Agenda item

12:00

Contact Officer: Richard Webb, Acting Head of Community Safety and Trading Standards, tel: (01865) 815791

The following people will present on fear of crime in this order:

• Jo Cookes, Deputy Head of Community Safety(Government Office for the South East) to give the public perception survey results broken down across the South East Region by District.

• Bill Oddy, Head of Community Services (West Oxfordshire District Council)and Oxfordshire Lead on Public Confidence and Supt Amanda Pearson, Local Police Area Commander for OxfordCity and TVPlead on Public Confidence to present on the targets set for Oxfordshire in relation to National Indicator NI 21 (public perception that the police and local councils respond satisfactorily to local concerns around crime and disorder), the police “Confidence” indicator and the plans to deliver the targets.

A briefing on Public Confidence in Oxfordshire is attached (SSC8), which covers the work of the Oxfordshire Safer Communities Partnership (OSCP) during the past year. The paper also outlines the Safe & Confident Communities Project that will be implemented during the next six months.

Mr Oddy will take the Committee through the paper. Mr Bowden, the Oxfordshire Safe & Confident Communities Project Manager, will then give a short presentation on the Project.

• Dan Bowden, Senior Performance Officer, Oxfordshire Basic Command Unit (Thames Valley Police) to provide the detailed results for Oxfordshire (broken down by Districts) in terms of fear of crime and actual crime and to show how Oxfordshire compares with the rest of the Thames Valley.

• Katie Pritchett, Corporate Consultation Officer (Oxfordshire County Council) to present the outcomes of in-depth research exploring residents' views of crime and anti-social behaviour.
• James Clark, Head of Communications, Marketing and Public Affairs (Oxfordshire County Council)to present on what his team can do and is planning to do to help tackle fear of crime in Oxfordshire.

Richard Webb, Acting Head of Community Safety and Trading Standards (Oxfordshire County Council) and Ruth Whyte, Manager – Safer Communities Unit (Oxfordshire County Council) to answer any general/specific questions arising.

The Committee is invited to conduct a question and answer session in relation to this area.

2.30 – 3.00 SANDWICH LUNCH

A number of officers attended for this agenda item as detailed in this Minute and were accompanied by Mr Richard Webb, Acting Head of Community Safety and Trading Standards (Oxfordshire County Council) and Ms Ruth Whyte, Manager of the Safer Communities Unit (Oxfordshire County Council).

A briefing on public confidence was before the Committee (SSC8) which covered the work of the Oxfordshire Safer Communities Partnership (OSCP) during the past year. The paper also outlined the Safe & Confident Communities Project that would be implemented during the next six months.

The Committee also had before it the Oxfordshire Voice 2009 Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Summary Report and report of the In depth exercise 2009 which had been circulated separately prior to the meeting.

Ms Jo Cookes, Deputy Head of Community Safety (Government Office for the South East) informed the Committee that she was responsible for delivering on the reduction of crime and antisocial behaviour and implementing government policy in the South East region. Ms Cookes then presented on the public perception survey results broken down across the South East Region by District.

The key points from her presentation were that:

• the South East was a safe place to live, with low levels of violence. It was however, a diverse region, with pockets of affluence and pockets of high rates of crime;
• Oxfordshire compared fairly well to the rest of the region in terms of perceptions of antisocial behaviour, with an above average positive rating. However, it could look to improve further in this respect;
• the Home Office had analysed NI21 data (public confidence that the Police and Local Authorities are dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter to the public) and there were slightly higher levels of confidence in the county (27%) than the country average (26.4%). Oxfordshire had the second highest county score in this respect, with Surrey having the highest score. Surrey had implemented a number of initiatives in this respect, which were worthy of investigation;
• Factors such as whether the public believed that the police were treating people fairly and with respect impacted on public confidence levels;
• The age of respondents appeared to have an impact on their confidence levels, as did contact with the police (eg seeing PCSOs patrolling the streets);
• The highest scores in relation to public confidence were in the low 30s (%), which was not a high level of confidence, but it was important to look at the methodology for measuring public confidence. The British Crime Survey (BCS)  had shown much higher levels of public confidence (in the 50s and 60%s). However, the NI21 measure was consistent and was therefore still valid in terms of comparisons with the rest of the country and over time;
• Research had been undertaken nationally into what drives public perceptions;
• overall and in each district, Oxfordshire was performing mid range across all of the perception and confidence indicators in relation to its family group; and
• officers could look at outliers in the family group that were doing particularly well if they wished to increase performance.

