Community Safety

Executive Summary

Information in this executive summary was correct as at 31st May 2017

Surrey is one of the safest places in England and Wales: Surrey ranked 6th out of 43 police force areas for the rate of police recorded crime in the latest Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). However, crime, and the fear of crime, can have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of residents; the impact of crime and anti-social behaviour on the quality of life affects everyone who lives or works in, or is visitor to, Surrey.

The following issue are discussed within this JSNA chapter:

  • Anti-Social Behaviour
  • Child Sexual Exploitation
  • Cyber Crime
  • Domestic Abuse
  • Modern Slavery, which includes Human Trafficking
  • Serious and Organised Crime

Who’s at risk and why?

Anybody can be a victim of crime or anti-social behaviour, but there are certain groups typically more at risk than the general population. In particular, those aged 20–24, people of mixed ethnicity, lone parents, and those living in ‘cosmopolitan areas’ experience the highest rates of both violent crime and theft.

The JSNA chapter identifies individuals who are at increased risk of the crime types being discussed where this information is available

The level of need in the population

Latest figures from the CSEW show there were an estimated 6.2 million incidents of crime experienced by adults aged 16 and over based on interviews in the survey year ending September 2016.

Nationally, the police recorded 4.1 million offences in the year ending September 2016, an increase of 9% compared with the previous year. Of the 44 forces, 40 showed an annual increase; Surrey Police recorded 59,230 offences in the year ending September 2016, an increase of 8% compared with the previous year.

Services in relation to need

The varied nature of crime and disorder issues means that there will not be a commissioned service for every type of issue. Most responses will fall under the general remit of one of the many partner agencies, such as the local authority, fire service, or police. Where an issues is persistent, or has a high risk of harm, the response will be coordinated either at the local level by the borough and district Community Safety Partnerships, or county-wide by the Community Safety Board, which is the strategic partnership.

There are the commissioned services for a number of these priority issues, which is overseen by a management board, responsible for setting strategies and action plans, and supported by a delivery group, responsible for coordinating and leading on activity.

Unmet needs and service gaps

The JSNA chapter identifies development opportunities within the following areas:

  • Sharing and developing intelligence profiles for priority issue, including Child sexual Exploitation and Serious and Organised Crime
  • More effective dissemination of learning from DHRs
  • Developing better data collection methods across services for domestic abuse

What Works?

There is limited evaluation of community safety initiatives locally. However, the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction has developed the What Works Crime Reduction Toolkit, which summarises the best available research evidence on what works nationally to reduce crime for a range of different initiatives.

Recommendations for Commissioning

The recommendations detailed at the end of this chapter provide overarching recommendations to support the delivery of actions found in the strategy documents of the Community Safety Board, and the strategic management boards.

Introduction

Tableau Preview

Visualisation of data used in this chapter

Open Tableau 

Surrey is one of the safest places in England and Wales: Surrey ranked 6th out of 43 police force areas for the rate of police recorded crime in the latest crime survey[1]. However, crime, and the fear of crime, can have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of residents; the impact of crime and anti-social behaviour on the quality of life affects everyone who lives or works in, or is visitor to, Surrey.

Community safety is an area of work concerned with protecting people, individually and collectively, and their quality of life, from hazards or threats that result from the criminal or anti-social behaviour of others.

Although community safety as an area of work can be defined in a single paragraph, the range of problems and behaviours that it covers is incredibly varied and complex, and community safety is not just an issue for police and fire and rescue services. Local authorities also contribute in a variety of ways. This includes work carried out in:

  • community resilience and emergency planning – ensuring that plans are in place to deal with emergency situations such as flooding, heavy snow and ice, civil unrest or terrorist incidents
  • regulation, licensing and trading standards – such as alcohol and entertainment licenses to help maintain public order, food hygiene certification for businesses to prevent food poisoning, taxi licensing to help prevent Child Sexual Exploitation
  • contributing to anti-social behaviour strategies through a range of council services including lighting, street cleansing, planning and leisure.

Community safety involves various agencies working together with the local community to tackle persistent crime and disorder issues that affect the quality of life of local residents. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a statutory duty on responsible authorities[2] to implement strategies to reduce the levels of crime and disorder in the area in which they operate. This involves working in partnership with a wide range of agencies, such as the probation service and health authority, the local voluntary sector and business community, as well as local community groups.

These organisations come together locally under the umbrella of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) because it is recognised that solutions can be far more effective when agencies work together.

CSPs are required to produce an annual strategic assessment which provides a picture of local community safety problems by analysing the patterns, trends and shifts relating to crime and disorder and substance misuse, and sets clear and robust priorities for their partnership.

In 2012, Surrey adopted a Single Strategic Assessment for the whole county, combining the strategic assessments of the 11 boroughs and districts with the county level Community Safety Agreement required in two-tier areas. Produced on a three-year cycle, and complemented by an annual refresh of partnership activity, this document is designed to help CSPs focus their resources on priority areas, adapt to emerging issues, and get to the root causes of crime and anti-social behaviour.

The strategic assessment was last refreshed in 2016 and will not be reproduced in its current format, being replaced by this chapter of the JSNA. The ambitious nature of this document means that there are a number of information and data gaps which prevent us from fully understanding some of the issues. This document identifies these gaps as part of the unmet needs and service gaps section so that decisions around data improvement can be made.

The recommendations in this chapter are not intended for local implementation by CSPs, but rather for the strategic management groups, which focus on a specific issue and have a countywide remit.

There are a number of issues relevant to community safety which are not included here, such as mental health and substance misuse, because they are covered in detail in their own JSNA chapters. These can be viewed on Surrey-i, along with the overall context of Surrey’s people and places.

