Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strategic Assessment 2015
Technical report 1: Evidence Base
Community Safety
Health Equity, Welfare & Partnerships
September 2015
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 2 of 21
Strategic Assessment 2015
Technical Report 1: Evidence Base
Contents
Aim, purpose and method ..................................................................................................... 3
Next Steps: completing the strategic assessment cycle ........................................................ 4
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 5
Strategic assessment district profiles: key issues on a district footprint ................................. 8
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 9
Demographics, health and vulnerability ............................................................................... 11
Socio-demographic factors influencing risk to being a victim of crime .................................. 12
Socio-demographic profile of top offending age group ......................................................... 13
Crime and harm .................................................................................................................. 14
Perceptions of crime ........................................................................................................... 17
Crime, ASB and key determinants ...................................................................................... 18
Serious and organised crime ............................................................................................... 19
Bibliography of supporting evidence .................................................................................... 20
Acknowledgements
Vickie Barritt (Hyndburn Council), Ian Billsborough (Police), Brett Biscomb (Office of Police &
Crime Commissioner), Dominic Blackburn (Blackpool Council), Richard Brown (Burnley
Council), Jon Charters (LFRS), Russell Clark (CSP analysis), Richard Cooke (LCC), Heather
Corson (South Ribble Council), Rebecca Eckersley (CSP analysis), Mick Edwardson
(Business Intelligence, LCC), Louise Elo (Chorley Council), Donna Gadsby (JSNA, LCC),
Michael Grime (LCC), Mel Greenslade (Business Intelligence, LCC), Alison Hatton (Preston
Council), John Kneale (CSP analysis), Jane Murray (Wyre Council), Andrew Procter
(Police), Dawn Robinson (Trading Standards, LCC), Rebecca Robinson (LCC), David Scott
(Trading Standards, LCC), Lee Sculpher (CSP analysis), Mark Woodruff (LCC), Mike Walker
(Business Intelligence, LCC), Peter Wareing (Blackburn with Darwen Council)
MADE (Multi-Agency Data Exchange) available via www.saferlancashire.co.uk
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 3 of 21
Aim
The strategic assessment (SA) is a statutory requirement for community safety partnerships
as outlined in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The aim of this SA is to provide an account
of long-term issues and threats from crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) across
Lancashire1. This SA is produced on a 3-year cycle, which increases capacity to develop
partnership intelligence assessments on significant threats, issues and gaps in knowledge.
These assessments provide extensive research and understanding of strategic issues.
Purpose
The purpose of this SA is to highlight significant crime and ASB threats and issues that
impact on community safety. It is the key evidence base that supports the community safety
agreement, local partnership plans, the policing and crime plan and the Constabulary control
strategy. Research, study and analysis draw out key conclusions to aid strategic decision-
making in developing control measures to reduce the threat and harm from crime and ASB.
This assessment is a concise account of key strategic issues impacting across the county.
For a more in-depth understanding of localised issues, this assessment should be read
alongside the strategic assessment district profiles (14 in total, 1 per local authority), existing
partnership intelligence assessments and the serious and organised crime local profile. In
addition, there is the new serious and organised crime local profile, which provides detail on
organised crime groups and gangs and the impact of their activity within the local
communities. The local profile is a new addition based on Home Office guidance for police
and community safety partners. Key conclusions from the local profile are included in this
assessment.
This assessment does not provide an exhaustive account of all threats and issues: the
Counter Terrorist Unit (at Lancashire Constabulary) produce a separate assessment that
details the threats and issues from terrorism and extremist activity.
It is not the purpose of this assessment to provide a commentary on performance or
management information.
Method
This assessment (along with 14 SA district profiles) is the result of 6 months research,
analysis, engagement and consultation with key stakeholders, community safety partner
agencies and all 14 local authorities. The process commenced with a stakeholder
conference (April 2015) and has been followed by 6 area2 workshop consultations (held
between May and August 2015), project steering group meetings and additional local
authority (local CSP) consultation meetings. The assessment has also been through a
critical review by its project steering group.
1 Lancashire in this document refers to pan-Lancashire, which includes all 14 local authority areas. 2 Police divisional areas (also known as BCU – Basic Command Unit)
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 4 of 21
The Living in Lancashire questionnaire has been used to survey the residents of Lancashire
as to their concerns regarding crime, ASB and community safety. This has been supported
by research from PACT (Police and communities Together) panels.
This assessment is accompanied by 14 local SA district profiles that detail significant issues
in each area of the county. The local assessments are supported by a strategic matrix that
has ranked threats and issues (based on local research, evidence and consultation).
Existing partnership intelligence assessments, joint strategic needs assessments (JSNA)
and local analytical profiles have been used to provide supporting evidence, additional
research and analysis. These are listed in the bibliography.
