La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres
Télécharger Lire

Final ICDYP audit 2004

96 pages
Islington Crime Disorder and Drugs Audit 2001 - 2004 1. Foreword Every three years, crime and disorder reduction partnerships are required to conduct an audit of crime and disorder. In Islington, the partnership is called Islington Crime, Drugs and Youth Partnership (ICDYP) and it plays a vital role in contributing to the vision we all share of a safe, just and tolerant society. In Islington, there is a commitment to delivering a reduction in crime, the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and in reducing the harm that drugs cause to communities, individuals and their families. There are a number of local partnerships that work with the ICDYP to deliver this work. The crime audit allows us to reflect on achievements over the last three years and gives us a clear picture of what challenges are ahead. It helps the agencies within the ICDYP to direct their resources in the right places and at the right issues. For example, the police's Safer Neighbourhood programme is being rolled out across the borough and need to take account of the audit findings in relation to crime in certain parts of the borough. Key achievements over last three years include the development and launch of the Anti-social Behaviour and the Domestic Violence strategies. These are two very important strategic documents setting out the position Islington's partners will take in tackling those issues. This audit confirms that we have some way ...
Voir plus Voir moins






Islington Crime Disorder
and
Drugs Audit



2001 - 2004







1. Foreword
Every three years, crime and disorder reduction partnerships are required to conduct an audit of
crime and disorder. In Islington, the partnership is called Islington Crime, Drugs and Youth
Partnership (ICDYP) and it plays a vital role in contributing to the vision we all share of a safe,
just and tolerant society.

In Islington, there is a commitment to delivering a reduction in crime, the fear of crime, anti-
social behaviour and in reducing the harm that drugs cause to communities, individuals and their
families. There are a number of local partnerships that work with the ICDYP to deliver this work.

The crime audit allows us to reflect on achievements over the last three years and gives us a
clear picture of what challenges are ahead. It helps the agencies within the ICDYP to direct their
resources in the right places and at the right issues. For example, the police's Safer
Neighbourhood programme is being rolled out across the borough and need to take account of
the audit findings in relation to crime in certain parts of the borough.

Key achievements over last three years include the development and launch of the Anti-social
Behaviour and the Domestic Violence strategies. These are two very important strategic
documents setting out the position Islington's partners will take in tackling those issues. This
audit confirms that we have some way to go yet but also that co-ordinated efforts are being
made to tackle these difficult issues.

The work of the Partnership has also contributed to reductions in burglary across the borough.
Key to this has been the approach to tackling some of the drivers to crime, such as closing Crack
Houses as soon as we become aware of them, provide high-visibility patrolling in hotspot areas
and making environmental improvements to some key areas where poor lighting, shrubbery and
other factors have made it easier for crimes to occur.

The One Islington approach, spearheaded by the council, has helped to make it easier for
Islington's residents to get information and support on a range of issues that contribute to crime.
As far as possible crime reduction initiatives in Islington are co-ordinated across a range of
agencies to meet the needs of the residents and visitors. This way it is almost irrelevant, at the
point of delivery, which agency normally leads or is expected to lead, as long as the results are
positive and the community experiences reduced crime and disorder levels.

This audit of crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour now puts the ICDYP in a position to develop
a relevant strategy for the next three years. The Community Safety Partnerships Unit within the
council has been expanded with police and council staff over the past year and will assist the
ICDYP in co-ordinating the delivery of the strategy.

Finally, the ICDYP wishes to thank all those involved in developing this audit, and acknowledges
the work involved. It is this commitment to creating a safer borough that underlies the work of
the partnership and those who support its work.


Alva Bailey
Community Safety Manager
London Borough of Islington

1


2. Acknowledgements
This audit was prepared by Helen Easton and Frances Smith on behalf of
Islington Crime Youth and Drugs Partnership. We would like to express thanks
to the following people and organisations for their support.