This chapter has been produced using the most recent data available at the time of writing. Some datasets are monthly, while others are available on a quarterly or annual basis; other datasets are produced as a one-off snap shot. As a result, not all data will be for the same period.

[1] Surrey ranked 21st out of 43 based on volume of crime. Crime Survey for England and Wales published 19th January 2017. Based on the 12 months to September 2016

[2] Police, local authorities (in Surrey this is the county and borough or district council), fire and rescue service, probation trust, clinical commissioning group

Who’s at risk and why?

Anybody can be a victim of crime or anti-social behaviour, but there are certain groups typically more at risk than the general population. In particular, research by Victim Support suggests those aged 20–24, people of mixed ethnicity, lone parents, and those living in ‘cosmopolitan areas’ experience the highest rates of both violent crime and theft[1]. A more detailed analysis by Victim Support also reveals that individuals with a limiting disability or illness are at a significantly increased risk of experiencing violence and theft after controlling for other factors.

There is, unfortunately, not space within this chapter to consider the full victim demographics for every crime and disorder issue covered in this chapter. However, an infographic is being prepared which will compare victim characteristics with the general population of Surrey. Figures for hate crime are included in the section on level of need in the population.

More detailed information on Surrey’s population can be found in the JSNA chapter: The Surrey Context – People and Places.

The overall crime rate in Surrey for the 12 months to 30th September 2016 was 50.68 crimes per 1,000 residents.

Anti-Social Behaviour

Results from the CSEW for the year ending March 2016 suggest that 28.5% of the population nationally have personally experienced or witnessed anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their local area.

Surrey Police do not routinely record the age, gender and ethnicity of every resident calling to report ASB, so it is difficult to develop a profile of victim risk, however, a subset of victims is surveyed each month. The table below shows the characteristics of a sample of 3,864 victims surveyed between April 2015 and March 2016.

Table 1: ASB victims surveyed by Surrey Police April 2015 to March 2016

Ethnicity Volume % Gender Volume % Age Volume %
Asian 185 4.8 Male 1,848 47.8 16-24 352 9.1
Black 42 1.1 Female 2,016 52.2 25-34 743 19.2
Mixed 80 2.1 35-44 869 22.5
Other 65 1.7 45-54 889 23.0
White 3,423 88.6 55-64 555 14.4
Not stated 69 1.8 65-74 310 8.0
75+ 102 2.6
Not stated 44 1.1

Child Sexual Exploitation

Often referred to as an ‘emerging crime’, the number of cases of child sexual exploitation (CSE) has risen dramatically, with many police forces recording a 100% increase in child sexual abuse caseloads in the past five years.
Any young person regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity and sexuality can be at risk of being sexually exploited. However, there are a number of factors that can increase a young person’s vulnerability. This includes, but is not limited to, the following risk factors[2]:

  • a history of abuse, particularly sexual abuse
  • recent bereavement or loss
  • homelessness
  • low self-esteem or self-confidence
  • being a young carer
  • being in or leaving care
  • links to gangs through relatives, peers or intimate relationships
  • lacking friends from the same age group
  • have social or learning difficulties
  • excluded from mainstream education

Reflecting national findings, children experiencing CSE in Surrey often face a range of additional vulnerabilities. The most recent problem profile (December 2015) indicates that:

  • 88% of CSE victims have experienced at least one missing episode
  • a third were in a short stay school, home schooled or not in any educational establishment at all
  • just under a third feature as being at risk of not being in education, employment or training (RONI)
  • ·one in five CSE victims have a current child protection plan and one in four have previously had a child protection plan in the past
  • a minimum of one in five CSE victims have witnessed parental domestic abuse
  • 16% of the CSE victim cohort are looked after predominantly due to abuse or neglect, or family dysfunction
  • a fifth of all CSE victims have previously made an allegation of rape

Over the 12 months to September 2016, Surrey Police have investigated 64 perpetrators of CSE. The majority of perpetrators are male, between the ages of 18 and 35.

Cyber-Crime

The internet is now integral to the way many residents live. In 2015, Surrey had the 3rd highest rate of internet users in the UK, and 96% of residents surveyed in the 2016 south-east regional cyber-crime survey reported accessing the internet every day, typically spending 1-3 hours online.

There are currently no detailed individual or situational characteristics that can be used to reliably predict victimisation for cyber-crime. Research commissioned by the Greater London Authority[3] suggests that certain groups are more vulnerable than others. In their small sample, this research found a higher proportion of black and minority ethnic respondents, compared to white respondents, reported being a victim of online crime. They also found a higher proportion of disabled respondents were victims compared to those that had no disability.

A recent report by the City of London Police (2016) is the first attempt to provide a national overview of the victims of cyber-dependant crime and cyber-enabled fraud. This national victim analysis is based on reports made to Action Fraud from November 2014 to October 2015; during this time, there were 15,994 victims of cyber-dependent crime and 13,214 victims of cyber-enabled fraud. The analysis found that:

Victims of cyber-dependant crime are more likely to be:

  • male, with a mean loss of £2,355 – 3 times that of females.
  • aged between 40 – 49 years old (for victims of both genders)
  • living in the Metropolitan, Greater Manchester or Hampshire areas.

Victims of cyber-enabled crime are more likely to be:

  • aged between 60 – 69 years old (for victims of both genders)
  • living in the Metropolitan, Sussex and Devon and Cornwall area

Victims of both types of cyber-crime experience severe or significant impact on their health or financial well-being as a result of the offence.

