|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C CRIMESuffolk Community Safety Data Review 2001The data review was undertaken by the Suffolk Community Safety Unit and the following information is taken from this document. For more information, please contact Ruth Tayler: ruth.tayler@csu.suffolkcc.gov.uk 1 Recorded CrimeFollowing an increase of 3.8% in recorded offences for 1999/2000, recorded crime in England and Wales fell in the 12 months to March 2001 by 2.5%. The majority of police force areas in England and Wales experienced a decrease in the number of offences from April 2000 – March 2001, but Suffolk was one of the few forces to experience an increase during this time. Crime in Suffolk as a whole has increased by 2.2% from April 2000 to March 2001 (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/01, 2001). This contrasts with falls experienced in crime for several consecutive years (with the exception of last year). The county’s position as one of the safest places in the country has slipped to fifth safest police force area in England and Wales1. In 2000/2001,Suffolk had a crime rate of 65.7 offences per 1000 population, against the average for England and Wales of 98. 1 Changes in recording practicesFor the second year in Suffolk, crime figures have been analysed by electoral ward. This allows data to be compared with other social indicators and analysed to a more local level. However, the way offences are recorded and notified also changed in April 1998, which has led to more minor offences being recorded and therefore included in the official statistics. This means that on the surface there has been a large rise in the amount of recorded crime throughout England and Wales. The crime categories that have been most significantly affected are: violent crime, which now includes common assault and assault on a police officer amongst others; drugs offences, which now include possession; and notifiable offences, which have increased dramatically and include dangerous driving, bail offences and indecent exposure. This makes comparisons with the period prior to the changes very difficult. Crime by District42,711 notifiable offences were recorded in Suffolk during April 2000 – March 2001. The incidence in each district or borough is shown below, both in absolute numbers and in relation to population size. Number of offences by area (% of the county total in relation to population size)
Chart 1: Number of offences by area; Suffolk Community Safety Data Review 2001 Two categories of crime that were investigated in particular depth in the Community Safety Data Review 2001 were domestic violence and racially motivated crimes. Both of these crimes are generally believed to be under-reported. Domestic violence was typically against a female victim, by a male perpetrator, and was considerably higher in Lowestoft than anywhere else in the county. Due to the small proportion of minority ethnic communities within Suffolk (3% on average), the number of racially motivated incidents tends to be quite low. Since the Racial Harassment Initiative was formed in 1998, the numbers of racially motivated incidents being reported has increased dramatically, from 54 incidents in 1997/98, 234 in 1999/2000 and 291 in 2000/2001 (Suffolk Constabulary). Unsurprisingly, most of these incidences occurred in Ipswich, which has the highest proportion of minority ethnic communities. The numbers for other district councils were considerably lower. Over half (55%) of the incidences reported were described as verbal abuse, quite a high proportion was recorded as assault (17%), and the remainder was described as multiple forms of harassment. Hotspot maps have been used to identify areas with high volumes of crime and disorder (using Hotspot Detective 1.3, within MapInfo 5.5). It should be noted, however, that direct comparisons should not be made between maps as the hotspots are relative to the particular area shown and not absolute. When focusing on specific towns, road grids (shown in grey) provide a reference point. Ward boundaries are shown as thin black lines and district/borough boundaries, where appropriate, as thick black lines. Crime rates for all crime, by ward as recorded by Suffolk Constabulary April 2000 - March 2001
Source: Suffolk Constabulary, 2001; population estimates Suffolk County Council 1999 Hotspots of crime in Ipswich as recorded by Suffolk Constabulary April 2000 - March 2001 )
Source: Suffolk Constabulary, 2001 Hotspots of crime in Lowestoft as recorded by Suffolk Constabulary April 2000 - May 2001 )
Source: Suffolk Constabulary, 2001 Hotspots of crime in Bury St Edmunds as recorded by Suffolk Constabulary April 2000 - March 2001 )
