

 Crime reduction advice for Petrol Stations  A Counterfeit Currency Notes Advice Leaflet  Information on the PSNI & NFU Mutual – Reducing Rural Crime initiative

Also whilst only one respondent said that they had joined a Business Watch Scheme in some areas the Business Watch schemes have high membership and newer initiatives such as Farmwatch are receiving much support as the examples shown below illustrate.

Enniskillen Business Watch was set up in 2008 and works with the PSNI, the CSP/DPP (Now PCSPs) and the business community to impact on crime affecting the business community. They developed a crime prevention training programme to meet the specific needs of town centre traders and also set up a Ringmaster system to allow communication between members. The pilot was so successful it was extended throughout Fermanagh and over 500 businesses are now registered on the scheme.

Ford launches Omagh Farmwatch scheme

Justice Minister David Ford has today launched Farmwatch, a scheme developed to help fight crime in rural farming communities in Omagh. ~ Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Farmwatch is a partnership between the PSNI, Omagh Policing and Community Safety Partnership (PCSP) and the farming community to prevent and reduce rural crime and provide reassurance to rural communities.

The services offered by the scheme include:-

 A PSNI property marking scheme, along with serial numbers that will be placed on a PSNI database, to make it more difficult for thieves to dispose of stolen goods;

 A text alert service to provide updates on local crime and prevention;  Alarms for elderly and vulnerable residents; and

 Practical crime prevention advice to farmers and landowners.

Launching the scheme at the Ecclesville Centre in Fintona, David Ford said: “Building on the popular Neighbourhood Watch scheme, the aim of Farmwatch is to stress the importance of vigilance, prevention and communication - both within rural and farming communities and between rural communities and the police.

“The services the scheme offers will, I hope, go some way to reduce rural crime and importantly, reduce the fear of crime that rural residents often feel.

“It is an excellent example of partnership working to address the needs of the local community.”

Looking at the overall impact of rural crime, David Ford continued: “I do not underestimate the impact of rural crime. Any crime is hugely distressing for the victim and agri-crime can also have significant financial implications for the incomes of farming families and the future sustainability of their businesses. “I will shortly be launching the new Community Safety Strategy which will outline the importance of partnership working to support efforts to make rural communities safer.”

Praising the new Omagh PCSP, the Minister continued: “I want to congratulate Omagh PCSP for the work it is doing with farmers to build safer rural communities.

“Today’s event is a good example of work being done across Northern Ireland. I am keen to encourage PCSPs to share good practice as we seek to protect our people.

“The new PCSPs provide an excellent opportunity to bring together the local community, voluntary groups and statutory agencies to improve community safety.

“They will also be integral to the implementation of the new Community Safety Strategy which sets the direction for building safer, shared and more confident communities across Northern Ireland.” Speaking at the event in the Ecclesville Centre, Fintona, the Chair Elect of the new Policing and Community Safety Partnership, Cllr Allan Rainey, MBE commended the initiative and encouraged farmers to take part in it. He said “Farmwatch will provide better avenues for local farmers to avail of support and crime prevention services. It is unique in that it will provide direct links between farmers and local PSNI neighbourhood officers, building community confidence and better communication. This development must be welcomed and supported at a time when rural crime is a real concern.” (Northern Ireland Executive, 23rd May 2012)

What may need to be improved is the communication between businesses and the PSNI/PCSPs to make them aware that there is help and advice which is easily accessible. At a basic level businesses could be signposted to existing information on the internet, for example the PSNI website (http://www.psni.police.uk/index/crime-prevention/business-safety.htm). Media awareness campaigns such as the Christmas Crime Prevention Advice 2011 offered by PSNI (http://www.psni.police.uk/christmas_crime_prevention_advice_10_11_11) are also useful in trying to get the message across to a wider audience

4.5. The Cost and Effects of Business Crime Figures for the annual cost of crimes against business vary with the FSB stating that ‘Crime against business costs the UK economy an estimated £19 billion a year which is approximately £5000 for each business, with 12% of businesses estimating that crime costs them over £10,000 a year’ (FSB, 2007: 5) and the British Chamber of Commerce Crime Survey stating that UK businesses experience a £12.6 billion annual cost of crime (BCC 2008).

Small businesses responding to this survey were asked to quantify the direct cost of crime to their business over the past 12 month period:

 Two stated that crime against their business had directly cost them more than £20,000  Seven stated that crime against their business had directly cost them between £10,000 - £19,999  10 stated that crime against their business had directly cost them between £5,001 - £9,999  40 stated that crime against their business had directly cost them between £1,001-£5,000.  25 stated that crime against their business had directly cost them between £501-£1,000.  67 stated that crime against their business had directly cost them less than £500.  Nine stated that they did not know how much the crime had cost them

Whilst respondents might be able to easily quantify the costs in terms of damage, indirect costs such as wasted staff time, and expensive additional security measures proved more difficult to quantify with 27 respondents not knowing the indirect costs.

 Three stated that crime against their business had indirect costs of between £10,000- £19,999  Six stated that crime against their business had indirect costs of between £5001-£9,999  29 stated that crime against their business had indirect costs of between £1,001-£5,000.  14 stated that they had experienced indirect costs between £501-£1,000.  77 stated that they had experienced indirect costs of less than £500.  27 did not know the indirect costs  Four were not willing to answer the question

Whilst the impact of crimes such as graffiti is hardly likely to close the business down, its effect in terms of staff morale, the appearance of the business to potential customers and the inconvenience of having to get the graffiti removed could all affect a business’s decision to stay in an area if it

happens repeatedly; ‘The cost and trauma associated with crime also acts as a barrier to business growth, which in turn has consequences for local communities’ (NPIA, 2009: 8). Alongside this:

crime, and the fear of crime, can directly impact on day to day business activities. It can damage a business’ image, resulting in the loss of existing customers and deterioration in the quality and range of services offered by the business, which will limit turnover and restrict business development (FSB, 2005; 5).