The date parameters for analysis of trends is the 3-year period (April 2012 to March 2015)
unless otherwise stated.
Key findings will be evaluated on an annual basis and incorporate any new findings from the
partnership intelligence assessment work plan.
Next Steps: completing the strategic assessment cycle
This document is the first part of the strategic assessment process and will be designated as
technical report 1. Following delivery of this assessment to the Chief Executives meeting
there will be a further two reports: service mapping (technical report 2) and a good practice
guide (technical report 3). Both of these reports will examine the key issues from this
assessment and then examine if commissioned services, funded initiatives and projects are
in place to negate the risks and threats identified. The good practice guide will evaluate
successful methods of reducing identified risks.
Key findings and conclusions will be evaluated through an annual review (October 2016 and
2017).
Strategic Assessment
Technical Report 1:
Evidence Base
(this report)
Strategic Assessment
Technical Report 2:
Service Mapping
(Oct / Nov 2015)
Strategic Assessment
Technical Report 3:
Good Practice Guide
(Oct / Nov 2015)
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 5 of 21
Executive Summary
Community safety, criminal justice and the public sector work with marginalised populations:
those who have problematic lifestyles, issues with alcohol and drugs, health problems,
incarceration, involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour and other related issues.
Bridging the gap between these areas and improving collaborative working across agencies
and disciplines will help bridge the gap between various services and strategies targeting
discrete needs for the core group of people that impact across a number of public services.
This assessment highlights some of the key areas and risks across Lancashire.
1. The top crime and anti-social behaviour categories impacting across the county are:
1.1. Violence against the person (predominantly wounding (also known as GBH),
assault with less serious injury (ABH), sexual assaults, rape and robbery – all of
which account for significant harm to the victim and within the local community).
1.2. Domestic abuse (DA) is an issue for all areas of Lancashire. Despite a
decreasing trend of DA incidents, the last 12 months have experienced a
significant increase in repeat MARAC cases, along with an increasing trend of
MARAC cases being discussed.
1.3. Child sexual exploitation (CSE). The risk of CSE varies across the county. It is
clear from the available data and improving intelligence picture, that social care,
education and public health have a key role to play in understanding and tackling
CSE. In particular, data from across these key areas can be used to identify
potential cases early. Factor analysis3 was inconclusive and suggests that there
are no significant variables that stand out in CSE referral cases, thus,
demonstrating the complexities with CSE cases. However, problematic parenting
and family structure were noted as significant issues in many CSE referral case
notes.
1.4. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) continues to be an issue for pan-Lancashire (noise
nuisance, problems between neighbours and repeat incidents). Whilst the overall
volume has been decreasing (as reported to the police), ASB shows seasonal
trends that rise through the summer. Additionally, the volume of ASBRAC (anti-
social behaviour risk assessment conference) cases remains high.
1.5. Road safety: the last two years have experienced an increase in KSI casualties.
The trend in KSI casualties is mirrored by the casualty records for pedal cyclists,
65+ year olds and to a lesser extent by 0-15 year old KSI casualties. The criminal
use of road networks and ASB on roads also presents road safety issues,
targeting of which can have a positive impact on collisions.
However, by utilising an alternative approach to analysis through the Cambridge Harm Index
(see point 4 on page 7), the key categories causing the most harm in the community are
rape, wounding, sexual offences, assault with less serious injury and robbery.
3 Factor analysis is used to determine if a specific variable has a significant effect or might be a key determinant towards cause and effect.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 6 of 21
2. The main contributory factors in the commission of crime and for increased risk of
victimisation are:
2.1. Alcohol harm (particularly in respect of serious violent crime). Alcohol increases
the risk of injury in violent crime and alcohol-related violent crime is statistically
significant near licensed premises. Alcohol harm has been noted as an issue in
families on the Working Together with Families (WTwF) programme, in cases of
domestic abuse and for increasing risk of reoffending.
2.2. The harmful effects of drug use / misuse. Whilst chaotic opiate use is in decline,
there is an increase in cannabis use among young people. Intelligence suggests
that there is a significant link between illicit tobacco markets and cannabis
cultivation and supply within the county. These two areas are also linked to wider
serious and organised criminality issues within the county.
There is a significant threat from new psychoactive substances (NPS). NPS pose
a threat due to the lack of intelligence as to how widespread its use is and the
impact on health services due to varying chemical composition of NPS,
particularly when an individual has suffered adverse effects or an overdose.
2.3. Reoffending remains an issue (significant pathways include alcohol, drugs and
housing). Those most at risk of reoffending are those that are on community
orders (particularly within 3 months of being given the order), those who have
been on cohort caseloads for less than 3 months and those who have been on
short sentences. Interestingly, analysis of the WTwF data showed that
households with adults with a proven offence were more likely to have a child
with an offence.