Source: Suffolk Constabulary, 2001 Map 1 shows that the offences are overwhelmingly clustered around the county’s three main towns, Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds. In fact, half of all crime (49.8%) recorded within Suffolk occurred in these three towns alone. The hotspots in Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds are illustrated in more detail in Maps 2, 3 and 4. Over a quarter of all crime in Suffolk was recorded within the Borough of Ipswich (11,406 offences). When relative population size is considered, the crime level in Ipswich (97.3 offences/ 1,000 population) was still higher than in Forest Heath and Waveney (72.7 and 77.0 offences per 1000 population respectively). Levels were lowest in Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal (46.8, 34.1 and 45.6 offences/1,000 population respectively). In 2000/2001, more crime was recorded in the town centre of Ipswich (Town ward), than in either the whole district of Babergh or Mid Suffolk, and only 17 fewer crimes than in Forest Heath. Because most districts in Suffolk include a wide mix of rural areas, small towns and a few main towns, simple comparisons on a district basis mask many important variations. In particular, comparing Ipswich with another district is not as useful a comparison as with another ‘main town’ (defined as having a number of wards and populations of at least 7,400). On the basis of this comparison, Bury St Edmunds and Lowestoft had the highest crime levels in the county, followed by Ipswich: Crime rates for Suffolk’s main towns  
Chart 2: Total offences, and offences per 1000 population, for Suffolk’s main towns, April 2000 – March 2001; Suffolk Constabulary, 2001, Suffolk County Council 1999. The average crime rate for these towns was 90.0 offences per 1000 population, and the county rate 64.1. The crime rates for July 1998 – June 1999 are also shown for comparison. The main towns with the highest crime rates were:
Crime rates for Suffolk’s small towns 
Chart 3: Total offences, and number per 1000 population for Suffolk’s small towns, April 2000 – March 2001; Suffolk Constabulary, 2001 and 1999; population estimates SCC, 1999 and 1998. Crime rates for July 1998 – June 1999 are shown for comparison. The average crime rate for these small towns was 41.2 offences per 1000 population, and the county average was 64.1. The overall crime rate for small towns has increased from 37.7 offences per 1,000 population for the period July 1998 to June 1999 considered in the CSDR 2000, to 41.2 for April 2000 to March 2001, an increase of 9% in two years. The small towns with the highest crime rates were:
2 DisorderHotspot Map 5 illustrates the concentration of all incidents of public disorder across the county. It shows that, not surprisingly, although incidents were spread right across Suffolk, the highest volumes were found in Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds, with Ipswich having much the highest. The relative volume of events in the rest of Suffolk was not sufficient to register in comparison to that found in these three areas. Hotspots of public disorder as notified to Suffolk Constabulary April 2000 - March 2001 )
Source: Suffolk Constabulary, 2001 Hotspots of public disorder in Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds areas as notified to Suffolk Constabulary April 2000 - March 2001 )
Source: Suffolk Constabulary, 2001 Maps 6a, b and c show relative hotspots within Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds. Although the surrounding parishes were in each case included within the hotspot calculation, it can be seen that the hotspots were very much restricted to the town centres themselves. The Ipswich hotspot was contained within Town ward, although areas of lower intensity also stretched out to the east, south, south west and north east of the town centre. There were further concentrations in the Whitton/Castle Hill/Whitehouse and Priory Heath/ Gainsborough areas. Fire and arson can also be used as measures of disorder. Data provided by the Fire Service shows that fires of a malicious or doubtful origin (ie suspected or known cases of arson) were most common in Forest Heath, Ipswich, St Edmundsbury and Waveney (1.17, 1.07, 0.81 and 0.80 fires/1,000 population respectively), and least common in Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal (0.49, 0.44 and 0.54 fires/1,000 population respectively). At a ward level, rates were highest in Kirkley (4.80), Clements (3.51), Brandon West (2.61), Gainsborough (2.60), Great Cornard South (2.38.) In 1999/2000, malicious false alarms were most common in Ipswich (0.94) and Waveney (0.87), in particular in Town ward (4.35), Harbour (3.45) and Kirkley (2.23). Fires of malicious and doubtful origin 
3 Fear of crimeA survey undertaken by MORI on behalf of the countywide Citizens’ Panel gives some data on the residents of Suffolk’s fear of crime. The fear of crime within Suffolk is disproportionate to the amount of recorded crime that takes place within the county. The research finds that the residents of Suffolk feel safer than those living in other similar local authority areas. There is, however, concern as perceived crime is an issue, with 83% reporting being in fear of becoming a victim of crime in 1999, compared to 26% actually being victims of crime that year. From 2002, information from the national British Crime Survey will be available at a county level, providing valuable comparative data. Chart 5 illustrates what, if anything, people say would make them feel safer in their area. Which of the following, if any, could be done to make you feel safer in your area? 