Criminological theories, in particular the ‘broken windows’ effect and, more recently, Martin Innes’ work on signal crimes has indicated that these are factors that can potentially lead to further deterioration of an area and can affect perceptions about safety and fear of crime (Innes, Fielding and Langton, 2002; Innes, 2004; Millie and Herrington, 2005). This type of continuous disorder can also contribute to businesses’ levels of dissatisfaction with policing and affect perceptions of an area generally. This has been acknowledged in the recent Community Safety consultation in Northern Ireland:

The physical appearance of a neighbourhood can have an impact on levels of crime and antisocial behaviour in the area with graffiti. Signs of vandalism, poor street lighting and broken windows giving an appearance of neglect, which in turn can lead to crime and disorder (DoJ, 2011: 20).

The Co-operative Survey 2007 also reminds us that ‘the costs are not just financial – in human terms, the costs can be impossible to measure’ (Peter Marks Chief Executive of Co-operative Trading Group in Co-operative, 2007: 3). Threat of physical or verbal violence may stop potential staff wanting to work for businesses, damage to cars and the surrounding environment can affect staff morale, and crime and disorder can lead to staff illnesses in the face of repeat victimisation. The survey did not ask about experiences of disorder, fear of crime or opinions on how crime and disorder was dealt with but as the DoJ comment, ‘crime and the fear of crime remain an important issue for many communities’ (DoJ, 2012: 4). These are issues that should be explored in any further surveys. Whilst some may consider anti-social behaviour to be trivial, it can be costly. As the DoJ (2012: 6) state:

crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear it creates continue to have a damaging impact on victims, their families, local communities and wider society. Unless it is effectively addressed, crime and anti-social behaviour can affect people’s physical and mental health and quality of life, lead to social isolation and fear, and damage the economic wellbeing of towns, city centre and rural communities alike. Also: Even at its most minor, anti-social behaviour is associated with a strong perception of neglect by the authorities (e.g. failure to deal with environmental crime such as fly-tipping and graffiti), and a low expectation of service providers’ abilities to make a difference (Home Office, 2007; 22).

4.6. Level of the problem It is difficult to make any comparisons with the data given the small number of people who had experienced crime, the small number of similar crimes and the small numbers of respondents per District Council Area. Businesses are not homogenous entities: their needs and priorities can vary (BERR, 2009a). Northern Ireland has a huge variety of different business type, for example, there are retail units, sole traders and farmers. Consequently, their needs differ as do the problems they might encounter, although these problems may also be specific to where they are located and the time of day/night or even season. Many of the businesses had their own security in place in the form of CCTV, alarms and shutters: some businesses had several different measures in place. Whilst some appear to have a proactive approach to their business security (often driven by sector-specific considerations), in some cases this has been directly instigated by criminal incidents. However, none of the businesses stated that they had obtained advice from the police or any other organisation after the crime. In some cases this may be because the business did not report the crimes. An alternative explanation may be that the police have not offered any advice having been contacted by a business following a crime. Businesses need to be encouraged to report crime to the police to enable the police to provide support, which may lead to increased confidence with the police.

4.7. Perceptions of Neighbourhood Policing Businesses may not necessarily have had to experience crime and disorder to feel that it is a problem in their area: it is often about perceptions not actual incidents. Often crime surveys report that businesses appear to have little support when they have been victims of crime (FSB, 2005) and that they feel let down by the criminal justice system14. This can lead to the attitude of ‘why bother?’ in reporting crime.

Jon Walker, Policy Chairman of the FSB in 2008 stated that:

Neighbourhood Policing Units (NPUs) are hailed as the answer to local crime problems. Businesses themselves have some faith in NPUs as an effective response to crime at a local level. However, far fewer businesses have had any direct contact with their local unit. This needs to change, especially when it is claimed that businesses are a ‘strategic partner’. NPUs should be engaging directly with the business community and making it a priority to factor their views and interests into local strategies to tackle crime against business (FSB, 2008: 5).

14 ‘The likelihood of a repeat commercial burglary occurring in the month following an initial incident can be assessed at 24 times that of an offence occurring at a ‘typical’ household in any single month (based on British Crime Survey figures)’ (Crime Concern, 2007: 4; FSB, 2005). Yet, at least one of the businesses consulted had received no communication from the police after the initial investigation of a burglary.

Business communities have differing needs, and getting to know the community would potentially help improve confidence in policing. As the FSB state, Neighbourhood Policing Teams need to:

recognise the business community as a separate group with a distinct voice and make consulting with them a priority about the sort of response and support they need. Police should be more proactive with the business community and not just wait until a business suffers a crime before engaging with them. Police and Community Support Officers should use their time on the beat well by engaging with businesses through face to face contact, building relationships and distributing advice on protecting themselves, their staff and their premises better. Under current schemes, businesses can also offer ‘free’ space in their premises for police officers to do paperwork and save them from returning to police stations when they are out on the beat. Businesses could also be in a position to help with intelligence gathering’. (FSB, 2007: 13).

Community engagement is time consuming and as Byrne and Topping remind us: ‘Because of the ever-changing policing and security environment [in Northern Ireland], it has been challenging for statutory bodies to deliver what might be considered ‘normal’ policing and community safety services’ (2012: 41). Indeed they go on to cite a HMIC report from 2011 which states that ‘only 10% of the PSNI’s organisational capacity is actually dedicated to what might broadly be defined as Neighbourhood Policing duties’ (Byrne and Topping, 2012: 20). Neighbourhood Policing is not just about tackling crime but also about tackling the fear of crime, making people and businesses feel safer and increasing confidence in policing (see Banbridge DPP Annual Report, 2010/2011: 10). Often this can be done by simply improving communication links; both improving confidence in policing and the criminal justice system and improving communication links are both aspects that ‘Building, Safer, Shared and Confident Communities’ aims to help address (DoJ, 2012).

