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

Crime & Disorder & Drugs Audit 2004 - Other Crime and Disorder Issues

De
62 pages
Broadland Crime and Disorderand Drugs Audit 2004Other Crime and Disorder Issues1.1 Other crime and disorder issues1.1.1 RobberyThere were 10 robberies in Broadland in 2000-1, 11 in 2001-2, 15 in 2002-3 and 14 in2003-4 [Source: NC1]. Hence, robbery is not a high volume crime in Broadland.1.1.2 Victim Support NorfolkVictim Support Norfolk does not have a Broadland branch [Source: VSN].1.1.3 ASBOsAccording to Broadland District Council, 1 ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) was issuedin Broadland in 2003-4, and it has not been breached. No ASBOs were issued prior toApril 2003.1.1.4 Abandoned vehiclesIn the Broadland CDRP area, 203 abandoned vehicles were delivered to Norfolk CountyCouncil in 2002-3, and 150 in 2003-4 [Source: NCC]1.1.5 Deliberate firesData from Norfolk Fire Service shows that there were 217 deliberate fires (where financialloss was incurred by the owner/ insurer) in the Broadland area between 1 April 2003 and31 March 2004 [Source: NFS]. This represents 19.5% of the total for the County.1.1.6 Discarded needlesBroadland District Council state that the numbers of discarded needles reported are verysmall in Broadland, therefore formal records are not kept. In 2003-4, there were fewer than20 needles reported, and approximately 5 callouts to deal with them. These annual figureshave remained stable over the past 5 years.An examination of CAD reported incidents for the year 2003-04 revealed 16 incidents inBroadland involving needles that ...
Voir plus Voir moins

Broadland Crime and Disorder
and Drugs Audit 2004
Other Crime and Disorder Issues1.1 Other crime and disorder issues
1.1.1 Robbery
There were 10 robberies in Broadland in 2000-1, 11 in 2001-2, 15 in 2002-3 and 14 in
2003-4 [Source: NC1]. Hence, robbery is not a high volume crime in Broadland.
1.1.2 Victim Support Norfolk
Victim Support Norfolk does not have a Broadland branch [Source: VSN].
1.1.3 ASBOs
According to Broadland District Council, 1 ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) was issued
in Broadland in 2003-4, and it has not been breached. No ASBOs were issued prior to
April 2003.
1.1.4 Abandoned vehicles
In the Broadland CDRP area, 203 abandoned vehicles were delivered to Norfolk County
Council in 2002-3, and 150 in 2003-4 [Source: NCC]
1.1.5 Deliberate fires
Data from Norfolk Fire Service shows that there were 217 deliberate fires (where financial
loss was incurred by the owner/ insurer) in the Broadland area between 1 April 2003 and
31 March 2004 [Source: NFS]. This represents 19.5% of the total for the County.
1.1.6 Discarded needles
Broadland District Council state that the numbers of discarded needles reported are very
small in Broadland, therefore formal records are not kept. In 2003-4, there were fewer than
20 needles reported, and approximately 5 callouts to deal with them. These annual figures
have remained stable over the past 5 years.
An examination of CAD reported incidents for the year 2003-04 revealed 16 incidents in
Broadland involving needles that were discovered lying around or sticking in objects, or
found in bags or on the person [Source: NC2].
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 2x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2 Drugs and alcohol
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 About Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Action Team
Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) is one of 149 across the country. Drug
Action Teams are strategic bodies set up under the UK Government's Strategy for England
'Tackling Drugs Together'.
Working with our partner organisations, we commission and monitor locally provided drug
and alcohol services, raise awareness about drug and alcohol issues in Norfolk and
support the member agencies through training and workforce development. We promote
our work through effective communication such as this website, www.nordat.org.uk and
our newsletter DAAT news. Our main aims are to:-
Reduce the harm that drugs cause to society, communities, individuals and their
families.
Enable people with drug problems to access treatment and support.
Reduce the availability of illegal drugs on our streets by disrupting drugs markets.
Prevent today's young people from becoming tomorrow's problematic drug users.