Community Safety Partnership Unit
Alva Bailey Community Safety Manager
Alison Blackburn Anti-Social Behaviour Co-ordinator
Clare Brighton IDAAT Co-ordinator
Maja Charters Administrative Officer
Keith Hickson Briefing Officer
David Mortimer Principal Community Safety Officer
Jan Stout Projects Officer
Harriet Wilkins Domestic Violence Co-ordinator

London Borough of Islington
Sally Gran Youth Offending Team
Christina Griveas Youth Offending Team
Jan Hart Environment and Conservation
Iain Killingbeck Communications and Consultation
Louise Round Law and Public Services
Janine Brady Regeneration & Education
Sharon Hunter Islington Housing Aid Centre

Islington Police
Lesley Chrystal Superintendent, Support and Partnership
Annette Mooney Management Information Analyst

London Fire Brigade
David Marney Borough Liaison Officer for Islington

CEA@Islington
Thanos Morphitis Assistant Director CEA@Islington

Voluntary Sector
Michael Naish Islington Victim Support

Islington Primary Care Trust
2

Mary O’Donnell Joint Commissioning Manager
3. Contents

1. Foreword......................................................................................................1
2. Acknowledgements.....................................................................................2
3. Contents.......................................................................................................3
4. Executive Summary.....................................................................................4
5. Introduction................................................................................................10
6. Methodology..............................................................................................14
7. Placing the audit in context ......................................................................19
8. Findings......................................................................................................25
9. Anti-social behaviour................................................................................35
10. Violence against the person .....................................................................44
11. Property crime...........................................................................................54
12. Youth crime................................................................................................61
13. Drugs..........................................................................................................67
14. Offenders....................................................................................................78
15. Victims........................................................................................................79
Appendix 1 – Cost of crime..............................................................................85
Appendix 2 - Strategic Links............................................................................89
Appendix 3 - Glossary ......................................................................................91
Appendix 4 - References ..................................................................................92

3

4. Executive Summary
Crime and the fear of crime are a major concern to most inner city residents.
The findings of the most recent audit of crime and disorder indicate that Islington
is a safe place, having experienced only minor increases in crime levels since the
last audit was conducted. In many cases the increases in levels of recorded
crime reflect a change in policing practices rather than a measurable increase in
crime itself.

4.1 Introduction
The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) as amended by the Police Reform Act (2002)
places a combined statutory responsibility on the police and local authorities to
develop a multi-agency response to tackle crime and disorder and the misuse of
drugs.

This means that every three years local authorities must work in partnership with
the police, police authority, fire authority and primary care trust to conduct an
audit of crime, disorder and substance misuse. This audit is then used to inform
the development of a three year strategy aimed at reducing and managing the
key crime, disorder and drugs issues.

The Islington Crime Drugs and Youth Partnership are responsible for co-
ordinating this work. They make sure that the appropriate resources are
allocated to keep Islington safe.

4.2 What is the process?
Every three years Islington must conduct an audit of crime, disorder and
substance misuse. This involves collecting and analysing local information kept
by key agencies. The results of this audit are then collated and published so that
a consultation on the results may be undertaken. The ideas and concerns raised
through consultation are then analysed and used to determine the local crime
and disorder reduction strategy.

4.3 Auditing crime, disorder and substance misuse
To conduct an audit, information kept by the police, the fire brigade, the primary
care trust and many council departments including housing and social services,
is collected and analysed to determine the levels of crime and disorder in the
borough. This information is compared with other national, regional and local
statistics and research to establish which areas should become priorities for local
partnership working.

The number of recorded crimes depends upon many factors such as the amount
of police activity, the willingness of victims to report crimes and the methods of
recording adopted by the police. Therefore it is important that local communities
are given the opportunity to comment on the results.
4

4.4 Consulting with the community
Consultation is undertaken with key community groups including residents,
businesses, local service providers and other groups and agencies with an
interest in making Islington safer.