Given the economic climate where people often do not have the time to attend traditional consultation meetings it might be worth looking at more innovative methods e.g. online forums/ blogs/ twitter/ podcasts so businesses and their staff can do so when it is convenient to them. Some of the respondents to this survey also stated that they did not report some of the crime that they had experienced because it was too time consuming. At a time when businesses need support in their business continuity, systems of on-line reporting may help increase reporting of low level crimes (due to the relative flexibility and low time cost of such reporting methods). Within the business community there are established organisations such as traders’ associations and business partnerships alongside clusters of commercial premises such as industrial and retail parks. In order to maximise the opportunity for promulgating crime prevention advice and correct usage of security measures, these organisations and clusters should be encouraged to share resources and information.

Reducing opportunities to commit crime is seen by the Government to be important in building safer communities – ‘by making it more difficult, more risky and less profitable to commit crime’ (DoJ, 2012: 24). However, there are a plethora of sources for crime prevention advice and a confusing

array of security equipment and measures that can be employed. The effectiveness of interventions is dependent on the correct identification of the problem that is being addressed, which, in turn, can have many aspects that need consideration including any ongoing re-development or re-generation schemes. The police are seen as the most common source of information and advice but are often not approached when problems arise, either by businesses not reporting crime or not taking up/seeking crime prevention advice from them.

It is important that advice is given and, indeed, acted upon and that there is a continuous process of re-assessment of the risks and mitigating measures used in order to maintain, or improve, any reduction levels in the incidence of crime and disorder. High levels of under-reporting of crime, particularly by businesses, mean that recorded crime figures may not reflect the true extent of crime in an area. Similarly, extrapolating the figures that relate solely to commercial crime would assist the development of appropriate and cost effective responses targeted at the business community.

5. Considerations and Recommendations

The Department of Justice report in 2010 estimated the total cost of crime overall at approximately £2.9 billion and part of the study quantified the cost of business crime in Northern Ireland, including non-domestic burglary, business robbery, commercial theft and fraud, criminal damage and other notifiable offences at approximately £425m in 2006-2007. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in their report of 2007 estimated that the cost of crime to businesses averaged out to each business at approximately £5,000.

There are 67,955 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses in Northern Ireland, given the FSB figure above, this would equate to circa £339.8 million. Taking the 160 (16%) respondents from our sample who stated they had been victims of crime in Northern Ireland and who indicated estimated costs for that, we reach a figure of approximately £547,750 or an average of £3,627 to each business15. It is clear then that the social and economic benefits of seeking, taking and implementing crime prevention advice before the event, and, given the incidence and likelihood of repeat victimisation, after the first incident, could have far reaching impact on the local economy. It is difficult to determine the exact level of business crime as many people do not report all crimes to the police. This is most evident where, what are considered to be minor offences are involved, or where the crime has been committed by employees (Carter et al. 2005). Alongside this there is also the issue of perceptions of crime, or fear of crime, which can directly impact on business activities, damaging the business image and affecting staff and customers alike, sometimes resulting in loss of business and high staff turnover.

We would recommend that partners involved in crime reduction in Northern Ireland consider the following:

 Pro-actively promoting crime prevention advice. There is a wealth of crime prevention advice available such as that on the PSNI website. The problem appears to be that many businesses are unaware of where and how to obtain it.

15 The mean figure from the indirect and direct cost figures provided by respondents e.g. 67 claimed less than £500, therefore £250 is used as the amount by which to multiply by 67. Add all the mean figures to provide a sum of £547,750 divided by those who identified direct costs, i.e. 151 to give the fig of £3,627.

 Neighbourhood Policing should involve the business community.

 PCSPs should continue the work already done by the DPPs and CSPs in consulting with businesses on the issue of crime.

 Establish and maintain communication between the agencies and businesses in respect of what is happening, what can, and is already being done.

 Consult widely and systematically with businesses as the Policing Board does bi-annually with residential communities.

 Businesses need to take a responsibility for their security by proactively seeking advice on security risk assessments and preventative action. They should also be encouraged to regularly review their security and ensure that all staff are properly appraised of safety and security measures that the business employs.

 Encourage business communities to work together to reduce crime and disorder through schemes such as Business Watch, Farm Watch and Business Crime Partnerships.

 Undertake qualitative work to look in more depth at the business communities’ perceptions and experiences of crime and disorder.

 Explore the potential for recruiting and training local business crime prevention advocates.

6. Conclusions

Business crime ‘affects turnover, future prospects, staff morale and ultimately, people’s livelihoods and impacts on the wider community, the economy, levels of inward investment, regeneration and the environment. In short, it impacts on everyone in Northern Ireland (Wilfred Owen FSB Policy Chair in Neighbourhood Retailer 2008)

Northern Ireland has a long history of recognising the importance of business crime. Indeed the first Community Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland in 2003 recognised business crime as one of its nine priorities for action (DoJ, 2011: 11). The most recent consultation strategy on Community Safety in Northern Ireland “Building Safer, Shared and Confident Communities”: A Consultation on a new Community Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland continues the commitment to tackle the issue by stating: ‘We will… address business and retail crime to promote safer towns and cities and the night- time economy’ (DoJ, 2011; 15). The resulting Strategy ‘Building Safer, Shared and Confident Communities’ reinforces this and states that in order to do this the Government will, along with a plethora of other initiatives, ‘make our neighbourhoods, town and city centres and rural communities safer by reducing the opportunities to commit crime’ (DoJ, 2012: 4). The ‘guiding principle’ of the Strategy is ‘that prevention is better than cure’ (DoJ, 2012: 3).

Businesses may need support when they have been victims of crime and proactive crime reduction advice tailored to their individual needs, or advice relevant to their sector; for example, advice on reducing shop theft, advice on reducing metal theft or safe storage of flammable materials. Crime Prevention advice may have been offered but it does not appear to have been taken up by many businesses.

One of the central tenets of Neighbourhood Policing is about reassuring the community and keeping them informed (NPIA, 2009). Both the Police and PCSPs could help improve business satisfaction levels if they improved their communication links with businesses and informed on what was being done to combat crime and disorder such as anti-social behaviour. All too often incidents ‘are simply dismissed by many as par for the course in the business world’ (Wilfred Owen FSB Policy Chair in Neighbourhood Retailer 2008).