Chart 5: Factors that the public feels would make them feel safer, Citizens’ Panel, 2001, MORI 4 Offender dataAdult offendersThe information about offenders considered here was obtained from the National Probation Service (Suffolk), which has responsibility for assessing and supervising only a proportion of adult offenders, who tend to have been more serious or persistent offenders than the average. In addition, it should be noted that Suffolk Constabulary holds data on all individuals coming to police attention. Unfortunately, due to limitations in their database, this information is not readily accessible for research purposes, though it is hoped that some information on offenders may be available for future analysis. Data was obtained from the Probation Service for 1,163 offenders known to the service for the two year period April 1999 to March 2001. The group includes offenders released from prison, subject to an order of some kind, or for whom PSRs (pre-sentence reports) were written. It should be noted that this time period overlaps slightly with the Probation data considered in the previous data review, which was for July 1997 to June 1999. As well as the offence(s) committed and the order given, information was provided about the offender’s age, gender, ethnicity, and residence. In some cases, limited information about employment status and accommodation was also available. Between them, the 1,163 offenders had 1,286 orders against them; analysis is based on either the number of offenders or the number of orders. Demographic informationMost offenders, 95.5%, were white, and 3% were black, which is very much in line with the overall make-up of the general Suffolk population. Of those remaining, most had recorded their ethnicity as “other”. Chart 6: Ethnicity of 1163 offenders; April 1999 – March 2001; “other” includes 1 Asian offender and 2 where no ethnicity was recorded; National Probation Service (Suffolk), 2001 Ethnicity of offenders 
Females made up 10% of known offenders. For both males and females, the peak age was about 20, followed by a gradual decline during the 20s and 30s. Numbers were very low for offenders in their 40s and older. The oldest offender recorded by the Probation Service was 76, and the youngest 16, as, exceptionally, the Probation Service may supervise some younger offenders even though it only has statutory responsibility for those aged 18 and over. Offences committedInformation on the offences alleged to have been committed was also provided. A comparison has been provided with the period July 1997 – June 1999, which was examined in the previous data review. Theft, burglary, criminal damage and violence tended to be the most prolific offences, though “other offences” were also very common. The breakdown was very similar over the two time periods, though the proportion of violence, theft and motoring offences have all increased slightly, and burglary and drug offences decreased slightly. 1997 - 1999 1999 - 2001 
Charts 7 and 8: Offences (1,191 and 1,286 respectively) committed by 1,377 and 1,163 offenders in Suffolk during the periods July 1997 – June 1999, and April 1999 – March 2001. Numbers in brackets in the key show the number of offenders for the two time periods, 1997 – 1999, and 1999 – 2001 respectively; Probation Service (Suffolk) 2001. Examining the type of offence typically committed by males and females shows that all 9 robbery offences were committed by males, as were 94% of burglary and 89% of motoring offences. Females were most likely to commit theft/handling and fraud/deception offences. Offences Committed 
Chart 9: 1,286 offences committed by offenders known to the National Probation Service (Suffolk), April 1999 – March 2001, showing breakdown by gender, and percentage of offences committed by males; National Probation Service (Suffolk), 2001 Offence also varies with age. Motoring offences tail off less sharply with age than other types, whilst burglary and robbery tend to be committed more by young offenders. Violence, theft and other offences, whilst peaking sharply in the younger age groups, are also committed by older offenders. Risk factors associated with offendingThere is currently only limited information available about risk factors associated with adult offenders. The new Youth Offending Service (YOS) is collecting much more detailed information about juveniles, and it is hoped to be able to examine this in due course when a larger body of data has been collected. In 18% of probation cases, the employment status was unknown, in 29% the offender was employed, and in 39% unemployed. In just 1.8% of cases were offenders receiving training. There was no comment by the probation officer as to the suitability of accommodation in a third of cases (33%); in just over half (58%), the accommodation was judged to be suitable. The probation officer was most likely to judge accommodation to be unsuitable if the offender was also unemployed. Offences committed by age 
Chart 10: 1286 offences committed by offenders known to the Probation Service broken down by age, April 1999 – March 2001; National Probation Service (Suffolk), 2001 Personal circumstances for adult offenders 
Chart 11: Employment status and suitability of accommodation for 1286 adult offenders, 1163 records, showing the percentage of offenders with accommodation considered unsuitable by their probation officer; April 1999 – March 2001; National Probation Service (Suffolk), 2001. Location of offendersThe home address was known for the majority of offenders. Of the 1,286 cases, 11 were in custody, 107 lived out of the county, and the address was unknown for 3, and these have been discounted. Of the 1,169 remaining, 19 were either staying with friends or relatives (ie their address was “c/o”), 26 were staying in a hostel, or an institution such as the YMCA; these have all been included, but indicated separately. Residence of offenders 