The updated strategy of 2002 has four main areas. These are:
Communities – “Reducing the harm that drugs cause to society – communities,
individuals and their families”
Young People – “Preventing today’s young people from becoming tomorrow’s
problematic drug users”
Availability – “Reducing the supply of illegal drugs”
Treatment – “Reducing drug use and drug-related offending through treatment and
support. Reducing drug-related death through harm minimisation”
DAATs coordinate the drug-related elements of the service plans of the main public sector
delivery agencies at a local level. This can only be achieved by effective partnership
working with the DAAT member agencies, who are:
Education
Social Services
The Police
Health
The Prison Service
The Probation Service
Youth Offending Teams
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 3x
x
x
Connexions
Norfolk's seven local authorities under the community safety agenda
Norfolk drug and alcohol treatment providers
2.1.2 Norfolk drug misuse statistics
The diagram below shows statistics for the population of Norfolk, some of which are
directly taken from published Norfolk statistics and some of which are extrapolated from
National research.
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 43,718 children have
parents with a drug 8,200 people are
Problem 1 estimated to be problem
drug users
7,360 people aged
16-24 have used a
class A drug in the
284 drug related last year.2
and 2720 alcohol
related anti social
behaviour incidents
are reported in a
year 271 people
in a year are
charged
with posse s-
sion of class There are A drugs
33,943
crimes of
burglary,
robbery or
theft in a
year
KEY 29 People will die of a
drug related death –
= data extrapolated Based on 2001 ONS
from national figures statistics
= data from local
sources
1. – Data extrapolated from “Hidden Harm” – Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 2003.
2.- Data extrapolated from “Findings 182: Prevalence of drug use: key findings from the 2001/02 British
Crime Survey”, The Home Office, 2002.
Fig. 1 Norfolk dru g misuse statistics [Sources: ACMD, UEA, HO10, NC2, DAAT2, NC1, ONS]
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 5x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2.1.3 Setting Drug Use/ Misuse in the National Context
It is essential that we concentrate on preventing and treating problematic drug use and working with
our most damaged communities if we are to reduce the harm drugs cause. (Updated Drug Strategy
2002 [Source: UKDS]).
The Updated Drug Strategy 2002 states that around 4 million people use at least one illicit
drug each year. Drug misuse gives rise to between £10 billion and £18 billion a year in
social and economic costs, 99% of which are accounted for by problematic drug users. A
Problem Drug User is defined as - a person who experiences social, psychological,
physical or legal problems related to intoxication/ regular excessive consumption/
dependence as a consequence of their own use of drugs.
Key findings from the 2001/02 British Crime Survey regarding prevalence of drug use
nationally and in the regions [Sources: HO10, HO11] show:
Of all 16 – 59 year olds, 12% had taken an illicit drug and 3% had used a Class A drug
in the last year. This equates to around four million users of any illicit drug and around
one million users of Class A drugs nationally.
Cannabis is the most frequently used drug, with around 3 million 16-59 year olds
having used it in the last year (11%)
People aged between 16-24 years are significantly more likely to have used drugs in
the last year and last month than older people.
Ease of access to drugs is closely tied to patterns of use. Of all 16-24 year olds,
cannabis was reported to be the easiest of drugs to obtain followed by ecstasy,
amphetamines then cocaine.
There have been significant increases in all regions of cocaine use except for Wales
and North East – where use remained unchanged from the 1996 sweep.
However, since the 2000 BCS, levels of cocaine use have stabilized, with no significant
changes being identified.
In all regions within England and Wales the use of Class A drugs has remained fairly
stable, with around 3% reporting having used at least one Class A drug in the last year.
Eastern region levels of use were significantly lower than the national estimate.
Levels of illicit drug use have been significantly higher for those living in inner cities
compared with those in either urban areas or rural areas, and significantly higher for
those in urban areas compared with rural areas.
2.1.4 Definitions of the controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
(amended in January 2004)
Outlined below is a rough guide to the classification of drugs under the amended Misuse of
Drugs Act 1971. It is not intended as an exhaustive list. For further information please refer
to the full document on the Home Office website, www.homeoffice.gov.uk.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 divides drugs into three classifications according to the
perceived seriousness of their misuse and the penalty that is attracted under criminal law
for their misuse. They are:
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 6x
x
x
x
x
x
Class A. Class B. Class C.