Whose responsibility? Various government documents have outlined that crime cannot be tackled by the police alone and that responsibility lies jointly with the police, local authorities and the community (DoJ, 2011; Home Office, 2007):

Community concerns around crime and anti-social behaviour cannot be solved by the police alone. Community safety involves working in partnership at all levels to provide local solutions to local problems. That partnership approach will be central to building safer, shared and confident communities… Partnership matters because the challenge of reducing crime… is a challenge for us all’ (David Ford, Minister of Justice in the Foreword to DoJ, 2011: 4).

The Government has committed to a holistic interagency approach to tackling crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime (DoJ 2012). They also acknowledge that to be successful this approach needs to be done with communities. Businesses also have to take responsibility for risk management of crime and disorder against their businesses. The Government have pledged to:

 ‘work in partnership with the business community to identify priority areas and target projects to reduce business and retail crime;  promote schemes to improve our town centres including the Purple Flag and Business Improvement Districts (BIDS);  work in partnership with rural groups to prevent rural crime; and  design out crime to ensure homes and businesses are safe’ (DoJ, 2012: 24).

As has been widely acknowledged in Northern Ireland policing with the community is the way to help prevent crime, anti-social behaviour and reduce the fear of crime for all members of the community and this includes businesses.

7. References

Anderson, D. et al. (1995), Biting back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime, Police Research Group Crime Detection & Prevention Series Paper 58, Home Office, London

Banbridge Community Safety Strategy 2005-2008. Available at: http://www.banbridge.com/uploads/docs/CSLeaflet.pdf

Banbridge District Policing Partnership Annual Report 2010/2011. Available at: http://www.banbridge.com/uploads/docs/BanbridgeDPPAnnualReport1011.pdf

British Chamber of Commerce (2008), The Invisible Crime: A Business Crime Survey. Available at: http://bcc.system7.com/zones/policy/reports/the-invisible-crime-a-business-crime-survey.html

British Retail Consortium, Retail Crime Survey 2011, British Retail Consortium, London. Available at: http://www.brc.org.uk/brc_policy_content.asp?iCat=48&iSubCat=646&spolicy=Retail+Crime&sSubP olicy=BRC+Retail+Crime+Survey

Byrne, J., Topping, J. (2012), Community Safety: a decade of development, delivery, challenge and change in Northern Ireland. A Research Report for Belfast Conflict Resolution Consortium. Available at: http://eprints.ulster.ac.uk/21688/1/BCRC_Community_Safety_Final.pdf

Carter, S., Mason, C. and Tagg, S. (2005), Crime and the Small Business, Federation of Small Businesses.

Co-operative Movement (2008), Retail Crime Survey, Manchester: The Co-operative Group. Available at: http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/pdfs/retail_crime_survey_2008.pdf

Co-operative Group (2007), Retail Crime Survey, Manchester: The Co-operative Group. Available at: http://coop30.ultimedia.co.uk/Corporate%20Files/Corporate%20Communications/Publications/Reta il%20Crime/Retail_Crime_Survey_2007.pdf

Crime Concern (1997), Crime against small business: facing the challenge, Briefing Paper 5

Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) (2009a), Crime against business – What partnerships need to know. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file50442.PDF

Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform BERR (2009b), Crimes against business – What businesses need to know. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file50441.PDF

Department of Finance and Personnel (2012), Public Procurement: a guide for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Available at: http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/pgn-02-12-sme-guide.pdf

Department of Justice NI (2010). Cost of Crime in Northern Ireland, Department of Justice Northern Ireland, Available at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication-categories/pubs- policing-community-safety/cs-strategy-20122017.pdf

Department of Justice NI (2011). “Building Safer, Shared and Confident Communities”: A Consultation on a New Community Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland available at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/public-consultations/current- consultations/building_safer_shared_and_confident_communities_consultation_paper.pdf

Department of Justice NI (2012). “Building Safer, Shared and Confident Communities” A Community Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland 2012-2017, available at http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication-categories/pubs-policing-community- safety/cs-strategy-20122017.pdf

Farrell, G. et al. (2000), RV Snapshot: UK policing and repeat victimisation, Crime Reduction Research series Paper 5, Home Office, London

Federation of Small Businesses (2008), Putting the economy back on track: Crimes Against Business. Available at: http://www.fsb.org.uk/policy/assests/crimes%20against%20business.pdf

Federation of Small Businesses (2007), Crimes against business: the forgotten fifth – a ten point action plan. Available at: http://www.midlandsfraudforum.co.uk/Docs/FSB%20The%20Forgotten%20Fifth%20Crime%20Repo rt.pdf

Federation of Small Businesses (2005), Cracking Business Crime, London: Federation of Small Businesses. Available at: http://www.fsb.org.uk/policy/assets/FSB%20Cracking%20Business%20Crime%20Report%20web.pdf

Get Safe Online (2012) Train Staff. Available at: http://www.getsafeonline.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1108 (accessed 23/1/12)

Home Office (2007), Cutting Crime: A New Partnership 2008-11, London: Home Office. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/crime-strategy-07/

Home Office Police Research Group (1993), “Wise After the Event” Repeat Victimisation Conference, Home Office: London. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/.../ah379.pdf

Innes, M., Fielding, N. and Langton, S. (2002), Signal Crimes and Control Signals: Towards an Evidence Based Conceptual Framework for Reassurance Policing. A report for the Surrey Police, Guildford, England. University of Surrey.

Innes, M. (2004), Reinventing tradition? Reassurance, neighbourhood security and policing, in Criminal Justice, Vol. 4 No. 1: 151-171.

Jones, J. (2011), Recording and Responding to Farm Crime: A National Study of Police Forces in England and Wales, Department of Law and Criminology Aberyswyth University.