In Surrey, victims of cyber-dependent crimes are most likely to be in their 30’s and 50’s, while victims of cyber-enabled crimes were nearly twice as likely to be in their 70’s as any other age group[4]. The harm caused to victims of cybercrime increases with age with elderly victims feeling a greater impact on their health and financial wellbeing than younger victims.

Domestic Abuse

Persons with certain risk factors are more likely to become perpetrators or victims of domestic abuse. A combination of individual, relational, community, and societal factors contribute to the risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator; these risk factors contribute to domestic abuse but might not be direct causes. Not everyone identified as being “at risk” will experience or perpetrate domestic abuse.

Risk factors include, but are not limited to:

  • low income
  • low academic achievement
  • unemployment
  • age
  • gender, and belief in strict gender roles
  • substance misuse
  • mental health issues
  • social isolation
  • family conflicts and tension
  • economic stress

The CSEW estimates that nationally 1.8 million adults aged 16 to 59 experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2016, equating to a prevalence rate of 6 in 100 adults. Women were more likely to report they had experienced domestic abuse than men, with an estimated 1.2 million female victims compared to 651,000 male victims; however, the difference between the number of female and male victims is the lowest recorded by the survey.

Those who are separated or about to separate from their partner are at the highest risk of domestic abuse, but the following groups of women are also at an increased risk:

  • young women aged 16-24
  • those who are pregnant
  • ·offenders
  • those with young children
  • ·older dependent women
  • those with a long-standing illness or disability

Women are also much more likely to be high-risk victims, indicated by the fact that, nationally, women account for 96% of all Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) referrals.

Nationally, the most prevalent age group for male victims is 16-24 year olds, with 16-19 year olds at greatest risk. Men report experiencing a wide range of abusive behaviours, many of which are common to female victims. Men who suffer domestic abuse are also very likely to have their abuse trivialised by the perpetrator and sometimes by the people around them. This is likely to impact on the numbers of men who report experiencing domestic abuse.

Children and young people are both at risk of witnessing domestic abuse between their parents or carers, and at risk of being victims themselves. Nationally around one in five children have been exposed to domestic abuse[5] and domestic abuse is a factor in over half of serious case reviews [6]. Estimates suggest that 12% of under 11s, 18% of 11-17s and 24% of 18-24s have been exposed to domestic abuse between adults in their homes during childhood. SafeLives data has shown that teenagers under 18 experience domestic abuse at the same level as adult victims and the majority are at risk of serious harm or death.

Specific causes of the domestic abuse of older people may include: a carer’s inability to provide the level of care required; and a carer with mental or physical health problems who feels under stress within the caring relationship.

Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) women are just as likely to experience abuse as any other ethnic group, but are disproportionately impacted by specific forms of violence against women and girls – such as forced marriage and “honour”-based violence – and these experiences of violence intersect and overlap[7]. Research shows that the level of disclosure for BME victims of domestic abuse is far lower than that of the general population [8]. Safelives estimate that victims from BME communities typically suffer abuse for 1.5 times longer before getting help than those who identify as White, British or Irish.

Modern Slavery

Modern slavery encompasses slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour and human trafficking. Traffickers and slave drivers coerce, deceive and force individuals against their will into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment. A large number of active organised crime groups are involved in modern slavery, but it is also committed by individual opportunistic perpetrators.

The scale of modern slavery in the UK is significant. Modern slavery crimes are being committed across the country and there have been year on year increases in the number of victims identified. The first official estimate of the scale of modern slavery in the UK (from the Home Office’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Bernard Silverman) suggested that in 2013 there were between 10,000 and 13,000 potential victims of modern slavery in the UK.

The following people may be particularly vulnerable to the risks of modern slavery:

  • unaccompanied, internally displaced children
  • children accompanied by an adult who is not their relative or legal guardian
  • young girls and women
  • ·vulnerable adults
  • former victims of modern slavery or trafficking

In the UK in 2016, 3,805 people were identified as potential victims of trafficking by the National Referral Mechanism; a 17% increase on 2015 figures. Of the 3,805 potential victims of trafficking identified in 2016, 1,278 were children.

There is no typical victim of modern slavery or trafficking. Victims are men, women and children of all ages, ethnicities and nationalities. Potential victims were reported from 108 different countries of origin in 2016; the three most common countries of origin for potential victims in 2016 were Albania, Vietnam, and the UK[9].

Traffickers or modern slavery facilitators can select victims from amongst vulnerable groups, for example, people with:

  • substance misuse issues
  • debts, in their country of origin or as a result of their illegal migration
  • mental health problems
  • learning disabilities

A common factor of trafficking is that the trafficker will present a scenario in which the potential victim can improve the quality of their life and that of their family. Vulnerable people are often targeted as being easier to coerce into a situation where they can be manipulated.

Serious Organised Crime

Serious Organised Crime (SOC) costs the UK at least £24 billion per year. It’s estimated that there are approximately 5,600 active Organised Crime Groups (OCGs) operating in the UK, comprising about 39,000 people. SOC overlaps with many of the other issues discussed in this chapter because it largely describes a mode of operating, rather than a particular offence. For example, OCGs can be actively engaged with facilitating modern slavery or CSE.