3. Research since the last SA has further added the following determinants that influence
offending and vulnerability:
3.1 Deprivation and social inequality. Analysis of families on the Working Together
with Families (WTwF) programme noted that the more deprived wards contained a
higher rate of families. This is to be expected based on the initial methods used to
determine the number of families that each area had to work with. However,
evaluation of local families found that needs were more complex than the national
criteria used to govern which families should be worked with. Parenting difficulties
(also a key factor in CSE referrals) were identified in 61% of families. Furthermore,
parenting problems were associated with social care issues, education and
depression.
3.2 Mental health: There is a danger of simply listing MH as a risk factor without sound
research, as MH issues are broad and complex. However, research has evidenced
that those with MH issues are more vulnerable to being a victim of crime or ASB and
those who are repeatedly victimised are vulnerable to developing MH issues. In
addition, a sample of data from WTwF showed that a quarter of children from families
on the WTwF programme were believed to have MH issues. MH issues were noted
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 7 of 21
in families with parenting difficulties, which increased the risk of a child with an ASB
intervention.
4. The application of the Cambridge Harm Index (CHI, see page 13 for more details) has
been used to improve how this assessment understands the harm from crime.
Developing knowledge of crime and harm within local communities has long been a goal
for CSPs. CHI research argues that the greatest count of crimes (mostly criminal
damage, theft and common assaults) do not create the greatest harm within the
community, and only a small percentage of crime is responsible for the greatest
percentage of harm (to victims and communities). CHI shows that when using a
weighting (based on sentencing structure), the crimes with the greatest harm include:
wounding, rape, sexual offences, assaults with injury and robbery. These five categories
account for 18% of the crime count but equate to 86% of crime harm.
5. The key threats from serious and organised crime are the distribution and supply of
drugs, violence between organised crime groups / gangs and the exploitation of
vulnerable people, the latter of which has a limited intelligence picture, but a growing
one. The impact of cross border offending remains a significant issue, especially in
relation to the three main threats.
6. The threat from modern slavery (including exploitation and trafficking of vulnerable
people) has been shown as a knowledge gap. There is growing intelligence regarding
this type of activity across Lancashire, but the extent of this activity unknown. Work has
already commenced to understand the threats and issues from modern slavery within
Lancashire.
7. Census data shows that Lancashire has a growing and aging population with just over
40% of the population in the county over 50 years old. The main age group with an
increased propensity towards being an offender of crime is 15-24 year olds. This age
group is set to decrease over the next five years. How this impacts on the rate of crime
is unclear at present, as there are a number of variables that influence crime rates.
With all age groups over 70 years old expected to increase over the next 5 years, there
is potential for an increase in demand from elderly groups.
Please note that there is significant variation of the impact from key age groups as
offenders and victims of crime across the county. These variations are detailed in the
SA district profiles.
8. The socio-demographic analysis of Lancashire recorded victims were typified by a high
financial dependency on the state, low car ownership, above average fear of crime and
in poor health.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 8 of 21
Strategic assessment district profiles: key issues on a district
footprint
The following map and list of local authority community safety issues are taken from the
strategic assessment district profiles that support this pan-Lancashire assessment.
South Ribble: Sexual offences (including CSE)
Violent crime Domestic abuse ASB
Criminal damage
Ribble Valley: Domestic abuse Road safety
ASB
Rural crime
Pendle: ASB Domestic abuse
Violent crime CSE Road safety
Burglary
Burnley: ASB
Burglary Domestic abuse Violent crime
CSE Road safety
Rossendale:
ASB Domestic abuse
Road safety
Hyndburn:
ASB Domestic abuse Acquisitive crime
Violent crime CSE Road safety
Blackburn: ASB
Domestic abuse Violent crime CSE
Road safety
Preston: Violent crime Domestic abuse
Sexual offences ASB Reoffending
Chorley: Violent crime Sexual offences
CSE ASB Road safety
Domestic abuse
West Lancashire: Violent crime Domestic abuse
Sexual offences (including CSE) ASB
Road safety
Wyre: ASB
Domestic abuse Violence Road safety
Fylde: ASB Domestic abuse
Road safety
Blackpool: ASB
Domestic abuse Violence Sexual offences
CSE
Lancaster: ASB
Domestic abuse Violent crime (including sexual
offences) Road safety
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 9 of 21
Recommendations
1. The strategic assessment has identified a number of areas where evidence is either
limited or where there are significant gaps to developing knowledge around threat
and risk in Lancashire. Therefore, it is recommended that the following areas are
prioritised as part of the work plan for conducting partnership intelligence
assessments over the next 12 months:
1.1. Mental health and the impact on victims and offending behaviour (to improve
the use of data and intelligence and support early help and victim services),
1.2. New psychoactive substances: the risk and threat from NPS and understanding
the picture across Lancashire,
1.3. ASB: developing intelligence and targeting of ASBRAC cases on a pan-
Lancashire footprint to direct victim services and local CSP activity,
1.4. Sexual offending: understanding the risk, threat and vulnerability to support
safeguarding, public protection and early help initiatives,
1.5. Modern slavery, exploitation and trafficking of vulnerable people: to develop the
intelligence picture, understand the impact across the county,
1.6. Illicit tobacco and links to criminal groups and community harm (this should sit
under the governance of the serious and organised crime partnership group4),
1.7. Road safety: collisions, casualties, the criminal use of roads and road user
behaviour (this should be under the governance by the road safety
management board and the work undertaken by the road safety intelligence
analyst and coordinator),
1.8. Crime and harm: understanding the key elements of repeat victimisation,
recidivism and the most harmful crimes and ASB (this would be completed
through local CSP tactical assessments).