Millie, A. and Herrington, V. (2005), Bridging the Gap: Understanding Reassurance Policing, The Howard Journal, Vol. 44 No 1: 41-56

National Board for Crime Prevention (1994), Wise after the event: Tackling Repeat Victimisation, National Board for Crime Prevention, Home Office Police Research Group, London. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/.../ah379.pdf

Neighbourhood Retailer (2008), Counting the cost of crime available from http://www.fsb.org.uk/policy/rpu/ni/images/business%20and%20retail%20crime.pdf

NI Policing Board/KPMG (2008), Independent Research into Crimes Against Businesses in Northern Ireland. Available at: http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/research_into_crimes_against_businesses.pdf

NINIS (2011), Local Government District Information for Banbridge LGD. Available at: http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/Home.aspx

NPIA (2009), Neighbourhood Policing Business Guide available from http://www.fsb.org.uk/policy/assets/nptguide.pdf

NPIA (2008), Neighbourhood Policing in Rural Communities Guide. Available at: http://crc.staging.headshift.com/files/Neighbourhood%20Policing%20Rural%20Guide1.pdf

PSNI (2012a), Police Recorded Crime in Northern Ireland: Monthly Update to 31 March 2012 – Excel spreadsheet. Available at: http://www.psni.police.uk/index/updates/updates_statistics/update_crime_statistics/updates_crim e_statistics_archive.htm

PSNI (2011), Police Issue Security Warning. Available at : http://www.psni.police.uk/christmas_crime_prevention_advice_10_11_11

RCVP (2012), 5 days in August: An Interim Report on the 2011 English Riots, Riots Communities and Victims Panel. Available at: http://www.5daysinaugust.co.uk/PDF/downloads/Interim-Report-UK- Riots.pdf

Tilley, N. (1993), The Prevention of Crime Against Small Businesses: The Safer Cities Experience, Police research Group Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper 45, Home Office, London

WM Enterprise (2009) Crime, Security and the Economy of the North West, Warrington: North West Region

Appendix 1

Types of crime committed by District Council area. Figures in each District Council area in these tables may not add up to the total as businesses may have experienced more than one type of crime.

Table 23. Types of Thefts by District Council Area District Council Type of crime committed – Theft – 121 respondents area Total Shoplifting Theft Robbery Theft by Burglary Attempted Other thefts of – employee Burglary in vehicle employee District held up Council area Antrim 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Ards 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Armagh 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Ballymena 6 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 Ballymoney 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Banbridge 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belfast 29 12 3 4 3 7 6 6 Carrickfergus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Castlereagh 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Coleraine 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 Cookstown 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Craigavon 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Derry 4 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 Down 10 4 0 0 0 3 2 2 Dungannon 5 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 Fermanagh 8 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 Larne 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Limavady 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lisburn 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Magherafelt 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Moyle 5 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 Newtownabbey 7 2 2 1 1 1 0 4 Newry and 5 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 Mourne North Down 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Omagh 4 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 Strabane 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 Total 121 45 14 6 6 39 13 24

Table 24. Types of criminal damage by District Council Area District Council Criminal Damage (50 respondents reported this type of crime) area Total CD Vandalism Graffiti Damage to Flytipping Damage Other reported Vehicle to in area property

Antrim 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 Ards 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 Ballymena 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 Ballymoney 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 Belfast 12 9 4 2 1 2 0 Coleraine 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 Derry 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Down 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 Fermanagh 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Larne 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 Limavady 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 Lisburn 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 Magherafelt 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Moyle 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Newry and 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 Mourne Newtownabbey 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 North Down 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Omagh 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Strabane 4 2 0 1 2 0 0

Table 25. Intimidation/threatening behaviour by District Council Area District Council Type of crime committed area Intimidating/threatening behaviour Antrim 1 Ballymena 2 Belfast 7 Coleraine 2 Derry 1 Down 2 Dungannon 1 Lisburn 2 Newtownabbey 2 North Down 1 Strabane 1

Table 26. Types of fraud by District Council Area District Council Type of crime committed area Fraud From From Cheque Credit Identity Invoice Cash Non Other (23) someone somebody fraud card theft fraud fraud/ payment of outside inside the fraud counterfeit bills business business money Antrim 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Armagh 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belfast 9 3 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 Carrickfergus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Down 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Fermanagh 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Larne 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lisburn 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moyle 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newry and 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mourne Newtownabbe 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 y Omagh 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Total 23 10 1 5 4 1 1 5 2 1

Appendix 2

Table 27. Reporting of crime by category - theft Crime Type – Yes No Some of them Total theft Shoplifting 19 20 6 45 Theft of vehicles 10 2 2 14 Theft by an 3 2 1 6 employee Robbery where 3 0 3 6 an employee was held up Burglary 25 6 8 39 Attempted 5 4 4 13 Burglary Theft of 5 2 0 7 equipment Theft of materials 1 2 0 3 Theft of fuels 3 0 0 3 Non-payment 2 1 1 4 Theft of an animal 2 1 0 3 Theft of a fence 1 0 0 1 Other 0 2 1 3 Total 79 42 26 147

Table 28. Reporting of crime by category – criminal damage Crime Type – Yes No Some of them Total criminal damage Vandalism 18 8 10 36 Graffiti 3 4 3 10 Damage to 6 2 2 10 vehicles Fly tipping 0 1 5 6 Damage to 1 1 2 4 property Other 0 1 0 1 Total 28 17 22 67

Table 29. Reporting of crime by category - fraud Crime Type – Yes No Some of them Total fraud From somebody 3 6 1 10 outside the business From somebody 0 0 1 1 inside the business Cheque fraud 3 2 0 5 Invoice fraud 0 0 1 1 Credit card fraud 2 1 1 4 Identity Theft 0 1 0 1 Cash 2 0 3 5 fraud/counterfeit money Non-payment of 0 2 0 2 bills Other 1 0 0 1 Total 11 12 7 30

Appendix 3

Industry Sector responses As stated earlier in the report responses were received from a good mix of business types. As Figure 24 (below) shows the main respondents came from the ‘Agriculture, forestry and fishing’ sector (255 respondents, 25.5% of the overall respondents). The next largest group came from ‘Motor Trades/Wholesale and Retail’ (203 respondents, 20.3%) and the smallest groups of respondents came from the ‘Finance and Insurance’ group with only 12 respondents (1.2%).