OCGs in Surrey are mainly associated with drugs criminality, specifically drugs supply, but are also engaged in the following:

  • counterfeit goods
  • CSE
  • cyber-crime (ransomware , software support scams, phishing)
  • large scale high volume fraud / financial crimes
  • modern slavery (car washes, nail bars, construction workers, farm workers, restaurant staff)
  • ·organised acquisitive crime
  • ·organised illegal immigration
  • trafficking people and firearms

Communities and groups vulnerable to SOC may include (but not limited to):

  • looked after children and children at risk of CSE
  • ·new communities, such as newly settled migrants
  • prolific drug and alcohol users
  • ·vulnerable and elderly adults

[1] These two crime categories account for almost 80% of all crime experienced by individuals in England and Wales in a given year
[2] A definition of CSE and more detailed information on risk factors is available from the NSPCC and College of Policing
[3] Tightening the net: The Metropolitan Police Service’s response to online theft and fraud (2015). London: Greater London Authority
[4] Based on the City of London Police quarterly profile provided for Surrey (October – December 2015)
[5] Radford, L. et al. (2011) Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. London: NSPCC
[6] Sidebottom, P. et al (2016) Pathways to harm, pathways to protection: a triennial analysis of serious case reviews 2011 to 2014. London: Department for Education
[7] Thiara, R. K. (2012) Domestic Violence, Child Contact, Post-separation Violence: Experiences of South Asian and African-Caribbean women and Children. London: NSPCC
[8] Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office
[9] NCA (2017). Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking: National Referral Mechanism Statistics – End of Year Summary 2016. London: National Crime Agency

The level of need in the population

Latest figures from the CSEW show there were an estimated 6.2 million incidents of crime experienced by adults aged 16 and over based on interviews in the survey year ending September 2016.

Crime covered by the CSEW (excluding fraud and computer misuse offences) increased steadily from 1981, before peaking in 1995. After peaking, the CSEW showed marked falls until the survey year ending March 2005. Since then, the underlying trend has continued downwards, but with some fluctuation from year to year (Figure 1 below). These figures relate to a broad range of victim-based crimes experienced by the resident household population. They exclude, however, some high harm (but lower-volume) offences such as homicide and sexual offences as well as crimes against children.

Nationally, the police recorded 4.1 million offences[1] in the year ending September 2016, an increase of 9% compared with the previous year. Of the 44 forces, 40 showed an annual increase. These increases need to be seen in the context of the renewed focus on the quality of crime recording by the police, in light of the inspections of forces by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Public Administration Select Committee inquiry into crime statistics. This focus is thought to have led to improved compliance with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), leading to a greater proportion of reported crimes being recorded by the police.

Police recorded crime in Surrey shows a similar trend to the national picture. Surrey Police recorded 59,23012 offences in the year ending September 2016, an increase of 8% compared with the previous year.

Figure 1: Trends in Crime Survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime to September 2016

Anti-Social Behaviour

Overall satisfaction with Surrey as a place to live remains very high, as does residents’ confidence and satisfaction in the police and local authorities in dealing with crime and ASB. The perception of ASB in Surrey is also notably lower than the average for all territorial police force areas in England and Wales, as recorded by the CSEW[2].

There are some issues, however, that respondents to the Joint Neighbourhood Survey consistently report as being very or fairly big problems when asked to consider specific community and crime issues in their neighbourhood: traffic congestion, inconsiderate parking, and speeding motorists and anti-social driving topped the list of issues in the year ending March 2015[3].

Figure 2: Perceptions of local issues and anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood

April 2014 – March 2015

Incidents recorded as ASB by Surrey Police reduced by 9.6% in the year ending March 2016 compared to the previous year; between April and July 2016 there was a reduction of 38.5% compared to the same period in 2015. It should be noted, however, that Surrey Police have seen an increase in ASB calls to service that have subsequently been closed as a crime which may be some of the reason for the reduction in ASB.

Figure 3: Anti-social behaviour by category

April 2015 – March 2016

The biggest category of ASB recorded by Surrey Police in the year ending March 2016 was rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour, accounting for 45.4% of all incidents. This is followed by vehicle nuisance / inappropriate use at 21.5%.

Although it is not possible to make direct comparisons between police incident data and the Joint Neighbourhood Survey because the police categories are not aligned to the questions asked in the neighbourhood survey, there is notable difference between the perception and experience of residents. The police category of rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour might reasonably be taken to encompass drunk or rowdy behaviour, and teenagers hanging around on the streets from the residents’ survey, but the high volume of police incidents does not match the perception of the issue. There is some correlation, however, between the volume of police incidents recorded as vehicle nuisance / inappropriate use and perceptions of speeding motorists and anti-social driving as a considerable problem.

In general, there is limited detailed information available on victims and incidents of ASB, particularly from wider partners, and work is being undertaken to improve the analytical products being produced by Surrey Police. This work includes plotting the harm rather than the volume of ASB, overlaid with satisfaction data, the location of repeat and vulnerable victims, the use of the ASB tools and powers, and data from partner agencies such a complaints about noise and environmental issues.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Surrey Children’s Services were aware of 128 children at risk of CSE in October 2016 – an increase of 11.5% from July 2015 when local recording began. 86% of these children are female; 76% are aged between 14 and 17.

Cyber-Crime

Just over 150 cybercrimes were reported by Surrey residents between October and December 2015. Hacking (social media, email and personal) and computer viruses / malware / spyware accounted for the majority of reports of cyber-dependent crime, while Computer Software Service Fraud was the most commonly reported form of cyber–enabled crime from Surrey residents. The total financial loss from both cyber-dependant and cyber-enabled crime in this 3 month period is estimated to be £80,886.

Cyber-crime is underreported to the police and official statistics do not tell the whole picture. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for Surrey commissioned a Regional Cybercrime Survey[4] from the 1st November 2015 to the 1st February 2016 to provide additional information around the extent that residents were falling victim to cybercrime. The survey collected the views of just over 11,600 residents from the South East[5] and 84% of respondents reported that they had experienced some form of ‘attempted’ cybercrime during the last 12 months, with 15% of respondents reporting having been a victim in the last 12 months.

