1

Improving Community Safety in Kensington and Chelsea 2005/06 – 2009/10 Report by Chief Community Safety Officer Kensington and Chelsea Council

2

Contents Pages Foreword 3-5 Introduction 6 Background and contextual information 7-10 Changes in levels of crime and antisocial behaviour 11-21 Major Council community safety initiatives 22-31 Appendix – Safer Neighbourhood Team Contacts 32-33

3

FOREWORD The Council has given a high priority to improving community safety in Kensington and Chelsea because our residents felt about eight or nine years ago that their worries and experience were not taken seriously by the public authorities responsible for policing London. There was a perception among our residents that too much emphasis was placed on complex organised crime and terrorism at the expense of continuing to do practical day to day policing in our residential streets and on our housing estates. The Council has never been a police authority and has never had a grant to fund it in the manner that a police authority normally receives, but it took the concerns of its residents so seriously that we put a proposal to the Home Office. We wanted to create a local police force directly organised and managed by the Council to meet local concerns. This was the Council’s proposal for borough constables. The Home Office would not take this proposal forward, but instead offered us an alternative. Kensington and Chelsea could pay to employ a new category of uniformed community based support officer. This was not the Council’s preferred way forward, but it was the only way we could ensure that there was a significantly increased uniformed presence on our local streets. The Council decided to take up that offer. We said we would pay for 76 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), but we wanted them to be used in our community and that they should concentrate on the local things that worry and often frighten people even if they may not be significant in terms of centrally set Home Office or Metropolitan Police Authority targets. To ensure that these new arrangements worked properly and Kensington and Chelsea obtained value for money from the PCSOs we were paying for we had to agree to new institutional arrangements for working with the police. This resulted within the creation of the Safer Surer Policy Board that I chair. The purchase of 76 additional Police Community Safety Officers has been a significant financial commitment. It has resulted in a much greater visible uniformed presence on the Borough’s Streets. There is no doubt that many residents appreciate their presence and that they have contributed to people feeling more secure when they are out and about. The Council has also helped the local police by providing them locally with resources that they cannot obtain within the framework of the Metropolitan Police budget arrangements. We have provided our local police with money for motor bikes to combat street robbery, improved forensic services to increase local detection rates and a knife arch to identify people carry knives. The police have helped departments working across the Council to improve our community’s response to the problems posed by the challenge of

4

domestic violence, which has been a particular interest of mine and I pleased by the progress we have made. The Council has also worked to increase the range of mental health and psycho therapeutic services available to our youth offending team that works with young people who often have serious unrecognised mental health problems. This is a difficult area because the Council’s Youth Offending Team has to work within the constraints of the provision offered by the clinical services involved and the complex judgements of the professions involved. We currently have a special research project sponsored by Liverpool University looking into this area based in our Youth Offending Team. The Council has always had good and practical working relationship with the police. It is not an exaggeration, however, to say that the creation of the Safer Surer Policy Board took this relationship a stage further. It provides the Council with a direct opportunity to raise all manner of practical issues swiftly with the police. It also enables the police to ensure that the Council provides its services in a way that supports their work in making our community safer. The police cannot do any of this on their own. The Council has to play its part in providing effective local mental health services, drug intervention programmes and good youth, leisure and sports services and there is no doubt that the police have helped the Council in all sorts of practical ways. Our schools and youth services have benefited from the interest and enthusiasms of many police officers. While the joint Council and Police Community Safety Team have achieved a great deal with the Planning Officers in imaginatively finding ways to ‘build out crime’. I believe that locally the police and the Council have achieved all that can be obtained by working together in a practical way within the present arrangements. These arrangements, however, are limited by genuine constraints. The police have to work to a national agenda set by the Home Office that takes too little account of local priorities. The Council faces similar national policy guidance and targets that are too often at odds with what is needed for our local circumstances. Moreover, the targets that the Council receives from various central government departments are sometimes at odds with the targets that the police receive from the Home Office. More broadly in relation to community safety too much is expected from the local police and Council working together. The Council and the police are very important; without that relationship working well little will be achieved, but the Council and police are not the only critical organisations involved. The prosecution authorities, the courts, the prison service and probation service are all equally important. Each of these is a national service that works to a national agenda which for all practical purposes is unattached to local priority and need. What is more in Greater London these services have been facing acute challenges in terms of

5

organisation, resourcing and management. Our national prison service has a prison estate that reflects the population distribution of the 19th century rather than that of 21st century Britain, which poses particular problems for the management of young offenders in the London and the South East of England. If we are to make more progress on crime and community safety we will have to ensure that the good, close and practical working between the local police and the Council is taken a stage further. We will have to ensure that it extends to the prison and the probation services. The Council and police have a practical role to play in helping these services to perform better. Across London and in Kensington and Chelsea getting more offenders into working and practical training that leads directly to work is probably the best way of ensuring that they end their pattern of criminal behaviour. The Council through its role in education, training and regeneration along with help from the police has a lot to offer the prison and probation services in a context where there are more both more non-custodial sentences and more offenders released early on licence. Our future challenge is to find ways of ensuring that these national services become more flexible and responsive to the needs of local communities. Councillor Warwick Lightfoot Cabinet Member for Community Safety

6

INTRODUCTION This report sets out what the Council has done, together with its partners, in recent years to successfully improve community safety in the borough. It focuses mainly on the period April 2006 to December 2009. After providing some background and contextual information, this report looks at the evidence about improvements in community safety over the last few years and sets out the very latest information. It also looks at how crime and antisocial behaviour in Kensington and Chelsea compares to other boroughs in London. The report then focuses on the major community safety initiatives undertaken by the Council in conjunction with its partners.