Opium Amphetamines Cannabis resin
Heroin/methadone Barbiturates Cannabis herb
Cocaine/Crack Cocaine Codeine Anabolic steroids
LSD Ritalin Tranquillisers
Ecstasy Barbiturates
Painkillers
Magic Mushrooms (when prepared for use) GHB
Class B drugs prepared for injection Some stimulant, anti-depressant
and anti-obesity medicines
Table 1 Classification of drugs under The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (amended)
[Source: DAAT1]
The specified offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are outlined below:
Possession;
Possession with intent to supply;
Supplying a controlled drug;
Supplying drug paraphernalia;
Production, cultivation or manufacture of a controlled drug;
Allowing premises to be used for the supply, production or cultivation of a controlled
drug.
2.1.5 Norfolk DAAT and Provision of Alcohol Treatment
The DAAT has a positive role to play in ensuring that the drug treatment services that it
commissions have the capacity to work with those substance misusers who also have
alcohol misuse problems. The DAAT also has a role to play in supporting the work of its
partner agencies throughout the county in providing advice and guidance on alcohol
related matters. This is a role that is of particular importance as the links between alcohol
misuse and crime and disorder are highlighted by local and national research. The DAAT
will continue to drive the implementation of the Home Office Safer Clubbing guidance and
will continue to support the development and establishment of initiatives that focus on
promoting a safe night-time economy.
The DAAT is funded via central government and the vast majority of this funding is
devoted to the treatment of adult drug users. Funding restrictions mean that none of this
money can be spent directly on the treatment of alcohol users, unless they also require
treatment for drug misuse. The DAAT has, however, enabled the commissioning of alcohol
treatment services by linking with those agencies that can use mainstream budgets for
alcohol treatment. The main agencies involved in the commissioning of alcohol treatment
services in Norfolk are Health and Social Services. The roles and responsibilities of these
agencies are likely to be expanded under the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy,
albeit without the allocation of any additional funding until 2008.
2.1.5.1 National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy 2004
The National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, published in March 2004, has the stated
aim of preventing any further increase in alcohol related harm in England. The strategy
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 7x
x
x
was widely welcomed as the first attempt by a government to establish a coherent policy to
tackle alcohol related harm. It has been suggested, however, that the strategy lacks any
real substance as:
the allocation of roles and responsibilities is not clear;
the timetable for delivery is too protracted;
there is a lack of any additional funding until 2008.
Alcohol Concern, in their response to the strategy document, make the point that the
alcohol industry spends over £200 million per year on print and broadcast advertising
whilst only £95 million is spent per annum on alcohol treatment in England and Wales.
The National Drug Strategy Unit has calculated that the cost of alcohol related harm in
England is approximately £20 billion per annum. The harm caused by irresponsible use of
alcohol has been classified into the following key areas: health; crime; anti-social
behaviour; loss of productivity in the workplace; and social harms.
The strategy has four strands in its multi-agency response to reducing alcohol related
harm:
1. Education and Communication – To improve the information available to individuals
and to start the process of changing the culture of drinking.
2. Identification and Treatment – To better identify and treat alcohol misuse.
3. Alcohol Related Crime and Disorder – To prevent and tackle alcohol related crime and
disorder and deliver improved services to victims and witnesses.
4. Supply and Industry Responsibility – To work with the industry.
Central to success of the strategy is the active participation of the alcohol industry and the
development of corporate social responsibility. The government identified that the
industry’s role needs to go beyond complying with statutory responsibilities, to setting high
standards of socially responsible practice. It was suggested that this could be achieved
through a voluntary process whereby the industry would:
1. Strengthen the focus on good practice.
2. Encourage producers to promote good practice down the supply chain.
3. Seek a financial contribution from the industry towards harms caused by excessive
drinking.
Concerns have been raised that this voluntary approach would need to be quickly replaced
by statutory regulation if it was found that the industry was not meeting the expectations
placed upon it.
The emphasis for the delivery of the strategy has fallen to local crime reduction
partnerships within district councils. There is no additional funding to support this process.
Additional funding may be made available for treatment provision in 2008, however, once
a comprehensive audit of existing service provision has been completed. The local
partnerships are directed to address the four alcohol related harms but may be able to set
priorities according to local need e.g. alcohol related crime and disorder in the night-time
economy.
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 8x
x
x
x
x
x
The partnerships that may be included in this process are:
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership.
Local Strategic Partnership.
Criminal Justice Boards.
Youth Offending Teams.