Mr Bill Oddy, Head of Community Services (West Oxfordshire District Council) and Oxfordshire Lead on Public Confidence spoke about the targets set for Oxfordshire in relation to National Indicator 21, the police “Confidence” indicator and the plans to deliver the targets. Mr Oddy then took the Committee through the briefing on public confidence in Oxfordshire (SSC8), which covered the work of the Oxfordshire Safer Communities Partnership (OSCP) during the past year and outlined the Safe & Confident Communities Project that would be implemented during the next six months.

Key points are listed below:

• the results of the Place Survey had been disappointing in terms of the relatively low levels of public confidence, as only 25% of respondents had thought that the police and the local authority were doing a good job to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. However, it was more significant that 50% of respondents had ticked “don’t know”;
• these results were not unique to Oxfordshire and a number of authorities had adopted NI21 as part of their Local Area Agreement (LAA). Oxfordshire was sharing information with colleagues in the Thames Valley and elsewhere regarding what worked to increase levels of public confidence (Surrey and Lancashire had very high levels of public confidence);
• nationally the Police Improvement Agency had issued guidance on this;
• 28/29 activities on the delivery plan had now been completed;
• the last activity was implementation which would commence shortly;
• communication was key to increasing public confidence.

Mr Bowden, the Oxfordshire Safe & Confident Communities Project Manager, then gave a short presentation on the Project, a copy of which is attached to the signed Minutes.

Key points are listed below:

• the point of the project was to look at the relationship between actual levels of crime and antisocial behaviour and public perception;
• the project was at neighbourhood and street level;
• only a few neighbourhoods actually had high levels of antisocial behaviour (asb) (most were low);
• in areas of high asb visible policing was the best way to improve public confidence;
• some asb could be prevalent in just one street in a particular area;
• it was important to communicate in the most effective way to each neighbourhood. Communication would be tailored to each neighbourhood in terms of what would be their preferred method of communication, based largely on Experian mosaic data and officers had also mapped what people’s likely concerns would be. This would provide a personalised, intelligence led targeted communication strategy;
• a number of people do not believe the glossy leaflets that come through their letterbox or look at the Thames Valley Police Website or care about the crime statistics.  They just want to know about crime and antisocial behaviour on their street;
• a lot of analysis had been done on preferred methods of communication. The focus now needed to be on delivery and it was anticipated that this would take place in June, July and August.

Mr Dan Bowden, Senior Performance Manager (Thames Valley Police) also gave a presentation on Fear of Crime versus Actual Crime, a copy of which is attached to the signed Minutes. This presentation covered the detailed results for Oxfordshire (broken down by Districts) in terms of fear of crime and actual crime and showed how Oxfordshire compared with the rest of the Thames Valley.

Key points are given below:

• the slides showed that there had been a reduction in recorded offences (all crime) in 09/10 in comparison with 08/09;
• there had been a reduction in recorded offences for serious acquisitive crime across the county and by district, and a reduction in recorded offences of criminal damage, which had a severely detrimental effect on people’s lives and on their perception of crime;
• Oxfordshire was below the family average and numbers were predicted to fall further;
• There had been an improvement in all districts in terms of perception (NI21)

Ms Katie Pritchett, Corporate Consultation Officer (Oxfordshire County Council) then spoke to the committee about the outcomes of the in-depth research exploring residents’ views of crime and anti-social behaviour.