Figure 24. The sector in which the business mainly operates (1,000 respondents)

Table 30 below highlights the industry sectors within each District Council area. Belfast had a higher frequency of respondents from ‘Construction’ (28) and ‘Motor trades /Wholesale / Retail’ sectors (27). They had no respondents from ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’. In contrast, Fermanagh recorded the highest frequency of respondents from the ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’ sector (25 respondents).

Table 30. Industry sectors by District Council area Agriculture Production Construction Motor Transport Accommodation Information & Finance & Property Professional, Businesses Art, forestry & trades & storage & food services communication insurance scientific & administration entertainment fishing /wholesale/ technical & support recreation and retail services other services Antrim 18 1 2 5 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 34 Ards 13 5 9 8 2 3 0 0 1 5 1 1 48 Armagh 13 1 3 6 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 33 Ballymena 22 0 6 6 1 1 1 0 1 4 0 1 43 Ballymoney 16 3 5 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 32 Banbridge 7 3 2 10 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 Belfast 0 19 28 27 4 5 2 0 6 19 4 10 124 Carrickfergus 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 Castlereagh 1 1 6 5 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 21 Coleraine 13 4 3 7 2 5 0 1 2 4 0 7 48 Cookstown 16 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 30 Craigavon 3 2 5 9 1 0 1 0 2 8 2 2 35 Derry 4 4 10 13 2 1 2 1 3 4 1 7 52 Down 8 2 5 17 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 40 Dungannon 6 3 6 7 1 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 30 Fermanagh 25 6 6 11 0 2 2 3 2 0 1 6 64 Larne 5 1 6 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 21 Limavady 7 2 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 Lisburn 11 3 16 11 4 2 0 2 2 9 2 3 65 Magherafelt 16 5 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 35 Moyle 5 1 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 Newry & 7 5 3 17 4 3 0 0 2 4 2 5 52 Mourne Newtownabbey 5 1 4 5 2 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 25 North Down 1 3 5 5 0 2 0 2 1 7 0 1 27 Omagh 21 2 7 2 0 0 3 1 1 4 2 2 45 Strabane 12 2 3 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 28 TOTAL 255 81 153 203 32 39 18 12 27 91 28 61 1,000

Operational hours As can be seen from Table 31 below, the sectors with the highest frequency of night time operational hours were ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’ and ‘Accommodation and Food Services’. Ten of the twelve sectors were most likely to operate in the daytime rather than both daytime and night time, with only ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ and ‘Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and other’ services recording higher frequencies for ‘both’ than daytime.

Table 31. Industry sector and operational hours Industry Sector Operational hours Daytime Night Both Total time Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 128 4 123 255 Production 67 1 13 81 Construction 125 1 27 153 Motor trades /Wholesale/Retail 169 0 34 203 Transport and Storage (incl. postal) 23 0 9 32 Accommodation and food services 10 3 26 39 Information and communication 12 0 6 18 Finance and insurance 11 0 1 12 Property 17 1 9 27 Professional, scientific & technical 74 0 17 91 Business admin and support services 21 0 7 28 Arts, entertainment, recreation & other 26 1 34 61 services Total 683 11 306 1,000

Employee numbers within industry sectors When looking at each individual industry sector, the highest frequency for sole traders was found in the ‘Construction’ sector (45.8%), with the ‘Information and Communication’ sector recording 88.8% of their businesses as employing four or less people. As can be seen in the table above, ‘Motor trades /Wholesale / Retail’ was the sector with the highest frequency of 10 or more employees (26 respondents).

Table 32. Employee numbers within industry sectors Industry Sector Employee numbers Sole 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 Total trader Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 79 165 8 3 0 255 Production 18 45 8 5 5 81 Construction 70 49 21 5 8 153 Motor trades /Wholesale/Retail 41 99 37 19 7 203 Transport and Storage (incl. postal) 3 15 9 4 1 32 Accommodation and food services 3 23 9 2 2 39 Information and communication 8 8 1 1 0 18 Finance and insurance 1 9 1 1 0 12 Property 1 18 4 3 1 27 Professional, scientific & technical 26 48 10 7 0 91 Business admin and support services 9 11 3 4 1 28 Arts, entertainment, recreation & 14 24 10 10 3 61 other services Total 273 514 121 64 28 1,000

Different industry sectors are likely to experience some crimes more than others. Table 33 indicates that for the higher frequency crimes such as theft, industry sectors such as ‘Motor trades / Wholesale / Retail’ were most likely to experience this (49 respondents) along with ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’. The ‘Motor trades / Wholesale / Retail’ sector were also likely to experience a higher number of criminal damage offences, intimidation / threatening behaviour and fraud offences. In contrast, the ‘Information and Communication’ sector reported only electronic crime (2 respondents) and fraud (1 respondent) offences.

Table 33. Types of crimes committed by industry sector Industry Sector Type of crime committed

Theft Criminal Violent Intimidation Hate crime through Fraud Electronic crime Arson Other damage crime /threatening racism or against behaviour sectarianism owner/ staff Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 24 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 Production 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Construction 16 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 5 Motor trades/Wholesale/Retail 49 22 3 10 0 10 0 1 1 Transport and Storage (incl. postal) 6 5 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 Accommodation and food 4 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 2 services16 Information and communication 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 Property 5 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Professional, scientific & technical 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 Business admin and support 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 services Arts, entertainment, recreation & 8 7 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 other services TOTAL 121 50 8 22 1 23 4 2 24

16 One respondent in the Accommodation and Food Services sector stated ‘don’t know’.

Report crimes to the police Table 34 indicates that most industry sectors reported some or all of the crimes committed against their business to the police. The ‘Information and Communication’ and the ‘Professional, Scientific and Technical’ sectors were the only sectors that indicated a higher frequency of none reporting to police, than reporting. This may be due to the nature of these offences.