2. It is recommended that this assessment is used to evidence and support the
following strategies and strategic action plans:
- The Community Safety Agreement (LCC community safety as part of Health
Equity, Welfare and Partnerships),
- The Policing and Crime Plan (the Police and Crime Commissioner),
- Lancashire Constabulary Control Strategy,
- Local Authority Partnership Plans (additionally supported by the SA district
profiles).
4 This is currently in development.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 10 of 21
3. Road safety continues to be identified as a strategic issue across the county. The
appointment of a dedicated analyst and coordinator will help improve knowledge on
the risk of collisions and casualties. Road safety and road related issues also feature
at PACT (police and communities together) meetings. It is recommended that the
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) incorporate road safety in to the Policing and
Crime plan.
4. Ensuring that key risks are targeted through commissioned services and funded
projects will ensure that areas of threat to community safety are improved. It is
recommended that the PCC support, through the Policing and Crime Plan, changes /
commissioning for alcohol and drug services.
5. It is clear that health and socio-demographic factors play an integral part in
increasing the risk of being a victim and offender of crime. Therefore, early help
initiatives should use the evidence base within this assessment to direct activity and
targeting.
6. The strategic assessment is on a 3-year cycle, which has improved capacity to
develop the partnership intelligence assessment work-plan. These assessments
improve the intelligence picture of threats and issues across the county and support
operational activity. To continually improve this picture it is recommended that the 14
local authorities adopt the strategic matrix as part of the strategic assessment
evaluation and maintain an action plan with in the matrix on a 6 monthly basis. This
will improve future strategic intelligence and help the writing of local partnership
plans.
7. Many threats and issues are shared across Lancashire. Strategic services and
commissioning bodies should concentrate on collaborative and coordinated services
and strategies to tackle the key risks and issues evidenced in this assessment. This
will, in the long-term, target vulnerability, risk and harm to individuals.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 11 of 21
Key MOSAIC Groups (by household type)
MOSAIC profiling shows that the following groups are over-represented (by household) in
Lancashire when compared to the UK (profiles vary per district).
Transient Renters: Single people privately renting low cost homes for the short term
(Low cost housing, low length of residence, typical age nationally 18-25yrs)
This group is 1.96 times more likely than average to be a victim of crime.
Suburban stability: Mature suburban owners living settled lives in mid-range housing
(Older families, some adult children at home, lengthy residence, 56-60yrs)
Vintage Value: Elderly people reliant on support to meet financial or practical needs
(Low income, small council / housing association houses and flats, need support)
Demographics, health and vulnerability
Population estimates indicate that the overall population across Lancashire is expected to
continue to grow. Across Lancashire, a 5.0% increase is projected, resulting in an expected
population total of 1.539 million by 2037. The estimated increase is lower than the average
for the North West (7.9%) as a whole, and well below the expected increase for England
(16.2%).
The 15-24 year age group (the group with the greatest propensity to commit crime – a third
of all detected offenders are in this age group) is set to decrease over the next six years.
However, this is not the same in all areas of the county and there is significant variation of
age groups for offenders and victims across the county. It is unclear as to how demographic
change may impact on the crime rate as this is one of many variables that impacts on the
crime rate.
Graph1: Lancashire population – all ages Vs. 15-24 year olds.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 12 of 21
Socio-demographic factors influencing risk to being a victim of crime
A socio-demographic profile of Lancashire victims using the mosaic profiling tool identified
those mosaic groups with an above average risk of being a victim of crime in Lancashire5.