Chart 12: Residence of 1169 offenders by district/borough, number of offenders April 1999 – March 2001, and the calculated rate, being the number of offenders resident per 1000 population per year, April 1999 – March 2001, and July 1997 – June 1999; Suffolk average was 0.84 and 0.94 offenders/1000 population per year, National Probation Service (Suffolk), 2001 Offender resident rates were calculated for each district and borough on the basis of 1,169 known offenders resident in the county, showing that Ipswich had a disproportionately high number of adult offenders. The rate in Ipswich, of 1.46 offenders/1000 population, is almost double the Suffolk average of 0.84. It can be seen that Ipswich also has the most offenders, about 8%, whose resident status is “other”, ie living in a hostel or hotel, with a friend or relative. The rate in Waveney is also fairly high, at 1.1 offenders resident per 1,000 population. Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal had the lowest rates. The rate for the period 1997 - 1999 is also included, showing that rates have dropped slightly over time in all parts of the county except Mid Suffolk, which has shown a slight increase. Two wards within the county, Town (5.7) in Ipswich, and Kirkley (5.6) in Waveney, had rates six times above the county average of 0.84 offenders per 1,000 population. Three other wards had offender resident rates which were three times the county average: Harbour (3.4), Risbygate (3.1), Stoke Park (3.1). Town ward and Kirkley also had the highest rate of young male offenders (aged 18-24) known to the Probation Service. 5 Young offendersSuffolk Youth Offending ServiceThe Audit Commission Report ‘Misspent Youth’ (1996) highlighted serious concerns about the quality, effectiveness, consistency and timing of interventions used with young people who offend. In particular, the report identified the time offenders resident/ 1000 population it took from arrest to sentence, the co-ordination of services and the co-operation between young people’s services as areas that required urgent attention. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 set out key objectives for Youth Offending Teams aimed at addressing these concerns. In particular, the Act re-focuses the work of the Youth Offending service towards early intervention and the adoption of multi-agency approach that tackles the causes of youth crime and enforces a restorative justice model. This model encourages young people to make amends through being accountable to victims and their local communities and promotes parental responsibility. The Act requires Local Authorities with responsibility for Education and Social Services in partnership with Police Authorities to set up inter-agency Youth Offending Teams within their area. The Suffolk Youth Offending Service (YOS) works with all young people in Suffolk aged between 10 and 17 years of age who offend or are at risk of offending. Informed by detailed individual assessment of needs, we aim to reduce the risk factors and increase the protective factors linked to their offending. By adopting a holistic approach that promotes accountability, responsibility and social inclusion, Suffolk YOS provides a full range of services including the provision of preventative programmes targeting young people ‘in need’ and community based programmes designed to prevent further offending. Teams are based at Bury St. Edmunds, Ipswich, and Lowestoft. Analysis of statistics 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001 5.1 Offending resulting in substantive outcome
Source: Suffolk YOS, 2001 The total number of youth offences has increased slightly in parallel with overall offending results (increase of 2.2%). Increases concerning violence against the person are mainly accounted for by the change in the way that this is now recorded. This makes direct comparison with previous periods of time very difficult. (See footnote 1 page 33 - Changes in recording practices). The increase in burglary (+102%) and arson/ criminal damage (+69%) in the quarter April – June 2001 is attributed to a seasonal trend. Specific initiatives were introduced to target these including partnership work with Suffolk Fire Brigade and Suffolk Police. These have both reduced in quarter July – September 2001 although not down completely to previous levels. The number of incidences of drug related offences, fraud, public order, racially aggravated and sexual offences remain low. The highest category remains theft and handling stolen goods, accounting for 32% of all youth crime. Orders:The number of orders made on young offenders totalled 961 over the last twelve months and are as follows: 5.2 Orders
Source: Suffolk YOS, 2001 There have been significant changes in sentencing patterns since the introduction of Referral Orders and other new orders. Other counties in the UK without Referral Orders experience higher numbers of Supervision orders. Use of custodial sentences is being monitored, to ensure they are used in the most appropriate cases only. Custodial sentences in Suffolk account for approximately 3% of all outcomes, compared to an Eastern region average of 6% and National average of 8%. For more information about each of the different types of orders that can be given to young people who offend please see our web site http://www.suffolkyot.co.uk or contact John Gregg on 01473 583389. Reparation and work with victims of crime: One of the key objectives of our work is to provide opportunities for young people to take responsibility for their behaviour, and to help put things right for the victim or the community they live in. Support to victims of youth crime is offered through liaison with partner agencies such as Victim Support and NCH. The Referral Order pilot in Suffolk has been operational since July 31st 2000 and forms a major part of our early intervention services. Reparation is co-ordinated through a panel meeting of local people (who have volunteered and received training) with the young offender and their family/ carers and their victim where appropriate. There have been 291 orders to date, with only 41 young people reoffending. Most of the evidence to date shows that re-offending is occurring early in the Referral Order sometimes before panels have taken place. Similarly most ‘breaches’ result from young offenders not engaging in the assessment and/or initial panel process rather than not complying with the conditions of a contract. Three groups of voluntary community panel members have been trained to-date. In total there are forty-five active panel members spread evenly between the three YOS areas. Referral Orders will be rolled-out nationally in Spring 2002. First 12 Months of the Referral Order Pilot 