7

BACGROUND AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION Crime analysis When analysing community safety issues the Council has used the national crime triangle model which works on the basis that, in the normal course of events, for a crime to happen there needs to be a victim, an offender and a location. Activity therefore needs to be centred around:

• advising potential victims on what they can do to lessen their chances of becoming a real victim

• stopping offenders continuing their criminal behaviour and persuading

potential offenders not to get involved in crime or antisocial behaviour

• physical works to locations, to make it much more difficult for offenders to commit a crime without being caught

It will be apparent from reading this report that most activity falls under these headings. Crime reporting The Council is very aware that many local residents are sceptical about crime statistics. Indeed, in a recent survey in Kensington and Chelsea only 8% of respondents said that crime statistics have a major influence on their understanding of crime and antisocial behaviour in their area. This is not just a local issue; national surveys show that whilst police records of crime have been going down for several years, many people do not recognise such reductions in their local area and therefore question the validity of the official statistics. This scepticism is compounded by the use of two sets of national statistics:

• official police records of reported crimes

• crime levels determined by the National British Crime Survey (BCS) One difficulty with official police records is that they do not, by definition, include all those crimes which are not reported for a variety of reasons; a recent survey in Kensington and Chelsea showed that 35% of respondents did not report a crime committed against them in the previous 12 months. The BCS does help to counteract this as it seeks to capture all crimes committed notwithstanding whether or not they were reported. Nevertheless this does lead to a confusing picture for local residents. Against this background the Council recognises the limitations of official statistics of recorded crime and therefore seeks to get additional information about the extent of crime and antisocial behaviour in the borough to help

8

inform its community safety priorities. Consultation is one of the main means of doing this -- see below. Having commented on the limitations of official statistics, the Council does recognise that they represent the best firm evidence that is available. Whilst there may be some health warnings over actual numbers it is reasonable to attach credibility to longer term trends as any imperfections are the same each year. Consultation As indicated above the Council needs to hear from local residents about their local crime and antisocial behaviour issues to supplement the official police statistics. The main way of doing this is through the Residents Panel. Approximately 1400 local residents have been recruited to serve on the Panel and every effort is made to make it as representative as possible. The Panel is used to get views on a wide range of issues and, in July each year, most of the questions relate to community safety -- 38 such questions in 2009. As many of the questions are the same each year it is possible to track change over time and this is very important to the Council in determining how successful it has been in addressing issues. New questions are added from time to time, e.g. about begging, to get further views on issues that appear to be causing more concern than previously. The Council is also able to break down the responses in different ways including by age, gender and ethnicity as well as by area. This helps to identify whether some issues disproportionately affect different parts of the community and enable responses to be tailored accordingly. The Council also makes use of the Safer Neighbourhood Panels that have been established in the 18 wards of the borough. They meet every month or two to determine local priorities and the results are analysed by the Council to identify common issues and emerging trends so that they can be addressed. Contact points for the 18 Safer Neighbourhood Teams in the borough that manage the Panel meetings are included at the end of this report. The Council also gathers information from the Government’s National Place Survey and the independent annual survey of Londoners Finally, for the first time this year, the Council will be holding a public event for residents to come and meet Senior Council Members and the Borough Police Commander to help inform the setting of priorities for the year ahead. Partnership arrangements In view of the importance attached to community safety, the Council established a stand alone post of Cabinet Member for Community Safety in

9

May 2006 -- Councillor Lightfoot. A Lead Member -- Councillor Palmer -- was also appointed to assist the Cabinet member in this important area of work. The Community Safety Programme Board was established to bring together public agencies in the borough to improve community safety. It meets quarterly and sets the strategy for reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. It also monitors performance and works to ensure that all agencies are working together towards common objectives. Each year the Board commissions a Partnership Strategic Assessment that analyses the latest crime data and information from local residents obtained through consultation exercises to inform the development of priorities for the year ahead. These are set out in an annual Community Safety Plan that contains targets that are monitored quarterly by the Board. The main engine room for driving day-to-day partnership activity however is the Safer Surer Policy Board established by the Council and chaired by Councillor Lightfoot. The Board meets monthly and receives detailed reports on the latest crime information and looks at short, medium and long-term solutions to issues that are important to local residents. Councillor Lightfoot is joined at these meetings by the Borough Police Commander, the Town Clerk and Chief Executive of the Council (or by one of his senior colleagues), the chair of the Community and Police Engagement Group and a small group of senior Council and police Officers. What can the Council do? It is important to be transparent about what the Council can, and cannot do, to help improve community safety in the borough. The most important issue here is that the main agency responsible for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour is the Police Service. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is responsible for policing in London and each borough has its own Borough Command Unit (BCU) to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in its area. Each BCU has a Borough Commander and whilst he/she does have a degree of independence there are constraints particularly in relation to finances. The Council itself has no jurisdiction over the work of the police or its other partners, e.g. the Probation Service. There is a legal requirement for the Council and the police to work in partnership to improve community safety and very good partnership arrangements exist in Kensington and Chelsea. The Council is of the view that there should be more local accountability for the work of the police and local Councils are in the best position to provide that accountability. How that can be achieved is the matter of some discussion at the present time. The Council can, however, plan and deliver the services for which it is responsible in a way that helps to enhance community safety, e.g. through providing good street lighting in crime hotspots. Indeed, there is a legal