This list varies from the top groups that are over-represented in Lancashire’s population (see
above). The top 3 groups that have an above average risk of being a victim of crime are:
1. Transient renters (renting a room, disconnected youth, average age 18-25) are 1.96
times more likely to be a victim of crime than average – this group is also the top
group over-represented within the county,
2. Rental hubs (bus-route renters, central pulse), average age 26-30 are 1.86 times
more likely to be a victim of crime than the county average,
3. Family basics (families with needs), average age 31-35 are 1.5 times more likely to
be a victim of crime than the county average.
Furthermore, this analysis concluded that recorded victims were typified by a high financial
dependency on the state, low car ownership, a high fear of crime and poor health. These
groups are concentrated in urbanised areas of the county. Those with a history of previous
victimisation are at elevated risk of re-victimisation and should therefore be considered high
risk, regardless of crime type6.
People who are ill, unemployed, disabled or socially excluded are all more likely to be
victims of crime. This also includes those with mental health issues: the risk of becoming a
victim of crime or anti-social behaviour increases where the victim has a mental health
related disability.
Furthermore, those with mental health issues often feel isolated or socially excluded7, which
can also increase their fear of crime8. Victims of violent crime are more than two and a half
times as likely as non-victims to suffer from depression 5 years after the original offence9.
Iganski’s extensive research10 in to hate crime has evidenced that victims of hate crime are
more likely to suffer long-term effects of their victimisation regardless of crime or ASB type.
5 Greenslade, M, (2014) Victims Profile, Community Safety Intelligence Assessment 6 Lowe, M et al (2015) Investigating Repeat Victimisation in a UK Police Sample of Adult Victims of Violent Crime 7 Gadsby, D, Robinson, R & Walker, M (2015) Health Behaviours in Lancashire 2015, JSNA report 8 Waddington, L (2012) Health and Wellbeing and Crime: A Literature Review 9 Lowe, M et al (2015) Investigating Repeat Victimisation in a UK Police Sample of Adult Victims of Violent Crime 10 Iganski, P & Lagou, S (2014) The Personal Injuries of Hate Crime in The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 13 of 21
Socio-demographic profile of top offending age group
Based on postcodes of 6,534 offenders aged 15-24 years from offences committed 2014-15,
the top three groups are all over represented:
1. Transient Renters (24% of 15-24 years old offender group were in this Mosaic
group).
Crime is above average where Transient Renters live and they are one of the groups
most likely to experience issues with ASB. As a result, the fear of crime within this
group is also higher than amongst the population in general.
This group is generally young singles and home-sharers who have high levels of
dependency on the state for support, in particular with benefits to help them find
employment or to supplement their low incomes. Levels of poor health are higher
than average, and this group contains the highest proportion of people who smoke.
2. Family Basics (20% of 15-24 years old offender group were in this Mosaic group).
The areas of low cost housing where Family Basics live have a crime rate that is just
slightly higher than average. These residents are more than twice as likely to feel
that ASB is a problem in their neighbourhood. Their fear of being a victim of crime is
also higher than the norm and they are the group with the least confidence in the
police and criminal justice system.
3. Municipal Challenge (8% of 15-24 years old offender group were in this Mosaic
group).
Living in areas of high levels of unemployment and with low incomes, Municipal
Challenge are in need of a high degree of financial assistance from the state. They
are the most likely group to access Job Seeker’s Allowance, Income Support and
benefits related to disability and incapacity.
They live in areas where the level of crime is high, although not always the very
highest. Common crimes are across the board, from ASB through to robbery and
violent crime. Municipal Challenge are the group most likely to think crime and ASB
have increased a lot and is a big problem in their neighbourhood. They are also the
most likely to be worried about being a victim of crime.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 14 of 21
Crime and harm
All crime has been decreasing, albeit more slowly over the last year. When examining all
crime the main crime categories that make up the greatest proportion are criminal damage,
assault with less serious injury, theft offences, common assault and burglary non-dwelling.
The highest volume crime categories account for 78% of the all crime figure11, as seen in
chart 1 below:
Therefore, when examining a count of crime the top crime categories include criminal
damage (vandalism), minor assaults and theft offences.
However, this picture alters when crimes are weighted based on their harm as depicted
within the criminal justice system sentencing guidelines and used in the Cambridge Harm
Index scoring.
The Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CHI)12 works on the principle that all crimes are not
equal in terms of harm, e.g. 1 murder has a greater impact than 1 shoplifting offence. Crime
types are given a weighting based on sentence structure for a first offence. To calculate the
harm score, the number of offences is multiplied by the harm score for that crime type, e.g.
weighting for arson = 33, weighting for rape = 1825. An area records 10 arsons and 10
rapes: arson harm score = (33x10) 330, rape harm score = (1825x10) 18,250. This is done
for most crime types, and the ‘proportion of harm’ can then be calculated.