5.3 Types of Offence Committed, Sept 2000 - Aug 2001
5.4 Length of Orders in Months, Sept 2000 - Aug 2001
5.5 Age of young person on referral Order, Sept 2000 - Aug 2001 - (Total 291)
Source: Suffolk YOS, 2001 Other early intervention work includes, in partnership with Suffolk Constabulary, delivery of 973 Police Reprimands and a further 508 Final Warnings to young people, also group work in local schools. Pilot schemes and local initiatives: In addition to core funding received from the Home Office Suffolk has been successful in attracting additional funding for innovative pilot schemes and local initiatives. ISSP: Suffolk was one of 21 areas nationally who received funding for an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) of £900,000 over three years. Targeted at persistent offenders (approximately 3% of young offenders in Suffolk) who commit over 30% of all youth crime, it provides a very challenging and closely monitored environment, which can be used in cases where a custodial or secure remand is otherwise an option. The scheme is tailored to meet individual needs and includes Supervision through education & training, offending behaviour & cognitive skills, restorative justice, family support and where required assistance with substance misuse, mental health and accommodation issues. The Surveillance element of the scheme includes use of the latest innovative tracking technology, tagging, voice verification and intelligence-led policing. On Track Haverhill and the Children’s Fund: The Haverhill ‘On Track’ Project has been successfully implemented and is currently delivering a number of programmes to children (aged 5 – 13 years) and their families in the Haverhill area. The Project was initially funded by the Home Office but responsibility for this function has now been taken over by the Children and Young People’s Unit. The ‘On Track’ Project has been incorporated into The Children’s Fund and Suffolk has been invited to apply for second phase funding potentially bringing £3.4 m over two years for Children’s Services (aged 5 – 13 years) in Suffolk from April 2002. The Key Objectives of The Children’s Fund are:- To ensure that in each area there is an agreed programme of effective interventions that pick up on early signs of difficulty, identify needs and introduce children and young people and their families to appropriate services ensuring:
There is a strong commitment to involving young people themselves, their families, local communities and the voluntary sector in the design and delivery of the Children’s Fund. The Haverhill ‘On Track’ Project has been able to realise the initial vision of offering a tiered approach to delivering services through a multi-agency team and involving local schools, health centres, communities and service users. The consultation process which preceded the delivery of the ‘On Track’ programmes has meant that the services being provided reflect the needs of the local communities and are positively valued by them. The extensive external monitoring and evaluation which is an integral part of the national ‘On Track’ programme will inform future developments and provide helpful data on effective interventions. Recent developments include:
Delivery of core programmes of activity involving schools, community education, speech and language therapy, home visiting by health professionals and after school activities. It is intended that the range of activities will be extended and the evaluation process will provide evidence of what works and inform future service developments including Children’s Fund Programmes and Children’s Services Developments. For further information about the Suffolk Children’s Fund please contact Gill Dean Development Co-ordinator on 01473 583456. Splash 2001: A series of drama, craft and music workshops and sports activities for young people at risk of offending or social exclusion during the Easter and Summer holidays. We hope to fund other similar opportunities in 2002. For further information on our services with young people, to volunteer to become a Referral Order Panel member, or to comment on our Youth Justice Board Annual Plan for Suffolk (which is on display in all local libraries) please contact John Gregg on 01473 583389. CONTACTS - CRIME
1 In April 2001, the Association of Chief Police Officers agreed to introduce the new National Crime Recording Standard across all 43 Forces in England and Wales to ensure standardisation of crime recording nationally. This follows on from the HMIC report entitled “On the Record” and the Home Office Review of Crime Statistics both published in 2000. Both documents highlighted the significant variation in crime recording practices nationally. All Forces have agreed to move towards this standard by March 2002. The Suffolk Constabulary adopted this position in April 2000, as did five other Forces namely, West Midlands, Staffordshire, Kent, Lancashire and Avon and Somerset. It is not believed to be a coincidence that Suffolk plus four of these five Forces have seen an increase in recorded levels of crime since they have adopted this “prima facie” approach to recording crime which, in essence, necessitates the recording of a crime if reported unless there is credible evidence to the contrary. This standard has not been adopted within the five other Forces within the Eastern Region and therefore at this stage direct comparison between forces is inappropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
)