Table 34. Reporting of crimes to the police by industry sector Reporting crime to police Industry Sector Yes No Some of them

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 12 11 4

Production 3 2 1

Construction 12 7 1

Motor trades/Wholesale/Retail 33 25 6

Transport & storage (inc. postal) 7 1 1

Accommodation & food services 3 0 2

Information & communication 0 2 0

Property 2 0 4

Professional, scientific & technical 2 4 0

Business administration and support 1 1 0 services

Arts, entertainment, recreation and other 8 2 3 services

Total 83 55 22

It is important to highlight the reasons why the industry sectors did not report their crimes to the police. Table 35 below highlights the reasons for each industry sector, with ‘Motor Trades / Wholesale / Retail’ most likely to state they had a lack of confidence in the police (11 respondents) and that the crime was too minor (9 respondents). Interestingly, one respondent from ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’, and one from ‘Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and other services’ states that they did not report due to fear of damage to reputation.

Table 35. Reasons given by industry sectors for not reporting their crime experience(s) to the police Industry Sector Reasons given for not reporting crimes to the police Minor Crime Too time Only an Lack of Lack of Fear of Other reason consuming attempt confidence in confidence in damage to the police the CJS reputation Agriculture, Forestry and 4 2 1 1 0 1 4 Fishing Production 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Construction 1 2 0 3 2 0 1 Motor trades 9 7 1 11 2 0 6 /Wholesale/Retail Transport and Storage (incl. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 postal) Accommodation and food 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 services Information and 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 communication Finance and insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional, scientific & 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 technical Business admin and support 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 services Arts, entertainment, recreation 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 & other services Total 17 12 2 18 4 2 15

Losses incurred from crime experience in the past 12 months. Businesses were asked to estimate the direct and indirect losses of their crime experience(s) from the past 12 months. Most sectors were likely to incur costs less than £500, with the majority of these businesses coming from the ‘Motor Trades / Wholesale / Retail’ sector (29 respondents). Only two sectors reported costs more than £20,000, these were the ‘Motor Trades / Wholesale / Retail’ sector and ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ sector.

Table 36. Direct costs of crime incurred for each industry sector Industry Sector Direct costs of crime incurred in the past 12 months < £500 £501- £1,001- £5,001- £10,000- More Don’t £1,000 £5,000 £9,999 £19,999 than know £20,000 Agriculture, Forestry 12 5 4 3 1 0 2 and Fishing Production 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 Construction 5 2 8 1 1 0 3 Motor trades 29 11 14 5 2 1 2 /Wholesale/Retail Transport and Storage 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 (incl. postal) Accommodation and 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 food services Information and 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 communication Property 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 Professional, scientific 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 & technical Business admin and 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 support services Arts, entertainment, 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 recreation & other services Total 67 25 40 10 7 2 9

Respondents were also asked to estimate the indirect costs incurred from their experience of crime in the past 12 months. None stated their indirect costs at more than £20,000. Again, the majority stated their costs were less than £500. Three respondents did state very high indirect costs of crime (£10,000 - £19,999). There businesses were from the ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’, and the ‘Motor trades/ Wholesale / Retail’ sectors.

Table 37. Indirect costs of crime incurred for each industry sector Industry Sector Indirect costs of crime incurred in the past 12 months < £500 £501- £1,001- £5,001- £10,000- Not Don’t £1,000 £5,000 £9,999 £19,999 willing know to answer Agriculture, Forestry 17 1 2 0 2 0 5 and Fishing Production 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 Construction 6 2 6 1 0 0 5 Motor trades 29 4 11 4 1 3 12 /Wholesale/Retail Transport and Storage 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 (incl. postal) Accommodation and 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 food services Information and 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 communication Property 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 Professional, scientific 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 & technical Business admin and 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 support services Arts, entertainment, 6 3 1 0 0 0 3 recreation & other services Total 77 14 29 6 3 4 27

Security measures. Respondents were asked about the security measures they had put in place to prevent / reduce crime against their business. Table 38 highlights the responses by sector for the higher frequency responses. In addition to those security measures highlighted in the table, only two sectors obtained advice from the police ‘(Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’, and ‘Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and other services’) with only one (Motor trades/ Wholesale / Retail) joining a business watch scheme.

Table 38. Security measure in place by industry sector Industry Sector Security measure put in place to prevent/reduce crime Staff training Security CCTV Not Don’t Obtained Joined alarm willing know advice business to from watch answer Police scheme Agriculture, 0 17 17 8 1 1 0 Forestry and Fishing Production 0 43 16 1 1 0 0 Construction 2 44 18 4 1 0 0 Motor trades 6 101 57 6 0 0 1 /Wholesale/Retail Transport and 0 12 13 1 0 0 0 Storage (incl. postal) Accommodation 2 19 9 1 1 0 0 and food services Information and 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 communication Finance and 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Insurance Property 2 7 10 0 0 0 0 Professional, 2 41 11 2 0 0 0 scientific & technical Business admin 0 14 5 0 0 0 0 and support services Arts, 0 18 16 2 1 1 0 entertainment, recreation & other services Total 16 326 174 26 5 2 1

After establishing what security measures businesses already had in place to prevent/ reduce crime against their business, they were then asked ‘Following your experience of crime, does your business have any additional security measures? Table 39 indicates the responses. Out of the 64 respondents for Motor trades / Wholesale / Retail, 50 states that had not put any additional security measures in place since their experience of crime. The ‘Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and other services’ along with the ‘Professional, Scientific and Technical’ sector were the only sectors that were more likely to have put additional security measures in place, than not.