11 All crimes include those that have been used for comparing harm scores. Not all crimes have been weighted to have a harm score. Therefore, there will be a slight variation in percentages when comparing this percentage to full police crime statistics. 12 Sherman, L et al (2015) The Cambridge Harm Index
Chart 1: Top categories responsible for 78% of the crime count
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 15 of 21
When the CHI is used to weight crime in Lancashire different crime categories account for
the greater percentage of harm crime. In this instance, the top harm crime categories were
rape, wounding (also referred to as assault with serious injury), sexual assault, assault with
less serious injury and robbery, as seen in chart 2 (below)13.
As a percentage of all crime it is only a smaller count of crime that accounts for the greatest
proportion of harm: 18% (the top 5 harm crimes as shown in chart 2 above) of crime
accounted for 86% of overall harm (based on CHI).
Therefore, only 18% of crime accounts for the 86% of harm (as shown in the chart 3
below):
13 The use of CHI is in its early stages and work is on-going in developing the application of the model to improve intelligence and understanding of the impact of harm from crime.
Chart 2: Top 5 harm crimes and their percentage of all harm
Chart 3: % of crime count and its proportion of harm
A. Crime B. Harm
=
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 16 of 21
Furthermore, whilst the ‘all crime’ figure has shown a very slight downward trend, the crime
types that account for the greatest harm are, collectively, showing a slight increase, albeit
not statistically significant. The graph below shows the three year trend for all crime and
harm crime:
The harm crime categories that have shown slight increases over the three year period are
rape, burglary in a dwelling and robbery. The main point regarding discussion between count
of crime and harm crime should be about what crime categories are prioritised by community
safety partnerships. In addition, recidivism, vulnerability, repeat victimisation and repeat
locations for harm crimes should be prioritised in local action plans and operational targeting.
Furthermore, research has shown that adults who have been victims of violent crime may
experience post-traumatic stress symptoms14 and the harmful impact can be long lasting.
Although ASB isn't considered to be a serious crime, persistent ASB can result in significant
harm to certain groups, such as the older people and people living with disabilities15. The
level of harm caused to victims by ASB doesn’t always match the perceived seriousness of
the incident. Mental health, physical disability and repeat victimisation can all increase the
risk of becoming a victim of ASB. ASB should be considered as a significant harm for
community safety partnerships.
14 Lowe, M et al (2015) Predictors of Engaging with Support Services in a Sample of UK Victims of Violent Crime 15 Greenslade, M (2015) Victims: Community Safety Intelligence Assessment
Graph 2: The 3-year trend for volume crime (based on count) and harm crime.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 17 of 21
Perceptions of crime
The Living in Lancashire survey (wave 48) included a series of community safety questions
similar that have been used to survey the residents of Lancashire. This has been compared
to similar questions used in 2014 (wave 42). Key findings are included below.
Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and gangs of youths are the most cited reasons that
make people feel unsafe. As well as this, fewer people think ASB is being dealt with
compared to crime. Feeling unsafe has been shown to increase feelings of anxiety
and can lead to issues with repeat victimisation. To tackle this, CSPs need to
develop methods of developing community spirit and good relations between
neighbours (which are reasons that people feel safe in areas) in areas where people
feel unsafe. Tackling significant ASB issues will have a positive impact on fear of
crime and feelings of safety.
Theft from gardens, sheds etc. (burglary other than in a dwelling) is considered as
the biggest community safety issue in local areas by respondents. However,
interestingly, the volume of burglary other than in a dwelling is significantly
decreasing.
When looking at respondents' perceptions of the root causes of crime, all aspects16
have lowered with the exception of mental health. While there is wider research
suggesting that mental health issues can be related to crime, at the time this survey
there were a number of media reports linking mental health and crime which may
have affected response.
Deprived areas in Lancashire have a particular problem with community safety. On
the whole people in these areas are less satisfied with their area, more likely to feel
unsafe in their area, feel the level of crime is worse in their area than other areas of
Lancashire and have bigger issues with ASB. This correlates with research and
analysis within the SA district profiles.
Signal crimes, disorders or incidents17 are those that people may interpret as warning
signs about levels of risk in their local community. From a community safety
perspective examples of these issues could include dog fouling, fly-tipping,
cleanliness of streets, vandalism and deliberate fire setting. The latest survey noted
that many districts reported dog fouling, street cleanliness and fly-tipping as issues.
This can also impact on feelings of safety but can be used by local CSPs to target
specific areas.
16 These include drugs, alcohol, unemployment, repeat offending, poverty and gang membership. 17 Innes, M (2004) Signal crimes and signal disorders: notes on deviance as communicative action
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 18 of 21
Key findings for crime and ASB threat
Violence against the person
The most significant harm categories under
violent crime (violence with injury), sexual
assaults and rape have increasing trends.