The aims of consultation are to:

Ensure local problems are represented accurately,
Ensure there are no crucial omissions in the information,
Ensure strategies are not based on misconceptions about communities to
which they relate, and to
Canvass opinions about priorities and options.

To ensure that a variety of opinions are heard and included in the development of
the crime and disorder reduction strategy a multi-method consultation strategy
has been developed. The key methods used will include:

A postal survey of all households in Islington
An electronic survey available on the council website
Community workshops and interviews in seven key areas
Consultation with local service providers through an advisory group.

The consultation will be widely publicised so that as many people as possible can
review the results of the audit and contribute their ideas. The consultation
process allows each member of the community in Islington to play an active role
in making the borough a safer place.

4.5 Developing a strategy
The results of the consultation will be analysed by an independent organisation
and the results used to feed into the development of a local strategy. The
strategy will be developed using the findings of the audit, the ideas and
comments provided by the community, and guidance provided by national
government about crime reduction priorities for the next three years.

The Islington Crime, Drugs and Youth Partnership will be responsible for
monitoring the progress of key agencies towards the objectives set in the
strategy.

4.6 Key findings from the audit
All crime
There was a slight increase (four per cent) in recorded crimes across the
borough between 2001/2 to 2003/4. Recorded crimes rose in Hillrise,
Tollington and Holloway wards, while Junction, Highbury East and St
George’s experienced substantial decreases.
5

St Mary’s, Finsbury Park, Clerkenwell and Bunhill wards had the highest
number of recorded crimes.
Motor vehicle crime (23 per cent) and ‘all other theft’ (22 per cent) were the
crimes most frequently recorded by the police. (‘All other theft’ includes
shoplifting, theft from a dwelling, theft by an employee, theft of a bicycle and
making off without payment).

Anti-social behaviour
th
On 10 September, 2003 a ‘one day count’ of Anti-social behaviour was
conducted across the country. In Islington there were 426 incidents recorded.
Of these the most commonly reported were litter and rubbish, noise and
nuisance.
There are currently 220 Anti-social behaviour contracts and 6 Anti-social
behaviour orders in operation in Islington.
Three of the anti-social behaviour orders have been issued against young
males and two of these have already been breached. In contrast there have
been 100 Anti-social behaviour orders issued in the neighbouring borough of
Camden.

Violence against the person
There was a 14 per cent increase in violence against the person crimes
across England and Wales in 2003/04. In Islington there was only a 5 per
cent increase recorded over three years between 2001/02 and 2003/04.
The most reported offences were common assault (49 per cent) and actual
bodily harm (35 per cent).
London Ambulance Service recorded an increase of 23 per cent in violence
against the person incidents, going from 199 in 2001/02 to 244 in 2003/04.
London Ambulance Service recorded injuries due to guns, knives or other
weapons have gone up from 85 incidents in 2001/02 to 98 incidents in
2003/04 (an increase of around 15 per cent)
There has been a decrease in the reporting of incidents with a racist element
between 2001/02 to 2003/04. Such incidents amounted to 1.6 per cent of
recorded crime.
There has been an increase in the reporting of incidents with a homophobic
element between 2001/02 and 2003/04. Such incidents amounted to 0.3 per
cent of recorded crime.
1
The Victims of Violence Project at the Whittington Hospital reported that of
the 1 187 victims of violence seen in the first three quarters of operation, nine

1 Further information on this project is available in the chapter on victims.
6

per cent were female victims of domestic violence, two per cent were male
victims of domestic violence and four per cent were young victims of assault.
It is difficult to establish the true extent of domestic violence due to the high
levels of under reporting and under recording. The BCS 2002/03 found that
over the last year 4 per cent of women and 2 per cent of men were victims of
domestic violence (non-sexual threats or force). The average number of
incidents experienced by victims was 20.
According to BCS 2003/04 calculations it can be estimated therefore that in
Islington in the last year there were approximately 3663 female and 1685
male victims of domestic violence, experiencing approximately 106 960
incidents of domestic violence.
Islington Police data for the period 2001/02 to 2003/04 indicated that there
were 5466 domestic incidents reported, which accounted for 10 per cent of
the total number of reported incidents of disorder. There was a 24 per cent
increase in the number of incidents reported from 1601 in 2001/02 to 1989 in
2003/04. On the other hand disturbances in private premises dropped by 10
per cent over the same period from 1483 to 1338 incidents. In order to gain a
clearer picture of the extent and nature of domestic violence a closer analysis
of the data is required.