10

requirement to do this and part of Councillor Lightfoot’s responsibility as the Cabinet Member for Community Safety is to make sure that all parts of the Council have regard to community safety issues when planning and delivering their services. More details about what the Council does do to improve community safety are set out later in this report. It is also important to be clear about other constraints that the Council faces in its efforts to improve community safety:

• national policies and legislation • national targets

• the workings of the Criminal Justice System

• funding

Clearly the Council has to work within existing legislation and to have regard to national policies and strategies. The difficulty with this is that sometimes national strategies focus on issues that are not major problems in Kensington and Chelsea, e.g. gun and knife crime. The Council and its partners are then urged to put more resources into such national issues at the expense of more local priorities, e.g. dealing with beggars. There is a similar situation with national targets upon which the Council and its partners are judged by Government. Again, this puts pressure on partners to focus resources on issues that are not necessarily local concerns, e.g. the crime rate for assault with injury. The Criminal Justice System (CJS) is, quite rightly, independent but some of the processes and decisions can frustrate local efforts to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour e.g. the punishments given to habitual beggars did not dissuade them from continuing to offend and whilst the Government encourages local authorities to make use of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), the process for obtaining them through the Courts is not straightforward and very time-consuming. The Council is not in a position to bring any significant influence to bear on the CJS. Funding is, inevitably, a constraining factor. The Council does receive some specific funding from Government to support its work in enhancing community safety but this has gradually reduced over the years. Community safety work is a discretionary rather than a statutory service and, as such, funding for it has to compete with other local priorities. Notwithstanding these constraints the Council has managed to focus on local issues identified by residents and the result of its efforts, and those of its partners, is an area that is much safer than nearly all other London boroughs. The next section of this report provides information that demonstrates this good news.

11

CHANGES IN LEVELS OF CRIME AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SINCE 2005/06 As indicated earlier in this report it is important to use other sources of information besides official crime statistics to gauge the level of crime in an area. This section of the report therefore deals with the results of surveys of residents about community safety as well as official crime statistics. What do Crime statistics tell us? Inevitably there is always a focus on the figure of total crimes reported to police and how this changes. In Kensington and Chelsea this figure has fallen from 24,731 in 2005/06 to 21,922 in 2008/09 -- a reduction of 11%. This number seems set to fall again this year as, the number of crimes recorded up until the end of December 2009 is down on the figure recorded for the same period in the previous year.

In numerical terms this is one of the lowest figures of all the 32 London boroughs. This comparison looks even better when account is taken of the fact that the population of the Royal Borough grows enormously during the day as people travel to the area to work or visit the many tourist attractions. It provides more opportunities for offenders to commit crime, e.g. pick pocketing some of the millions of people who visit the museums every year. However, not all boroughs are the same and, as such, some boroughs, inevitably, are likely to suffer from more crime as a result of their size both geographically and in terms of population. As a relatively small borough it would be reasonable to assume that Kensington and Chelsea should, in any event, have fewer crimes than many other larger boroughs. Some work has been done to try and establish what level of crime is normal, high or low for a particular area based on a range of

12

statistics, e.g. population, deprivation indices, geographic size, etc but this work has not yet been developed sufficiently to get meaningful comparisons between areas. The most reliable comparisons are based on crimes per head of population. This is used by Government and Police Forces to compare performance between areas. In Kensington and Chelsea there were 89.3 recorded crimes per 1000 population for the first nine months of 2009/10. This compares to an average of 82.6 across all the 32 London boroughs. While comparing the overall level of reported crime is important, it is also necessary to look at the breakdown of crime to see whether residents of the borough suffer disproportionately from particular types of offences. Clearly there are many different types of crime and the charts below focus on the key ones of residential burglary, theft of motor vehicles (including motor bikes/scooters), thefts from motor vehicles, domestic violence and personal robbery. A chart for ‘other theft’ has also been included as this makes up the largest category of offences each year. This includes crime like shoplifting and stealing handbags from coffee shops. The following charts set out the number of crimes reported in each of these categories in the years from 2005/06 including the predicted level for 2009/10 based on reports for the first nine months of the year:

Residential Burglary Offences in Kensington and Chelsea

1559

1385

10851010 949

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10(Predicted*)

13

Theft of Motor Vehicle Cycle Offences in Kensington and Chelsea

772 785

556478

557

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10(Predicted*)

Theft from Motor Vehicle Offences in Kensington and Chelsea2330 2370 2360

18271645

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10(Predicted*)

14

Domestic Violence Offences in Kensington and Chelsea915

853

690752 735

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10(Predicted*)

Personal Robbery Offences in Kensington and Chelsea

876

763

634

470520

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10(Predicted*)

15

Other Theft Offences in Kensington and Chelsea

6221 6369

5510

4544 4648

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10(Predicted*)

What do antisocial behaviour statistics tell us? Measuring the amount of antisocial behaviour in an area is complex because:

• much of it is not reported • when reports are made they, unlike crimes, get reported to different

agencies, e.g. police, Council, landlord, etc

• deciding how to categorise reports is not always straightforward as an incident could includes various types of antisocial behaviour

• defining what counts as antisocial behaviour is not straightforward

Against this background the Council places greater weight on what residents say about their experiences through surveys and other means of consultation. Nevertheless, it is necessary to look at the best statistics that are available; the number of reports of antisocial behaviour made to the police. These are recorded against the following headings:

Substance Misuse Malicious Communications Abandoned Vehicle Vehicle Nuisance/inappropriate use Rowdy/Inconsiderate behaviour Rowdy/Inconsiderate Neighbours Hate Incident Trespass Street Drinking Noise Prostitution related activity Begging/Vagrancy

16

Fireworks (inappropriate use/sale/possession) Animal problems Hoax call to emergency services Environmental damage/littering

The antisocial behaviour reports to the police for 2007/08 (the categories were changed in the previous year) are set out in the following chart:

In Kensington and Chelsea there were 36.8 recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour per 1000 population for the first nine months of 2009/10. This compares to an average of 42.6 across all the 32 London boroughs What does consultation tell us? In addition to listening to what residents think about community safety through views expressed at local safer Neighbourhood Panel meetings the Council looks very closely at the results from three reliable surveys:

• the Government’s National Place Survey

• the independent Annual survey of Londoners

• the Council’s own Resident’s Panel Survey Place survey The National Place survey was established by the Government to collect information from the public every two years on a range of issues to feed into some of the National Indicators (NIs) it uses to assess the performance of

17

local authorities. The first survey was undertaken in the latter part of 2008 and there were five questions that directly related to community safety and the results for Kensington and Chelsea are out below: Perceptions of antisocial behaviour Respondents were asked to indicate if a variety of antisocial behaviour issues were a problem in their local area. This indicator is calculated via an amalgamation of scores from these questions and a low score is better in this indicator. 14 per cent of respondents indicated antisocial behaviour was a problem in their area, this was 13 per cent better than the London average (27 per cent) and six per cent better than the national average (20 per cent). Compared to other authorities reporting NIs, Kensington and Chelsea was ranked 3rd best in London and 20th best nationally for this indicator.

NI 17: Perceptions of anti-social behaviour (a low score is better in this indicator)

14

20

27

Kensington andChelsea

London Average

England Average

Understanding local concerns about antisocial behaviour and crime issues 31 per cent of respondents agreed (to some extent) that police and other public services sought people’s views on antisocial behaviour and crime. This was three per cent higher than the London average (28 per cent) and six per cent higher than the national average (25 per cent). Compared to other authorities reporting NIs, Kensington and Chelsea was ranked 7/8th best in London and 10/11th best nationally for this indicator.

NI 27: Understanding of local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by the local council and police

31

25

28

Kensington andChelsea

London Average

England Average

Dealing with local concerns about antisocial behaviour and crime issues 35 per cent of respondents agreed (to some extent) that police and other public services were successfully dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime. This was six per cent higher than the London average (29 per cent) and nine

18

per cent higher than the national average (26 per cent). Compared to other authorities reporting NIs, Kensington and Chelsea was ranked 4th best in London and 4th best nationally for this indicator.

NI 21: Dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by the local council and police

35

26

29

Kensington andChelsea

London Average

England Average

Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem 28 per cent of respondents indicated that drunk or rowdy behaviour was a problem (to some extent) in their area, a low score is better in this indicator. This was eight per cent better than the London average (36 per cent) and one per cent better than the national average (29 per cent). Compared to other authorities reporting NIs, Kensington and Chelsea was ranked 4th best in London and 50th best nationally for this indicator.

NI 41: Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem

28

29

36

Kensington andChelsea

London Average

England Average

Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem 24 per cent of respondents indicated that drug use or drug dealing was a problem (to some extent) in their area, a low score is better in this indicator. This was 13 per cent better than the London average (37 per cent) and seven per cent better than the national average (31 per cent). Compared to other authorities reporting NIs, Kensington and Chelsea was ranked 5thbest in London and 29th best nationally for this indicator.

19

NI 42: Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem (a low score is better in this indicator)

24

31

37

Kensington andChelsea

London Average

England Average

These results from the latest National Place survey demonstrate that Kensington and Chelsea achieve some of the best scores in London and, in some cases, nationally. This has been reinforced by results from the Annual Survey of Londoners referred to below. Annual Survey of Londoners This independent survey of London Boroughs was established to enable comparisons to be made between individual Councils in London. The Council has participated in surveys in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and is participating again in 2010. This has enabled the Council to track changes in its results over time and also to see how it compares to other boroughs. One of the key questions in the survey asks respondents to say what their top three areas of most concern are from a list of 15 issues. Across London crime consistently comes out on top and in the latest survey in 2009, 51% of respondents had crime as their main area of concern. In Kensington and Chelsea however the percentage was considerably smaller -- 38% -- and this shows that in comparative terms residents in the borough feel much less worried about crime than their neighbours in other boroughs. The results also showed that this percentage in Kensington and Chelsea has fallen in recent years from 43% in 2007 to 40% in 2008 and 38% in 2009. Respondents were asked their opinion on a range of services. On policing 67% of respondents said it was good or better. This shows a significant improvement on results in previous years -- 52% in 2007 and 55% in 2008. Across London in 2009 the average of respondents saying policing was good or better was only 53% and this provides evidence that residents in this borough are much more satisfied about policing than their neighbours in other boroughs. Residents Panel Results from the Council’s Residents Panel surveys since 2006 provide positive news about residents’ perceptions of crime and antisocial behaviour. It also identifies issues where improvements have not been so marked and further attention is necessary. Good news

20

Survey response 2006 2009 Feeling safe or very safe in their local area during daylight

90% 92%

Feeling safe or very safe in their local area during darkness

57% 69%

Thought there had been more crime in their area over the last year

23% 16%

Been a victim of crime in the last 12 months 26% 17% Knew someone who had been a victim of domestic violence in their local area

