bcsp annual report 2011-12

+ Crime Reduction Performance

Crime reduced in Birmingham from 1st April 2011 to 31 March 2012 as follows:

Crime Type No. of Crimes Change Target Actual

2010-11 2011-12

Total Recorded Crime 90,652 82,955 -7,697 -6% -8.4%

Most Serious Violence 1,389 1,222 -167 -10% -12%

Domestic Burglary 8,051 6,603 -1,448 -10% -18%

Robbery 4,834 3,892 -942 -10% -19.5%

Vehicle Crime 12,117 10,708 -1,409 -9% -11.6%

Business Crime 16,455 15,520 -1,205 -9% -7.3%

Vehicle Crime Rate Per 1000 Population

28.9 – 37.1 (1)20.7 – 28.9 (1)12.5 – 20.7 (4)4.3 – 12.5 (34)

37A further

were discharged back to general teams for management having had

their levels of risk of reoffending significantly reduced

+ Anti-Social Behaviour

In the last year, in line with the BCSP restructure, the four Safer Communities Team Leaders and 12 officers moved into new bases across the city. The team continued to tackle ASB, conducting investigations of both criminal and non-criminal cases, bringing perpetrators to account and achieving positive outcomes for victims.

The following table shows the cases that the team has handled over the last 12 months, together with a comparison with the previous year. It shows the variety of outcomes that cases may have.

Case Outcomes

2010-11 2011-12

Qtr 1&2

Qtr3

Jan Feb Year To Date

ASB Injunctions

42 24 14 2 0 40

ASB Orders 8 6 9 0 0 15

Undertaking (an injunction agreed by judge and perpetrator)

3 0 0 0 0 0

Committal (breach of undertaking or injunction)

3 1 0 1 4

Warning letters 0 0 255 9 4 284

ASB Contract 76 32 19 0 0 59

Section 222 Injunction

112 0 0 0 0 0

Section 222 Injunction

2 year extension

0 112 0 0 0 112

Total 244 175 297 12 5 489

ASB performance is not straightforward. The variations in types of case, together with the complexity that a single case may have a single perpetrator or several dozen, makes year on year comparisons difficult.

CCTV Review

As part of the overhaul of services it was decided to conduct a review of Partnership CCTV. In partnership with the Highways Department, the other public space CCTV cameras in the city were also included in the review. In July 2011 a framework was developed based on four criteria, each with a weighting. The framework was as follows:

Criteria Key Considerations

Crime and incident data, 30%

Violence, burglary, robbery, vehicle crime, criminal damage, environmental crime and prostitution / kerb crawling.

Significance to city status, 20%

inward investment, party conferences, VIP visits, transport hub, night time economy, sporting and cultural events.

Monitoring operator experience, 20%

General operator view of camera effectiveness, number and type of incidents recorded or created and used in detections or investigations.

Technical status, 30% Image quality, reliability, capacity and ‘wear & tear’.

These were treated as four separate strands and weighted for their importance. A police analysis of crime and incident data was given a 30% weighting in evaluating the systems. The CCTV Liaison Group studied camera system locations on city maps and graded each as to its contribution to various social criteria on a city level. Previously the value of capturing the views of those who work with the system day in and day out has been demonstrated.

Finally the technical status of each system and each camera was assessed in order to ascertain its likely requirement for future upkeep and maintenance. An external contractor was engaged to undertake the latter two strands. The outcome will be that each CCTV system will be ‘scored’ and a priority list created to inform future investment decisions.