Only the serious assault categories are
decreasing, but these make a large
proportion of the greatest harm to victims.
There is an increased risk of repeat
victimisation for those that suffer significant
trauma from violent crime.
Domestic abuse
Overall, domestic incidents are decreasing,
but the number of repeat cases and MARAC
caseloads are increasing. Domestic abuse
remains an issue in all local authorities.
Child sexual exploitation
CSE remains an issue across the county.
Research shows that CSE referrals are
highly likely to have appeared within social
care data at some point; two thirds having
been registered as a child in need.
Exclusions and unauthorised absence from
education feature highly in cases, along with
missing from home episodes and poor family
structures.
Anti-social behaviour
The trend for ASB is a seasonal one that
peaks in summer. The overall volume of
ASB has seen reductions. However, ASB
remains one of the top ranked issues in all
districts. Districts report that the volume of
ASBRACs has not reduced in line with ASB
levels.
Road safety
Road safety has been highlighted as an
issue across most of the districts. There have
been annual increases in KSI casualties over
the past 2 years (mostly pedal cyclists, older
casualties (65+yrs) and younger casualties
(0-15yrs).
Crime, ASB and key determinants
Significant factors impacting on crime
rates:
Alcohol
The cost of alcohol to Lancashire services is
£664m, with crime and licensing being responsible
for £207m of this. The cost per head equates to
£143 in Lancashire compared to £137 against the
national average. Alcohol increases the risk of
injury in violent crime and alcohol-related violence
correlates with the location of licensed premises.
Drug misuse:
Cannabis is prevalent amongst young people,
which contribute to over half of drug offences.
Numbers in treatment for opiate use have fallen,
but opiate (and cannabis) use are the most
common drugs contributing to offending behaviour.
Hospital admissions for substance misuse are
significantly worse than the national average.
Reoffending
Those most at risk of reoffending are those that
are on community orders, those who have been on
caseloads for less than 3 months and those who
have been on short sentences. Significant issues
for those at risk of reoffending are: alcohol, drugs
and housing.
Inferred issues and risks
Drugs: NPS
There has been an increase in the number of new
psychoactive substances across the UK. New
substances continue to be introduced on a regular
basis. There is a significant intelligence gap in the
use and impact of NPS in the county.
Mental Health
Mental health (MH) issues can increase the risk of
being a repeat victim of crime and ASB. MH
issues in a sample of Lancashire troubled families
cohort were double the national rate for adults and
children. MH was also been a factor in family
histories of CSE referrals.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 19 of 21
Serious and organised crime
The conclusions below are sourced from the Lancashire Serious and Organised Crime Local
Profile.
The most direct harm from OCGs to local communities is through the distribution and
supply of a variety of drugs. Whilst the face of drugs markets is changing, the
adverse impact of drugs remains one of the most significant threats from OCGs in
Lancashire. This is through the harmful effects that drugs have on the user’s health,
the impact on support services to combat drug abuse / misuse and the chaotic
lifestyles that drug users adopt.
The rivalries between opposing OCGs and the violence that ensues is also a
significant threat in Lancashire. There have already been recent notable
investigations of serious violence and murder in the county.
There has been an increase in intelligence reports and referrals regarding trafficking
for sexual and labour exploitation and there have been a number of victims from
sexual and labour exploitation. This is clearly an area of significant harm to the
victim. It is unclear if the rise in referrals and intelligence is due to increased
targeting in this area or if there is a real rise in this type of activity.
There is a significant gap in understanding the criminal use of road networks for the
transportation of illicit goods and contraband. This gap exists for transportation
networks and routes in to, out of and through Lancashire. Lancashire is a gateway
connecting key OCG hubs of activity in the northwest (Greater Manchester and
Merseyside) with Cumbria and Scotland. There has been known OCG members
travelling through Lancashire from outside of the county and into Scotland.
Lancashire County Council Trading Standards have reported that activity in the illicit
tobacco trade leads to activity in other drugs markets, mostly the distribution, supply
and cultivation of cannabis. It is unclear if this is an entry route for individuals in to
further, more complex organised crime activity. However, the revenue from illicit
tobacco and the lower court sentences for this type of crime mean it will remain an
attractive option for many OCGs.
The targeting and taking advantage of vulnerable groups by Rogue traders is evident
within Lancashire. Often this type of offending is organised and calculated having a
significant impact on victims. Often this is not covered in the mapping of OCGs, yet
there is suggestion that individuals and some groups may cross over into various
OCG activity as recorded by the police.