14% 7%

Had seen Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) patrolling daily in their local area

9% 16%

Had approached a PCSO 13% 18% Thought the presence of PCSOs had reduced antisocial behaviour in the borough

31% 36%

Not worried about antisocial behaviour in the area where they live

46% 52%

Noisy neighbours or loud parties were a problem in their local area

33% 24%

Teenagers hanging around on the streets were a problem in their local area

47% 33%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places was a problem in their local area

38% 30%

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles was a problem in the local area

35% 19%

People using or dealing drugs in the local area was a problem

33% 21%

Felt well-informed about what the Council was doing to tackle antisocial behaviour in the local area

25%* 31%

*2007 result - the question was not asked in 2006

21

Issues for further attention In 2006 39% of those who said they had been a victim of crime in the last year reported all of the offences to the police. Although the percentage in 2009 was higher at 43% it was even higher in the intervening years -- 45% in 2007 and 55% in 2008. Further work needs to be done to persuade residents to report crimes. In 2006 79% of respondents who had contacted the PCSOs found them to be helpful. This had reduced to 70% in 2009. This dip in performance needs to be addressed. In 2008, when the question was asked for the first time, 16% of respondents said they had given money to beggars in the last year. This had increased to 21% in 2009. The Council and its partners have been endeavouring to persuade people not to give to beggars and more work needs to be done in this respect. In 2008, when the question was asked for the first time, 32% of respondents said they felt very worried or quite worried about being a victim of antisocial behaviour when travelling on the tube. This had increased to 37% in 2009. This needs to be addressed in conjunction with the British Transport Police.

22

MAJOR COUNCIL COMMUNITY SAFETY INITIATIVES Police Community Support Officers Six years ago in response to views expressed by residents about the need for a greater uniformed presence on the streets of the borough, the Council investigated whether it could establish its own Police Force to work alongside Metropolitan Police Officers. A very thorough feasibility study was undertaken that showed that the costs involved were prohibitive and the Home Office was not supportive. The Council then considered other options from the preferred solution of its own Police Force. Purchasing extra Police Officers was considered but discounted because it would not have resulted in a significant increase of uniformed street patrols and the costs were very high. The Council would also have had very little influence over how extra Officers would be deployed. At about this time the MPS was starting a pilot scheme for introducing PCSOs. The Council had discussions with the MPS and it was agreed to include Kensington and Chelsea in the pilot scheme at no cost to the Council. Response from residents was very positive and as a result the Council decided to invest in PCSOs when the pilot scheme ended. This was a major financial investment decision and the Council agreed to invest £1.65m per annum to respond to residents’ requests for a greater uniformed presence on the streets. It was agreed that PCSOs would spend nearly all of their time patrolling the streets and the Council would have influence over the issues they tackled. The financial terms of the latest Agreement for the purchase of 76 PCSOs is advantageous to the Council as the cost per head is about 60% of the full costs incurred by the police in employing them. The MPS model is to have Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) in every ward in London with one sergeant, two police constables and three PCSOs. The Council decided to provide funding to enable the number of PCSOs in every ward in this borough to be, at least, doubled to six; in some wards there are 10. As indicated earlier in this report feedback from residents about the visibility of PCSOs and their contribution towards reducing antisocial behaviour is very positive. The Council monitors the work of the PCSOs very carefully and receives monthly reports on their activities. This enables the Council, for example, to know how many fixed price penalty notices each ward based SNT has issued every month. In this way the Council can quickly spot if the service dips in any ward. This major initiative by the Council, in response to views expressed by local residents, has been a key feature of the work to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour in the area over the last few years.

23

Safer Neighbourhood Officers After the introduction of PCSOs and the establishment of SNTs in the borough it became apparent that many of the issues raised by local people at police led neighbourhood meetings were matters that required attention by the Council, e.g. dealing with graffiti, dog fouling, etc. The Council therefore decided to appoint two Safer Neighbourhood Officers (SNOs) to work alongside SNTs and make sure that issues raised by residents that required Council attention were dealt with speedily by the Council. This arrangement worked very well and the Council has now extended the scheme to four SNOs. They each look after four or five SNTs and work very effectively with Police Officers to tackle local issues. Their work complements the activities of the Council funded PCSOs and is another example of targeted support for initiatives that respond to the needs of local residents. Domestic Violence In 2006 some concern was expressed that not enough was being done locally to prevent domestic violence and provide support for victims. The Council responded to this by establishing a high level forum (the Domestic Violence Management Committee) to investigate the issues and find solutions. This has involved various Council Cabinet Members and Senior Officers from other agencies including the local Police Commander. Several new services were commissioned including:

• the establishment of a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) that focuses partnership attention on the most serious domestic violence cases and

• a domestic violence advocacy service provided by an independent

organisation to provide a 24 hours a day service to women suffering domestic violence

Alongside this and other measures, the police have developed their positive arrest policy, i.e. arresting perpetrators when they are called to deal with a report of domestic violence. The latest indications show that reports of domestic violence have gone down from 915 cases in 2005/06 to 752 in 2008/09. This is backed up by results from the Residents Panel reported earlier in this report - in 2006, 14% of respondents said that they knew someone who had been a victim of domestic violence in their local area. This had fallen to 7% in 2009. Evader operations The Council has run joint enforcement operations with the police and other agencies over the last three years; they are known locally as evader operations. They vary slightly but the basic concept is to flood an area of the