Drug and Alcohol Action Teams.
Industry representatives.
Local authorities are expected but not obligated to produce an alcohol strategy. Where an
alcohol strategy is produced it can be included as part of another, existing strategy.
2.1.5.2 The Licensing Act 2003
Similar to the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, the Licensing Act 2003 places an
emphasis upon reducing alcohol related harm (prevention of crime and disorder, public
safety, prevention of public nuisance, and protection of children from harm), albeit with a
focus upon crime and disorder and community safety issues. The Act also seeks to
positively engage the alcohol industry and licensed trade and not to impose statutory
regulation where voluntary participation is possible.
The aims of the Act are to: establish a single integrated scheme for licensing premises;
provide a balanced package of freedoms and safeguards; minimise alcohol related crime
and disorder associated with fixed universal closing times; promote tourism and develop
the culture of live music, dancing and theatre; afford a voice to local residents and
businesses who may be affected by licensable activities.
The timetable for the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 includes a period of
consultation on the draft licensing regulations, which specify the procedural details on how
the new regime will operate. This consultation period ends at 10 November 2004 and
comments have been invited from all interested parties. The manner in which the Act is
implemented will depend on the findings of this consultation process. The Department of
Culture, Media and Sport wishes, where possible, to keep to the timetable that is outlined
below.
7 July 2004 Guidance issued. Licensing authorities prepare Licensing Policy Statements.
Secondary legislation (forms, proposed fees, plans and other draft regulations)
August 2004
released for public consultation.
Closing date for public consultation on draft application forms and draft
10 November 2004 regulations.
7 January 2005 Licensing Authorities must have published their first licensing policy statement.
First Appointed Day.
7 February 2005 Licensing authorities can begin processing licensing applications under the
new regime.
Second Appointed Day.
November 2005
The new licensing regime begins as the new licences take effect.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to commission a study to report by
Q4/2006 to evaluate the costs for local authorities associated with the
October 2006
introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. The government will then decide
whether further evaluation is required.
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 9x
x
x
x
x
x
The DAAT welcomes the opportunities that the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
and the Licensing Act 2003 present to the all agencies that are involved in the planning
and development of alcohol related services. It would appear that Section 17 of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998 will enable agencies to work together to tackle the crime and
disorder that is associated with the irresponsible use of alcohol in the night-time economy
and help ensure that the Licensing Act 2003 is applied with sufficient regard to the alcohol
related harms.
The wider partnerships that currently exist, particularly the Crime and Disorder Reduction
Partnership and the Local Strategic Partnership, are in a position to guide and direct the
implementation of the Act in their locality and promote community safety.
2.2 Safer Communities
The aims relevant to safer communities as outlined in the Updated National Drugs
Strategy 2002 are to:
Develop effective housing management and support for substance misusers.
Reduce the prevalence of drug and/or drink driving.
Increase the availability of means for the safe disposal of used drug paraphernalia.
Develop substance misuse treatment services for sex workers.
Increase the provision of training to private industry regarding drugs and alcohol in the
workplace.
Reduce drug related crime by increasing the referral of people into treatment via the
Criminal Justice System.
2.2.1 Housing Related Issues
There is a large body of research, which has identified widespread problematic drug use
among single homeless people. Moreover, such drug use has been identified as a major
contributory factor in the loss of accommodation, repeat homelessness and subsequent
barriers to accessing appropriate housing and support services.
2.2.1.1 Norfolk Situation
In Norfolk in July 2003 the 7 District Housing Authorities published Homelessness
Strategies based on reviews of homelessness in their areas. Although some of these
reviews and strategies recognised substance misuse as an underlying cause of
homelessness in the county, they nevertheless do not provide an indication of the extent of
the problem nor do they contain action points to address it. There is considerable scope in
Norfolk to improve strategic links between drug and housing plans.
2.2.1.2 Levels
The most reliable data on homelessness in the county is contained within the returns
which housing authorities submit on a quarterly basis to central government. These
statistics relate to those households who have formally presented as homeless persons for
assistance under Homelessness legislation. Until 2004/05 information relating to an
individual's substance misuse has not been recorded and although authorities have
accepted and re-housed such individuals, they have done so not because the individual
had a problematic substance misuse but because of the individual's mental or physical ill
health.
CDRP Analyst, Eastern, April 2005 10