The most common offences victims reported experiencing in the survey were phishing scams followed by online banking fraud.

Domestic Abuse

In the year ending 31st March 2016, 14,498 incidents of domestic abuse were reported to Surrey Police, an increase of 4.5% on the previous 12 months. Of the 7,022 victims reporting in 31st March 2015, 73.4% were female.

Of the total number of incidents reported to Surrey Police from 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016, 45.1% involved children:

  • in 3.1% (448) children witnessed the abuse
  • in 2.3% (335) children perpetrated the abuse
  • in 2.8% (414) children were the victims of the abuse
  • in 36.8% (5,336) of incidents children were involved in some other way

Home Office figures estimate that just over 26,000 women and girls, and nearly 15,000 men and boys aged between 16 and 59 in Surrey have been a victim of domestic abuse in the past year. The disparity between the volume of domestic abuse reported to Surrey Police and the estimated prevalence indicates that a significant amount of domestic abuse remains hidden.

Reported incidents of domestic abuse are significantly more prevalent annually in Spelthorne and Reigate and Banstead.

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 requires CSPs to complete a review of any homicide where the victim was related to, in an intimate personal relationship with, or a member of the same household as the perpetrator. Since this was established on a statutory basis in 2011, there have been 12 domestic homicides in Surrey.

An analysis of the published DHR reports has identified a common theme in over 75 recommendations, with most actions falling into the following categories:

  • application of / adherence to policy – 29.5%
  • staff training and awareness – 21.3%
  • recording and sharing of information – 21.3%
  • assessment / identification of risk – 16.4%

Figure 4: Primary recommendations in DHRs

Many of the actions cut across more than one category, and there is often a relationship between areas. For example there is a clear overlap between staff training and risk assessment because in many cases lack of staff training led to a failure to correctly identify risk and deal with incidents appropriately. There is also a notable overlap between policy management and risk assessment.

There were also 3,837 new referrals to outreach services in 2015-16, an increase of 7.4% on the previous year. A profile of domestic abuse outreach provision, including service referrals by age, gender and ethnicity is available on Surrey-i.

A snapshot of the 933 Child Protection Plans in place in July 2015 shows that domestic abuse was identified as a factor in a third of cases (33.2%). In the same month, domestic abuse was identified as a factor in the case of 2,625 Children in Need.

Hate Crime

Between the 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017 there were 1,438 Hate Crimes in Surrey. This is an increase of 43.1% of offences from the previous year.

In this period, 111 offences were disability related, 89 faith related, and 194 related to homophobia. The greatest increase on the previous year was recorded in disability related crimes, which increased by 56.3% on the previous year, followed by homophobic crimes, which increased by 44.8%; faith motivated crimes increased 25.4%.

Table 2: Hate Crime in Surrey

Volume % change
15-16 16-17
Total hate crime 1005 1438 +43.1
Disability 71 111 +56.3
Faith 71 89 +25.4
Homophobic 134 194 +44.8

Modern Slavery

27 modern slavery crimes have been recorded in Surrey between November 2015, when the Modern Slavery Act came into force, and November 2016. Nearly half of these crimes (13, 48%) were ‘Arrange or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to exploitation’.

Table 3: Modern Slavery offences November 2015 to November 2016

Offence Volume
Arrange or facilitate travel of another person with a view to exploitation 13
Hold person in slavery or servitude 7
Require person to perform forced or compulsory labour 4
Do act prohibited by slavery and trafficking risk or prevention order 2
Commit offence of kidnapping or false imprisonment with intention of arranging travel with a view to exploitation 1

To date, there have been 26 recorded victims of modern slavery, with 5 crimes with no recorded victim. 73% (19) of victims were aged between 11 and 17 years, 23% (6) were aged between 30 and 49, with 4% (1) with no recorded date of birth. 65% (17) of victims were female and 35% (9) were male

35% (9) of victims were recorded as ‘White British’, followed by 12% (3) as ‘Any Other Asian Background’, 8% (2) were ‘Any Other White Background’, ‘Any Other Ethnic Group’ and ‘Asian-Bangladeshi’, and finally 4% (1) were ‘Any Other Mixed Background’. 27% (7) of victims has not stated their ethnicity.

The number of modern slavery offences is fairly low, but it is important to bear in mind the significant harm this causes, as well as the fact the offence is new and will take some time to bed in. Since the start of this calendar year this crime type has been more consistently recorded, and it is likely recorded offences will increase as public awareness and reporting increases alongside a greater professional response.

Serious Organised Crime

Local profiles produced in March 2016 indicated that 127 OCGs (764 members) were active and offending in Surrey. This includes OCGs that are assessed as Tier 4 (monitoring) and also those that will be archived where the OCG has been dismantled or is otherwise no longer offending.

66 Surrey OCGs had impacted upon other forces, mostly in the south east region and there are frequently links between Surrey OCGs.
[1] Excludes fraud
[2] 2.9% of Surrey residents surveyed had a high level of perceived ASB, compared to 8.8% nationally
[3] Latest annual survey data available from Surrey-I
[4] Available to download at https://cybersafesurrey.org/network/index.php?resources/cybercrime-profile-for-surrey.146/
[5] Residents aged 18 years or older from Hampshire, Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Thames Valley.

Services in relation to need.