24

borough for a day or two at a time with enforcement staff from as many different agencies as possible and they work together in dealing with offending behaviour. This has several benefits including:

• dealing with issues as they happen in an area • showing law abiding residents that the partners are addressing local

concerns

• showing offenders that the partners are focussed on catching them

• building relationships between enforcement staff in different agencies that continue after the operation has ended

A particular feature of most such operations is the Automatic Number Plate Reader that is used to identify cars that have something untoward about them as they drive through the borough. The reader identifies cars that have no tax or insurance or some other discrepancy and the driver is stopped further down the road. When stopped other non vehicle related offences often come to light, e.g. offensive weapons. The Council will be continuing to run these operations. Community Payback The Council considers it important for offenders on community punishments to undertake work that benefits the local area. Against this background the Council has taken a leading role in running Community Payback in the borough. One of the SNOs has a team of offenders who work regularly in the borough clearing up eyesores across the borough. They have been engaged in tidying up Kensal Cemetery and most recently they were to be found clearing snow from the homes of vulnerable people. The Council will continue to manage Community Payback in the future and is keen to get ideas from local residents on work that the offenders can do. Street drinking Like other inner London Boroughs, Kensington and Chelsea suffers, from time to time, from groups of street drinkers who congregate in an area and cause problems for local residents and businesses. In response to this the Council has developed with its partners a Protocol for dealing with street drinkers. This approach looks to find short, medium and long term solutions. Simply moving drinkers on and arresting them for drunkenness is not enough on its own as the penalties are not severe and the offenders often just come back later. The Council has therefore supported outreach services that aim to help tackle the other problems street drinkers normally have. This is not easy work but can have better long term results.

25

The Council has also worked to make areas less ‘attractive’ to street drinkers, e.g. taking away walls for them to sit on. Work has also been done with local off licences not to sell strong alcohol to known street drinkers. Most recently in response to a request from the Borough Police Commander the Council has instigated a borough wide controlled drinking zone in Kensington and Chelsea. This enables a Police Officer or PCSO to instruct people who are drinking alcohol, and exhibiting antisocial behaviour, to stop drinking. They also have the power to confiscate and dispose of alcohol under these circumstances. It is an offence not to comply with such an instruction. There were some concerns that this power would be used against law abiding residents having a glass of wine whilst picnicking in a park. The Council and the police have made it clear that the power will not be used in this way – someone has to be exhibiting antisocial behaviour before they are told to stop drinking and have their alcohol confiscated and poured away. The power was introduced in the summer of 2009 and has been used successfully to address problem street drinkers and the Council has not received any complaints about the power being used inappropriately. Nevertheless the Council will be keeping this matter under review Beggars Kensington and Chelsea also suffers from beggars like other inner London boroughs. This is a difficult problem to address and the Council’s street outreach team endeavours to work with beggars individually to try and stop them begging. As with street drinkers, beggars often have many other problems that take a long time to tackle. The most frustrating issue for officers working with beggars is that the money given to them is normally used to fuel a drinks and/or drugs habit. Of the 50 or so beggars being dealt with this year by the Street Outreach Team nearly all of them have an alcohol/ drug problem and, contrary to popular belief, most are not homeless and are eligible for benefits. The results from this year’s residents Panel reported earlier in this report are disappointing - in 2008, when the question was asked for the first time, 16% of respondents said they had given money to beggars in the last year. This had increased to 21% in 2009. The Council will be looking at how it can persuade residents and visitors not to give to beggars and to give instead to organisations working with them. One of the most important issues here is that beggars will often not engage with Officers unless they have no other choice; giving them money means they can get by and do not need to engage. CCTV The Council took advantage of Government funding in the mid nineties and in 2002 to install CCTV cameras in public places. This was in response to strong

26

views expressed by residents about the need for CCTV. The Council has a control room where the 61 cameras are monitored and recordings are shared with the police when they are investigating a crime. Research in recent years has painted a rather confused picture about the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing and detecting crime. It has been shown that in some confined city centre type areas it can make a significant contribution to improving community safety. In other areas the evidence is not so strong. Views within the Council vary on the benefits of CCTV but there is a consensus on the importance of making the best use of the cameras that already exist. Changes have recently been made to the arrangements for monitoring the cameras that are designed to improve the effectiveness of the system. The Council will also be reviewing its overall approach towards CCTV during the summer of 2010. Making homes more secure One of the main reasons for the continuing fall in burglary is the excellent service that is jointly provided by the Council and police to make the properties of residents vulnerable to such a crime more secure. This usually involves improving locks on doors and windows and, where necessary, replacing weak doors. The service, which makes use of trusted private contractors, also works with public and private landlords to secure the front entrance doors to properties in multiple occupation. This make it more difficult for burglars who prey on such properties because, they know if they are able to gain access through the front door, they can then force entry into individual flats through much weaker internal doors. The team also provide enhanced security for vulnerable members of the community, e.g. victims of domestic violence or race or homophobic crime. Knife crime -- Operation Sabre Knife crime is not a significant problem in Kensington and Chelsea. The joint Council and police Operation Sabre initiative has helped to make sure that this continues to be the case. The Council provided resources to enable an interactive play to be produced and performed in local schools and youth groups drawing attention to the dangers of knife crime. Feedback from these performances was very positive. Funds were also provided to locate six knife surrender bins across the borough. There has been some local disquiet, from time to time, about where these have been positioned but they continue to be effective. They are emptied every six months or so and always contain some fairly fearsome weapons. The Council also paid for the purchase by the police of a ‘knife arch’