Key points are listed below:

• Issues such as traffic congestion and affordable housing were seen as more in need of improvement than fear of crime;
• It was difficult to prioritise which crimes and antisocial behaviour needed tackling most. For example dog fouling affected many people to a small extent whereas rare but serious crimes had a much greater impact on a small number of people;
• The police were seen as the emergency response service and primary leaders on investigations. The Council was seen as the agency responding to office hour only issues (eg graffiti and dog fouling);
• There were four main reasons people said they didn’t know whether the police and councils were successfully dealing with the issues; lack of knowledge of what was being done; lack of experience of crime and anti-social behaviour; lack of experience of the local response (for example not having reported an issue) and mixed experiences of Police and council responses;
• Some of those who had mixed experiences felt anti-social behaviour was not regarded as important and so had fallen through the net;
• Most people did not want more information unless there had been a problem in their area;
• For many the preferred method of communication was personal contact, such as being able to speak to a street warden and people wanted geographically specific information often just relating to 2 or 3 streets in their area;
• If circulating written material the preference was for cheaply printed leaflets distributed by Neighbourhood Watches and containing a balanced and honest account of the issues;
• Panellists had welcomed the idea of posters to communicate performance information such as how many crimes had been dealt with in their area.

Mr James Clark, Head of Communications, Marketing and Public Affairs (Oxfordshire County Council), then spoke to the Committee about what his team could do and was planning to do to help to tackle fear of crime in Oxfordshire.

Key points are listed below:

• partnership working was crucial to reducing crime and fear of crime and he met with his opposite number in the PCT once a week;
• there was no point in telling people not to be afraid of crime because this did not work;
• research had shown that the nearer you could get to someone’s home the more effective the communication;
• people tended to think that communication at county and Force level was “all spin”;
• if the public was exposed to the worst stories in the whole country on a regular basis it would have an effect although there were some areas of high crime in London.

The Committee then thanked all present for their presentations and updates.

A selection of the Committee’s questions, together with the responses, is given below:

• What was the point of measuring public perception? Surely public perception was often quite inaccurate, for example, in thinking that drivers were speeding?

Fear of crime and antisocial behaviour could be severely detrimental to a person’s quality of life. For example, many elderly people were too afraid to walk down the street to get to the shops if they felt threatened by a number of young people hanging around street corners. GOSE had identified areas that they could give extra support to. ASB was the responsibility of all of the partners and GOSE used the measures as outlined in the survey to identify where extra support was needed.

• What guidelines were being issued in terms of tackling fear of crime in  low crime areas?

Under the past government there had been a focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and low levels of confidence. The focus had been on communication with the local community, for example, through “Have Your Say” meetings, NAGs and Neighbourhood Policing.

• Was it a statutory requirement to reduce fear of crime? Was this value for money? What was the cost of all of the research that was being undertaken?

The Place Survey was mandatory and had cost the county council £6,000 to conduct this time round. The Oxfordshire Voice Survey had been carried out at  low cost. Many of the participants had willingly forgone their expenses because they knew that times were hard. Reducing fear of crime was about community cohesion, having safe and confident neighbourhoods, giving back to communities the voice they thought they had lost so that they felt that they could talk to the police and the council. The police and local authorities were moving from a position where they thought that they knew what their communities wanted, to enabling communities to tell them what they wanted.

Localism was important because it would deal with issues that related to people’s individual lives and local areas.

• In the context of funding issues and cuts to the police, were those officers who were engaged in confidence work likely to be regarded as frontline staff when the police made their cuts?

This work was being delivered through existing resources in order to give frontline staff the focus to engage with people more effectively.

• Could the county put more money into youth clubs and other school holiday activities as crime in the city used to increase in the school holidays, especially in the estates?

The Director for Community Safety undertook to take back to CCMT Councillor Pressel’s suggestion that the county should put more money into youth clubs and other school holiday activities on the grounds that crime in the city used to increase in the school holidays especially in the estates, given that CCMT would be discussing the county’s £6m of grants in relation to its corporate priorities including tackling deprivation later that week, and undertook to report back to the Committee in due course.

• Did the police record all instances of crime and antisocial behaviour? Were crime and antisocial behaviour actually falling or were some instances not being recorded?

Councillor Mallon undertook to refer the above questions to Thames Valley Police Authority.