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 20 of 21
Bibliography of supporting evidence
Akers, T, Lanier, M (2008) Epidemiological Criminology: Coming Full Circle
Cartmell, H (2013) Reducing Reoffending in Lancashire, Community Safety Intelligence
Assessment
Clark, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Blackburn with Darwen
Clark, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Burnley
Clark, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Hyndburn
Clark, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Pendle
Clark, R (2015) Neglect: A Lancashire Literature Review
Clark, R & Keay, S (2012) Offending and Reoffending in Lancashire
Cooper, H, Greenslade, M, Ormesher, M, (2013), Domestic Abuse JSNA
Community Safety (2014) Community Safety Agreement, LCC Community Safety
Davis, J (2013) Mental Health and the Impact on Victims of Crime, Community Safety
Intelligence Assessment
Eckersley, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Chorley
Eckersley, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Preston
Eckersley, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: South Ribble
Eckersley, R (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: West Lancashire
Eckersley, R (2015) Troubled Families: Demographic Overview and Key Features
Eckersley, R (2015) Missing persons overview
Eckersley, R (2015) Domestic abuse and MARAC cases overview
Eckersley, R (2014) Violent Crime: Collation of violent crime profiles and good practice,
Community Safety Intelligence Assessment
Eckersley, R (2013) Elderly Vulnerable Victims of Crime and Anti-social Behaviour,
Community Safety Intelligence Assessment
Frampton, C, Freeman, R, McKee, A (2015) Working Together with Families: Understanding
the Data
Gadsby, D, Robinson, R & Walker, M (2015) Health Behaviours in Lancashire, LCC JSNA
Greenslade, M, (2014) Victims Profile, Community Safety Intelligence Assessment
Hughes, N (2015) Strategic Casualty Assessments
Iganski, P & Lagou, S (2014) The Personal Injuries of Hate Crime in The Routledge
International Handbook on Hate Crime
Iganski, P (2001) Hate Crimes Hurt More in American Behavioral Scientist, vol45, no4
Innes, M (2004) Signal crimes and signal disorders: notes on deviance as communicative
action in British Journal of Sociology, Vol55, issue3
Irvine, S (2014) Alcohol related violent crime, Community Safety Intelligence Assessment
Jenks, D & Moulding, B (2014) Population projections 2012-2037 on www.lancashire.gov.uk
JSNA (2014) Health and Offending Behaviour: A Literature Review, LCC JSNA
Keay, S (2015) Serious and Organised Crime: Lancashire Local Profile
Strategic Assessment 2015 Page 21 of 21
Keay, S & Wood, C (2015) CSE, Partnership Intelligence Assessment
Keay, S (2014) Strategic Assessment Update
Keay, S (2012) Strategic Assessment of Crime and ASB
Keay, S (2008) Victims of Hate Crime
Keay, S (2005) Collisions and the criminal use of road networks
Kneale, J (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Ribble Valley
Kneale, J (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Rossendale
Kneale, J (2015) Road safety: A Lancashire Literature Review
Kneale, J (2013) Hate Crime in Lancashire
LCC (2012) Neglect: A Literature Review, Lancashire County Council
Lowe, M, Willan, VJ, Graham-Kevan, N, Brooks, M, Irving, M, Karwacka, M, Khan, R,
Stokes, R, Robinson, P, & Bryce, J (2015) Investigating Repeated Victimisation in a UK
Police Sample of Adult Victims of Violent Crime. Policing and Society
Lowe, M, Willan, VJ, Khan, R, Brooks, M, Robinson, P, Graham-Kevan, N, Stokes, R, Irving,
M, Karwacka, M, & Bryce, J (2015) Predictors of Engaging with Support Services in a
Sample of UK Victims of Violent Crime
Lucey, T (2013) Anti-social behaviour: An assessment of offending behaviour, vulnerability
and victims of crime, Community Safety Intelligence Assessment
Ministry of Justice (2013) Victim's Services Commissioning Framework
Ratcliffe, J (2014) Towards an index for Harm-Focused Policing
Robinson, R & Edwardson, M (2015) Living in Lancashire Survey
Schuller, N (2013) Is Crime a Question of Health? In Safer Communities, Vol12, No2
Sculpher, L (2015) Lancashire Drugs Threat Assessment: Partnership Intelligence
Assessment
Sculpher, L (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Blackpool
Sculpher, L (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Fylde
Sculpher, L (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Lancaster
Sculpher, L (2015) Strategic Assessment District Profile: Wyre
Sculpher, L (2015) Mental Health: A Lancashire Literature Review
Sherman, L, Neyroud, P, Neyroud, E (2015) Cambridge Harm Index
Sutton, H & Baybutt (2013) Factors Affecting Lancashire Probation Trust’s Reoffending Rate
Waddington, L (2012) Health and Wellbeing and Crime: A Literature Review, Lancashire
Constabulary
Wood, C (2014) Scoping Report: CSE April-Sept 2014
Woodward, C (2014) Rape Profile, Lancashire Constabulary