27

that is used as part of operations to search people for dangerous weapons, e.g. at the entrances to tube stations A major publicity campaign was also delivered including large posters on the back of buses going through the borough. Direct Financial support for the police To help the local police to catch more criminals the Council has provided some direct financial support, for example, for the purchase of:

• motorbikes to help catch criminals using scooters/motorbikes to snatch valuables from passers-by

• forensic equipment to increase the chances of capturing useful

information at a crime scene to help identify and successfully prosecute criminals

• Buttonhole cameras for use in covert operations to catch drug dealers

The support has helped the local police to increase the number of detections. Drugs The Council has established with its partners a protocol for closing down crack houses when they appear. This has proved very successful and enabled public landlords to move swiftly and close down such establishments at the same time as providing support for what is usually a very vulnerable tenant who has been preyed on by unscrupulous drug dealers. The Council has managed the introduction of the Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) into the Royal Borough. One of the key aims of this programme is to address the offending behaviour of drug misusers. Last year, 2,198 individuals in Kensington and Chelsea were tested for drugs by the police following arrest for ‘acquisitive’ crimes such as burglary, robbery, theft and vehicle crime. Of these, 634 tested positive for heroin, crack or cocaine. Of these 92% received an assessment and support designed to tackle their drugs misuse. DIP offenders are those who are caught up in a vicious cycle of drug taking and criminal activity. By motivating and preparing them for the challenge of treatment, DIP offers them the opportunity to kick the habit and rebuild their lives. The Council and its partners have also been very proactive in drawing attention to the dangers of using cannabis. A particularly effective initiative was a competition for schools and youth groups to develop a poster to be included in a major anti-cannabis campaign and to produce a play/film on the

28

same subject. The quality of the posters produced was very high and the winning entry formed an important part of the campaign. Kickx. The KICKz project is a London wide initiative involving the football authorities, individual football clubs, the police service and local authorities designed to divert young people at risk of getting into trouble into more positive activities. It has been introduced into the Royal Borough and has been very successful in attracting challenging young people to take part not just in the football but also in the advice/report sessions that are also provided. Using information to tackle crime The Council launched a groundbreaking initiative in 2009 with the London Borough of Camden and the Greater London Authority. The Information Exchange Scheme (IES) draws together information about crime and antisocial behaviour from a wide range of different agencies and enables the results to be analysed and mapped so that complete profiles of hotspot areas can be developed. This, in turn, enables the police and other agencies to focus their efforts on these hotspot areas. The Council is now looking at the second stage of this initiative to make information available to local residents on what is happening in their area. Preventing violent extremism The Council has responded to Government initiatives to take action locally to prevent individuals getting involved in violent extremism. The key initiatives being developed locally are set out below:

• Training for front-line staff to help them identify, cope with and support vulnerable individuals

• Interventions to support vulnerable young offenders by Council staff

and voluntary organisations

• Rolling out in schools of the Learning Together to be Safe toolkit on the prevention of violent extremism

• Engagement through Council and voluntary sector youth services

with individuals potentially at risk of becoming involved in violent extremism

• Support for the Forum of Faiths to support their work in developing

interfaith understanding and tolerance

• Development of a detailed profile of the Muslim community in the Royal Borough and how it currently engages with public agencies

29

• Preparation of a report on existing services for the Muslim community

• Placing greater emphasis on Islamic arts and culture in the

Council's cultural and arts programme

• Work with further education colleges in the borough Sex worker carders Local residents, businesses and tourists have expressed concern about the large number of explicit cards left in public telephone boxes advertising brothels. The Council and its partners have run overt and covert operations to catch individuals who put the cards in the boxes. Extensive efforts are also made to remove the cards as often as possible. Whilst there has been success in taking down the cards and catching perpetrators, the problem remains. The Council is now looking towards working with Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority to find more long-term, sustainable solutions to this problem, e.g. encouraging the mobile phone companies to the calls to the advertised telephone numbers. Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) The Council and its partners make use of ASBOs when they are considered necessary to help tackle antisocial behaviour. There is a protocol in place to make sure that all the necessary agencies are involved in the process. Contrary to public perception most of the ASBOs are not taken out against young people as other interventions have proven to be more successful in addressing their antisocial behaviour. Mainstream Council activity that helps to improve community safety This report has highlighted specific initiatives taken by the Council to help address community safety but there are many other areas of normal Council business that help to contribute towards improving community safety in the borough. Some examples of this are as follows:

• Youth Offending Team • Parks Police

• Graffiti Removal Team

• Street Enforcement Officers

• Work with Young People in Schools and Youth Clubs

• Noise and Nuisance Team

30

• Social Work Support for Vulnerable People who could become Victims

of Crime

• Emergency Planning

• Good Street Lighting

• Applying ‘Secure by design’ standards to the Council’s own capital works and advising developers to do so as well

Green Flag It is appropriate to end this report on a very positive recent note. The Audit Commission announced in December 2009 the results of it Corporate Area Assessments of all local authorities in England. As part of this process it awarded ‘green flags’ to ‘show outstanding achievements or improvements, or an innovation that we think is likely to be successful. This will help other areas to learn from them.’ Kensington and Chelsea was awarded a green flag for reducing crime and the commentary supporting this designation is set out below. This was one of only four green flags for crime and safety in London and 13 nationally.