The varied nature of crime and disorder issues means that there will not be a commissioned service for every type of issue. Most responses will fall under the general remit of one of the many partner agencies, such as the local authority, fire service, or police. Where an issues is persistent, or has a high risk of harm, the response will either be coordinated at the local level by the CSP or county-wide by the Community Safety Board (CSB), which is the strategic partnership.

Through local analysis of patterns, trends and shifts relating to crime and disorder, and substance misuse issues, CSPs set clear and robust priorities for the partnership to address throughout the year. The resulting action plan involves responsible authorities, along with the local voluntary sector and business community, and community groups, working in partnership to implement solutions.

Each CSP is also able to respond to emerging, or short-term community or area based issues through two local working groups: Community Harm and Risk Management Groups, and Joint Action Groups.

The CSB’s purpose is to provide strategic leadership on crime and disorder issues that affect the whole the county. For 2017, the CSB has adopted a ‘two-tier’ approach to strategic priorities, based on issues identified through this document, dividing priorities between those which require coordinated action and those where the board will maintain a watching brief.

The first tier (priorities for action) includes issues where the board needs to initiate or closely oversee partnership activity, where the issue is emerging or has a particularly high impact, or where there are significant decisions or challenges to be made regarding the direction of travel. In these cases the board will expect to receive regular updates for discussion and decision, and focus on one priority issue in detail at each meeting to check progress and identify blockages.

This tier includes high harm crimes as an umbrella term for low volume, high impact issues.

The second tier (areas of oversight) includes issues where the board is confident the strategic direction has been set and delivery is being successfully managed by a sub-group, or where another board owns the overall priority but there is a particular aspect of that issue that pertains to community safety or crime and disorder agenda. In these cases the board will expect to receive regular updates for information only, and may occasionally receive a report for discussion when a decision needs to be made.

Priorities for action:

  • domestic abuse
  • ‘high harm’ crime (serious organised crime, modern slavery, human trafficking)
  • prevent / counter terrorism

Areas of oversight:

  • anti-social behaviour
  • child sexual exploitation
  • mental health crisis
  • reoffending
  • resilience
  • road safety
  • substance misuse

Each priority is underpinned by a management board (see the governance diagram below), responsible for setting strategies and action plans, and supported by a delivery group, responsible for coordinating and leading on activity.

There are the commissioned services for a number of these priority issues as detailed below.

Anti-Social Behaviour

Victims often feel helpless and frustrated and can often be extremely vulnerable members of society; even what might be perceived as low level ASB, when targeted and persistent, can have a devastating effect on people’s lives. To address this situation, the OPCC is currently commissioning a service aimed at supporting victims most at risk of repeat ASB in the county.

The victims’ service will be an independent organisation able to offer practical support or advice, and emotional and communicative support to deal with the impact of the ASB on victims’ daily lives. The service will consist of three strands:

  • empathy (a needs led, face-to-face contact with the victim to listen to their concerns and fears.
  • coping strategies (provide advice and guidance on coping strategies)
  • sign-posting (signpost victims to the appropriate services to deal with the issue and ensure that the victim’s concerns have been heard)

The provider of the victim’ service will also be required to manage referrals under the Community Trigger process. The Community Trigger was introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. It gives victims of ASB the right to request a review of the complaints they have made relating to ASB and brings agencies such as the local authority, police and housing providers together to find a solution.

If a referral fits the trigger criteria a case review will be undertaken by the local CSP to look at what action has been taken already, and decide whether additional actions are possible. The victims’ service provider will then feedback and discuss the plan of action with time scales to the victim.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Operation Makesafe is a campaign seeking to raise awareness of CSE within the business community, including those working in hotels, taxi companies and licensed premises. The campaign aims to educate and equip those working in these industries with the tools to identify potential victims of CSE. It gives those working in the business community the confidence and ability to report suspicions or concerns that they may have about a vulnerable child to the police.

Training was delivered to staff working in hotels, taxi companies and licensed premises throughout February 2017 in advance of the launch of Operation Makesafe in March 2017.

Cyber-Crime

The OPCC operates the Surrey CyberSafe Network, an online tool for local professionals and practitioners, intended to support them in protecting our communities from cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crime.

The main aim of the project is to work in partnership to raise the profile and understanding of cyber-crime across the county, to ensure that we work together to prevent our communities becoming victims. This will involve the sharing of information, resources and knowledge between to partners to allow the development of best practice, and to make use of all the communication channels available to all involved parties, so that messages can get out to communities loud and clear.

The CyberSafe Network provides:

  • a regularly updated resource hub
  • easy access to the latest news, warning and cyber-crime prevention messages
  • email alerts
  • easy networking
  • shared Network calendar

Domestic Abuse

There are several commissioned services for domestic abuse, including outreach services, a telephone helpline and specialist support centres for rape and sexual abuse.

Four local outreach services (East Surrey Domestic Abuse Service, North Surrey Domestic Abuse Outreach, South West Surrey Outreach and yourSanctuary, operating under a single consortium) provide support for all areas of the county. Services include a confidential listening service, specialist advice, counselling and group work, advocacy, information and support on a variety of issues. The outreach services will also sign-post victims to other relevant support and make referrals to other specialist services. All outreach services work with male survivors, with North Surrey Domestic Abuse Outreach offering a dedicated men’s service.

The Surrey domestic abuse helpline is a 24/7 service run by yourSanctuary. A confidential service, it provides immediate emotional support to people experiencing domestic abuse, as well as information and signposting.

Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) provide a practical support service to victims, based in the local domestic abuse outreach services. They contribute to increasing victim safety, reducing repeat victimisation, and retaining victim engagement with the criminal justice system. IDVAs focus on the victim before and after their court case, to keep them updated. They advise the court, and liaise with the prosecution to ensure the victim’s account of events is heard. IDVAs in Surrey also provide support to high risk victims whose cases are being heard at the MARACs.

Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) deal with first hearings, administrative hearings and sentencing in order to fast track domestic abuse cases through the criminal justice system. SDVCs facilitate links with multi-agency partnerships and county domestic abuse approaches including the MARAC and Sexual Assault Referral Centre.

Surrey Sexual Abuse Referral Centre (SARC) is a 24/7 dedicated facility where sexual assault victims of all ages can receive appropriate medical care, emotional support and counselling. At the same time victims may assist with police investigations by having a forensic examination for high standard evidence collection, if they so wish. The service covers the whole of Surrey.

The Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre for Surrey (RASASC) offers help lines and counselling appointments for victims and their close family or partner. RASASC also manages the Surrey Independent Sexual Violence Advisor services for vicitms, which run from the RASASC and the SARC on different days. Advisors assist with the holistic recovery of a victim, which may include using the criminal justice system.

A Sanctuary Scheme also operates in Surrey, administered locally by the borough and district councils and accessed via the local outreach services. The scheme aims to protect victims from becoming homeless by providing additional security in their home.

The Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) Project in Surrey is a General Practice based domestic abuse training, support and referral programme for primary care staff and provides care pathways for all adult patients living with abuse and their children.

An IRIS service has been introduced in East Surrey and is making victims of domestic abuse more visible by providing a clear pathway for clinicians and healthcare professionals to refer those who have been subjected to emotional or physical abuse by their partner to the East Surrey Domestic Abuse Service (ESDAS). Evidence shows that 80% of women in a violent relationship seek help from health services, often their GP, at least once, so it is vital that those whom victims choose to confide in are confident in directing them to appropriate support and intervention services. The experience in East Surrey shows how effective IRIS can be: between March 2015 and March 2016 ESDAS recorded a fivefold increase in the number of GP referrals, up from 9 to 47 referrals in just a year.

The Domestic Abuse Management Board has commissioned Stepping Up, a domestic abuse intervention for perpetrators. The scheme works with male and female perpetrators of domestic abuse, their current partner or, if their relationship has ended, their ex-partner.

Perpetrators can be known to the criminal justice system, but it is not a punitive sanction. Instead, it aims to provide an early intervention to work with perpetrators at the earliest opportunity to facilitate change by helping individuals to explore their beliefs, look at the impact of their abusive behaviour on others, and change abusive behaviour and thoughts.

At the time of writing there is no information available on the first cohort of this programme, although information will be published when possible.

The Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company offer a Building Better Relationships (BBR) to male offenders convicted of a domestic abuse related offence where this is part of their sentence, or it is a condition of their prison licence. They are supervised by an Offender Manager who is responsible for assessing and managing the risk men pose to the public and for managing and enforcing the entire order. If men do not comply with their order, the Offender Manager will ensure that they are taken back to court.

Safeguarding

In addition to the services directly commissioned for specific issues outlined above, there are a number of general programmes designed to respond to safeguarding issues, which will impact on many of the topics raised in this chapter

The Surrey Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) is the initial point of contact that aims to improve the safeguarding response for children and adults at risk of abuse or neglect through better information sharing and high-quality and timely responses.

The Surrey MASH achieves this by bringing together Surrey County Council social care workers, early help services, health workers, Surrey Police, and a vast array of virtual partners across Surrey in one location at Guildford Police Station. By being able to share relevant information between them quickly and confidently, the MASH aims to identify need, risk and harm accurately to allow timely and the most appropriate intervention.

The Surrey Family Support Programme uses a key worker to build a relationship and rapport with families experiencing a range of interwoven problems that are impacting on their wellbeing. Families eligible for the programme are those with complex needs requiring a holistic approach. These families will usually have two or more of the following issues:

  • mental or physical health issues
  • historical or present domestic abuse
  • involvement in crime or anti-social behaviour
  • children with low attendance at school or behavioural problems
  • children in need of additional help and support within the home
  • parents and young people may be unemployed, without a clear pathway into work.

All relevant agencies will work as part of a Team Around the Family for each of the families. The Family Coordinator or Lead Professional engages with the family, gains consent for information sharing and creates a partnership agreement. They then assess family function using a range of evidence based tools and interpret their findings with the help and additional insight of a team of multi-agency practitioners. A Family Support plan is formulated in partnership with the family giving a clear action plan with timescales, priorities, goals and review built into the process. Multi-agency resources are used to support family change with the Family Coordinator or Lead Professional organising delivery. Progress is monitored through a six week review process until the family has met their planned outcomes and can be integrated into their local community with universal services and any further resourcing that is required.

Unmet needs and service gaps

There are some issue specific service gaps outlined below, but it is also worth noting the general shift which is required in services from a volume focus to high-risk and high-harm issues. It is becoming is apparent that there is a local picture of individuals with complex needs who have repeat or overlapping presentations to multiple services. The vision (which is starting to be implemented) is increasingly for commissioned services to become part of a system-wide response, delivered alongside other complex needs or priority services in Surrey. Services need to link more closely to improve partnership working and where possible contribute to the joint care plan for these clients, thus improving outcomes.

Anti-Social Behaviour

The ASB Strategy Group is developing a performance management framework (which will be shared with the CSB) with a county wide suite of performance indicators based upon numbers of cases discussed, risk rating and highlighting those cases involving the most significant vulnerability. Qualitative analysis of interventions would also give a greater understanding of what works and where funding should be focused in the future.