Table 39. Following your experience of crime, any additional security measures in place by industry sector Industry Sector Additional security measure in place? Yes No Not Don’t willing to know answer Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 6 20 1 0 Production 1 5 0 0 Construction 6 14 0 0 Motor trades /Wholesale/Retail 14 50 0 0 Transport and Storage (incl. postal) 1 8 0 0 Accommodation and food services 0 4 0 1 Information and communication 1 1 0 0 Property 1 5 0 0 Professional, scientific & technical 3 2 1 0 Business admin and support services 0 2 0 0 Arts, entertainment, recreation & other 8 5 0 0 services Total 41 116 2 1

Upgraded security measure in the past 12 months Following on from the previous question, respondents were asked to identify the type of security upgrade that had been implemented in the past 12 months (see Table 40 below). One business from ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’ sector had joined a business watch scheme, with four other businesses obtaining advice from the police (two from the ‘Motor Trades /Wholesale / Retail, one from ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’, and the other from ‘Professional, Scientific and Technical’ sector.

Table 40. Type of security measure upgraded in the past 12 months by industry sector Industry Sector Upgraded security measures in the past 12 months Staff Security CCTV Not Not Don’t Obtained Joined training alarm taken willing know advice business any to from watch steps answer Police scheme Agriculture, 1 6 11 195 2 1 1 1 Forestry and Fishing Production 0 5 5 64 0 2 0 0 Construction 0 4 5 133 1 0 0 0 Motor trades 1 13 14 152 6 2 2 0 /Wholesale/Retail Transport and 1 4 5 18 2 0 0 0 Storage (incl. postal) Accommodation 0 5 4 26 0 2 0 0 and food services Information and 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 communication Finance and 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 Insurance Property 0 0 4 20 0 1 0 0 Professional, 1 10 3 65 2 1 1 0 scientific & technical Business admin 0 3 3 21 0 0 0 0 and support services Arts, 1 5 6 45 0 1 0 0 entertainment, recreation & other services Total 5 56 61 766 13 10 4 1

How much money has been spent on security products in the past 12 months? Regarding the estimated costs of security measures put in place in the past 12 months, the majority estimated these at less than £500. Many businesses found it difficult to estimate the amount spent on security products (74 respondents). Only two businesses estimated their costs of security products as more than £10,000. These were from the ‘Transport and Storage’ sector and the ‘Property’ sector.

Table 41. Costs of security products in the past 12 months for each industry sector Industry Sector Costs of security measures in the past 12 months < £500 £501- £1,001- £5,001- More Not Don’t £1,000 £5,000 £9,999 than willing know £10,000 to answer Agriculture, Forestry 125 22 11 1 0 2 13 and Fishing Production 47 4 3 0 0 1 7 Construction 64 13 5 0 0 0 8 Motor trades 114 17 22 2 0 2 14 /Wholesale/Retail Transport and Storage 16 4 3 1 1 0 1 (incl. postal) Accommodation and 16 2 6 0 0 0 8 food services Information and 6 2 0 0 0 0 3 communication Finance & Insurance 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 Property 13 2 1 0 1 0 4 Professional, scientific 47 8 4 0 0 0 4 & technical Business admin and 12 2 3 0 0 0 4 support services Arts, entertainment, 23 8 5 0 0 0 8 recreation & other services Total 490 84 64 4 2 6 74

Hate crime Five businesses stated that they thought the crime against their business was a hate crime (religion, gender, age, race, nationality, or sexual orientation). Two were from the ‘Motor trades / Wholesale / Retail, and one each from: ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing’; ‘Construction’, and ‘Property’.

Was the perpetrator prosecuted? Respondents were asked whether they knew whether the perpetrator was prosecuted for the offence committed against their business. Only 6 respondents stated ‘Yes in all cases’, with 141 stating ‘No’. However, as mentioned earlier in the report, caution should be noted with these findings as 55 of the 160 businesses that experienced crime did not report their crimes to the police.

Table 42. Perpetrator prosecution by industry sector Industry Sector Perpetrator prosecuted? Yes in all Yes in No Don’t cases some know cases Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0 27 0 Production 1 0 5 0 Construction 1 1 17 1 Motor trades /Wholesale/Retail 1 5 57 1 Transport and Storage (incl. postal) 2 1 5 1 Accommodation and food services 0 1 4 0 Information and communication 0 0 2 0 Property 0 1 5 0 Professional, scientific & technical 0 0 6 0 Business admin and support services 0 0 2 0 Arts, entertainment, recreation & other 1 1 11 0 services Total 6 10 141 3

Appendix 4

Table 43. Recorded crime statistics by policing district and policing area Policing district/area 2010/11 2011/12 % change 2010/11 to 2011/12 North Belfast 7,897 7,504 -5.0 West Belfast 5,517 5,508 -0.2 A District 13,414 13,012 -3.0

East Belfast 4,975 5,125 3.0 South Belfast 11,445 11,923 4.2 B District 16,420 17,048 3.8

Ards 2,885 2,801 -2.9 Castlereagh 2,179 1,895 -13.0 Down 3,931 3,277 -16.6 North Down 3,284 3,206 -2.4 C District 12,279 11,179 -9.0

Antrim 3,279 3,247 -1.0 Carrickfergus 1,615 1,440 -10.8 Lisburn 5,884 5,291 -10.1 Newtownabbey 4,223 3,924 -7.1 D District 15,001 13,902 -7.3

Armagh 2,437 2,466 1.2 Banbridge 1,969 1,948 -1.1 Craigavon 5,286 5,438 2.9 Newry & Mourne 5,350 5,100 -4.7 E District 15,042 14,952 -0.6

Cookstown 1,779 1,950 9.6 Dungannon & South Tyrone 2,761 2,546 -7.8 Fermanagh 2,904 3,182 9.6 Omagh 2,346 2,291 -2.3 F District 9,790 9,969 1.8

Foyle 7,446 7,820 5.0 Limavady 2,166 1,988 -8.2 Magherafelt 1,573 1,618 2.9 Strabane 1,629 1,570 -3.6 G District 12,814 12,996 1.4

Ballymena 3,361 3,462 3.0 Ballymoney 994 1,050 5.6 Coleraine 3,643 3,672 0.8 Larne 1,541 1,443 -6.4 Moyle 741 704 -5.0 H District 10,280 10,331 0.5

Northern Ireland 105,040 103,389 -1.6 Taken from Police Recorded Crime in Northern Ireland: Monthly Update to 31 March 2012