“As a result of local services working together and the effective use of uniformed officers there are significant and lasting falls in crime in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. All types of crimes are reducing in the area including robbery, car theft and race and religious hate crimes. The area has won national recognition for its work on reductions in burglary from homes. Putting as many officers on the street as possible has been key to this success. Response units are able to spend most of their time on active patrol or dealing with incidents. The average time taken for police to arrive at emergencies has now reduced to nine minutes, and this has resulted in more arrests. Partners are developing an information sharing scheme to gather a better picture of crime in the area, which is innovative. At the beginning of each day front-line officers get an information pack with details of crime trends. This detailed information is also used to make sure that police are patrolling areas where they can make the most difference. This is delivering results. The number of officers who are tackling anti-social behaviour has increased; the Council has paid for 76 Community Safety Officers to patrol the streets each day, and has committed to do so for the next five years. A community anti-social behaviour action team harnesses activity across all public services to improve co-ordination and effective use of resources.

31

Examples of how they do this, include work to divert young men from low-level crime through the Kickz project, teaching football and life skills, and through the Operation Blunt 2 project, which tackles knife crime. Also, linking ‘Acceptable Behaviour Agreements' to tenancy rights has been successful in improving behaviour. The area has successfully tackled street drinking. An area in Notting Hill which was regularly used for street drinking has been improved. Partners worked together to achieve this. Voluntary organisations provided support to specific drinkers, the police and police community support officers took action to tackle anti-social behaviour and the Council took action against licensees and made changes to the street lighting and layout of the benches in the area. A borough-wide alcohol control zone is now in place and delivering results, including reducing noise nuisance, litter and crime. The area continues to develop innovative projects to solve problems. For example the fire brigade and crime prevention service have been working together to help victims of fires in their homes. One way they do this is by providing advice on reducing the risk of burglary and fires when they carry out their follow-up smoke alarm visits.”

End

32

Safer Neighbourhood Teams – Contact Points North Kensington Sector - Inspector Dave Morgan (tel 020 8721 3000)

StCharles.SNT@met.police.uk Golborne.SNT@met.police.uk NottingBarns.SNT@met.police.uk Colville.SNT@met.police.uk Notting Hill Gate Sector - Inspector David Solomon (tel 020 8721 2219)

Norland.SNT@met.police.uk Pembridge.SNT@met.police.uk Holland.SNT@met.police.uk Campden.SNT@met.police.uk

Ward Sergeant Constable Constable Contact No.

Landline

St Charles BA23

Simon Watson

Dawn Baxter Arshad Shaik Umar

Michael Charatan

07747 757591

020 8721 3012 (77 3012)

Golborne BA21

Alex Jueguen

William Gibb Jason Cobb

07843 291150

020 8721 3011 (77 3011)

Notting Barns BA24

Neil Tanner

Claire Bowden

07920 233806

020 8721 3014 (77 3014)

Colville BA22

Ann Cain Paul Dodd Sally Pymont 07768 178110

020 8721 3013 (77 3013)

Ward Sergeant Constable Constable Contact No.

Landline

Norland BK25

Jason May

Emma Benson 07920 233807

020 8246 0165 020 8721 2656

Pembridge BK26

Mike Malekos

John Byrne Jo Stone 07920 233811

020 8246 0218 020 8721 2652

Holland BK27

Graham Warboys

Keith Hughes Nick Hamer 07768 142322

020 8246 0174 020 8721 2717

Campden BK28

Annalisa Andrews

Mark Carter Rob Johnson Sharon Lee

07920 233805

020 8246 0162 020 8721 2658

33

Kensington Sector - Inspector Paul Blanchflower (tel 020 7161 8863)

Ward Sergeant Constable Constable Contact No.

Landline

Abingdon BE29

Don Casey Asad Hussain

Kirstie Miller 07920 233803

78 8855 020 7161 8855

Queens Gate BE30

Steve Scott

Steve King Matt Jenkins 07920 233804

78 8848 020 7161 8848

Earls Court BE31

Qamar Shah Luke Jones Jonathon Jackson

07843 291149

78 8846 020 7161 8846

Courtfield BE32

Rob Menham

Trevor Tang Geoffrey Orchard

07768 178090

78 8849 020 7161 8849

Redcliffe BE33

Dave Jones Vic Lee Steve Wright 07920 233802

78 8847 020 7161 8847

Abingdon.SNT@met.police.uk QueensGate.SNT@met.police.uk EarlsCourt.SNT@met.police.uk Courtfield.SNT@met.police.uk Redcliffe.SNT@met.police.uk Chelsea Sector - Inspector Sean Flynn (tel 020 8246 0317)

Stanley.SNT@met.police.uk Brompton.SNT@met.police.uk Cremorne.SNT@met.police.uk HansTown.SNT@met.police.uk RoyalHospital.SNT@met.police.uk

Ward Sergeant Constable Constable Contact No.

Landline

Stanley BY35

Stuart Hobbis

Jim Andrews Andrew Reilly

07920 233808

020 7161 9167 78 9167

Brompton BY34

Daniel Roberts

Clive Terry James Selway

07768 178122

020 7161 8983 78 8983

Cremorne BY37

Tim Otway Bhavik Patel Paul Delany 07843 291151

020 7161 9166 78 9166

Hans Town BY36

Laurence Boyle

Felix Zinc Ricky Haruna

07920 233809

020 7161 8980 78 8980

Royal Hospital BY38

Nick Thatcher

Keith Mills Ali Smith 07920 233810

020 7161 8984 78 8984