Property crime
There was a 25 per cent decrease in reported incidents of robbery of
commercial premises in 2003/04 when compared to 2001/02.
There has been no significant increase in “Street Crime” (robbery of the
person and theft-snatch).
There was a significant reduction in both residential and non-residential
burglaries over the audit period. Caledonian ward experienced the highest
proportional decrease in both non-residential and residential burglaries with a
reduction of 41 per cent and 31 per cent respectively.
Motor vehicle offences is the category with the highest number of recorded
offences. There has been a 17 per cent increase in thefts from motor
vehicles. However, in the same period the theft of motor vehicles went down
by 17 per cent.

Youth crime
The top five offences committed by young people aged between 10 and 17 in
Islington over the last three years were motoring offences, theft and handling,
violence against the person, vehicle theft and drugs offences.
The proportion of persistent young offenders has declined steadily over the
last three years from 24 per cent (84) of recorded court outcomes for young
people in 2001/02, to 21 per cent in 2002/03, and 16 per cent (61) in 2003/04.

7

Drugs
There has been a 14 per cent increase in the number of offences recorded.
The increase has been in crimes of possession rather than supply or other
drugs offences.
There is evidence to suggest there has been a change in the drug market
during the period of this audit with an increase in the proportion of crack to
heroin.
One recent estimate suggests that there are approximately 4 230 problematic
drug users in Islington.
There was an 18 per cent increase in the number of alcohol related incidents
dealt with by the London Ambulance Service. In contrast there was a
significant reduction in the number of reports of disturbances in licensed
premises (17 per cent) between 2001/02 and 2003/04 in the CADMIS data.

Victims
Islington Victim Support experienced a 41 per cent increase in the number of
referrals in the period between 2001/02 and 2003/04. There is some
evidence that people of Asian and SE Asian ethnicity are disproportionately
victimised when compared to the rest of the population.
The highest proportion of referrals to IVS (28 per cent) were for violence
against the person offences, of which 62 per cent had been the victim of
common assault or actual bodily harm, and 28 per cent had been threatened.
Twenty six per cent of referrals were people who had been burgled, while
around 23 per cent had been victims of robbery.

4.7 Areas of success over the last three years
Over the last three years the Islington Crime Drugs and Youth Partnership have:

Introduced a local anti-social behaviour strategy and employed an anti-
social behaviour co-ordinator;
Introduced a local domestic violence strategy and employed a domestic
violence co-ordinator,
Allocated funding for the identification and closure of crack houses
operating in the borough,
Reduced burglary across the borough, particularly in Caledonian ward,
Provided additional high visibility policing in hotspot areas,
Undertaken operations to reduce illegal trading in Nags Head,
Provided funding for several youth projects aimed at reducing crime,
disorder and anti-social behaviour among young people.
8

Shifting the focus of policing to become more community oriented.

4.8 Potential future risks and threats
The research and analysis conducted for the audit has identified several areas
which may have an impact on levels of crime, disorder and substance misuse
over the next three years:

Changes to licensing hours under the Licensing Act (2003)
A shift in local drug markets from heroin to crack.
Displacement of crime from policing activity in neighbouring boroughs.
Increases in the numbers of craved items such as I-Pods, Video mobiles
and laptops which may drive street crime.

9

Un pour Un
Permettre à tous d'accéder à la lecture
Pour chaque accès à la bibliothèque, YouScribe donne un accès à une personne dans le besoin