Child Sexual Exploitation

The Sexual Exploitation and Assault Management Board has commissioned Surrey Police to produce a CSE profile for the county. Limited excerpts of this profile have been shared for the purpose of this chapter, although the full profile has not been shared. It is important that this information is made more widely available in order for partners to fully understand the size and nature of the issue.

Domestic Abuse

The purpose of a DHR is to:

  • establish lessons to be learned regarding the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually and together to safeguard victims;
  • identify clearly what those lessons are, what timescales they will be acted on, and what is expected to change as a result;
  • apply these lessons to service responses including changes to policies and procedures as appropriate;
  • prevent domestic homicides and improve service responses for all domestic abuse victims and their children through improved intra and inter-agency working.

DHRs are vital to inform policy and practice and all agencies have a responsibility to disseminate learning. Publishing the report and action plan is only the beginning of the process – it is imperative we share the learning, ensure positive outcomes for residents and respond to common themes. In Surrey, information on DHRs is collated centrally and the CSPs have adopted ‘learning leaflets’ to show evidence of impact from recommendations.

There is limited evidence of impact / outcome for the DHRs published so far, largely because of process used to develop recommendations. In order to address this, the process should be reviewed so that:

  • the review panel should discuss and agree recommendations with the organisations concerned to ensure actions are achievable and all parties are clear what is expected;
  • there is an ongoing relationship / regular communication between the CSP and agencies delivering recommendations;
  • there is ownership of action plan by the CSP with regular critical appraisal of progress of recommendations within a CSP

Domestic abuse is an issue which cuts across age, gender and ethnicity, and, as a result, information on victims, perpetrators and those who suffer as an indirect result of domestic abuse is held by a number of different services in Surrey. This includes the police, but also probation services, adults and children’s social care, and commissioned support services.

Drawing these different sources of information together, particularly within the limited space of this product, is a difficult task. There are overlaps at the individual level in the records held by the police, social care and outreach services, but it is unlikely that these datasets can be combined to provide an accurate picture of need. Greater consistency in the publication and sharing of this information will help, however, as this will provide a broader view than datasets in isolation.

There is also a need to develop Surrey’s data collection methods to address key data gaps, such as the number of children and young people experiencing and witnessing abuse, and the nature of this abuse. So far, most of the information in this area is anecdotal.

Work is ongoing to develop a joint commissioning plan for domestic abuse, linking to the commissioning strategy in terms of our offer to children, including shared needs assessment and analysis, commissioning intentions and priorities, and outcomes.

Serious Organised Crime

Surrey Police produces a SOC profile for each of the four clusters in the county, but these have not always been written in a way that enables local borough and district colleagues to take action. As such, the local profiles should be developed in collaboration with CSPs to ensure they are accessible and of sufficient detail to support partnership implementation. Given the changing nature of the harms CSPs are dealing with, there is a need to build shared knowledge on threats and understand our collective intelligence requirements.

What works

There is very limited evaluation of community safety initiatives locally, so it is difficult to say with any authority what works in this context. There is, however, a wealth of information available nationally that can help make more informed decision and secure value for money.

The College of Policing established the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction in 2013 to focus on reviewing research on practices and interventions to reduce crime; label the best available evidence on interventions in terms of impact on crime reduction, how they work, where they work, how to do it and economic cost; and provide stakeholders with the knowledge, tools and guidance to help them target their resources more effectively.

The What Works Crime Reduction Toolkit summarises the best available research evidence on what works to reduce crime for a range of different initiatives, such as CCTV, hot-spot policing, mediation, and street lighting. Each initiative is graded for its impact, how and where it works, conditions for implementation and cost.

Recommendations for Commissioning

This needs assessment makes a number of recommendations in the following areas:

  • Establishment of outcomes-based monitoring to evidence delivery of the aims of interventions, commissioned services or reviews, in particular DHRs
  • User involvement in understanding commissioning needs and outcome delivery
  • Develop better projections for future service demand of ‘emerging’ crimes (CSE, modern slavery and human trafficking)
  • Improved data sets and analytical capacity for greater understanding of the Surrey picture and trends around specific issues
  • Explore how we better share and improve intelligence to inform our understanding of new and emerging threats
  • Explore how we better share and improve intelligence to support collaborative working
  • Work to reduce the barriers faced by vulnerable and repeat victims. This includes improved working relationships, training and awareness raising for professionals, joint delivery of services and commissioning of services

Key contacts

Richard Carpenter, Community Safety Officer, Surrey County Council.

richard.carpenter@surreycc.gov.uk

Chapter References

Arnett, N. 2016. Surrey’s Cybercrime Profile. Guildford: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey. Available from: https://cybersafesurrey.org/network/index.php?resources/cybercrime-profile-for-surrey.146/

Flatley, J. Crime Survey for England and Wales: year ending Sept 2016. Published 19th January 2017. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingsept2016

NCA. 2017. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking: National Referral Mechanism Statistics – End of Year Summary 2016. London: National Crime Agency. Available from: http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/national-referral-mechanism-statistics/2016-nrm-statistics/788-national-referral-mechanism-statistics-end-of-year-summary-2016

Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N. and Collishaw, S. 2011. Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. London: NSPCC. Available from: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/childstudy

Sidebotham, P., Brandon, M., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Dodsworth, J., Garstang, J., Harrison, E., Retzer, A., Sorensen, P. 2016. Pathways to Harm, Pathways to Protection: A Triennial Review of Serious Case Reviews 2011-2014. London: Department for Education. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/analysis-of-serious-case-reviews-2011-to-2014

The London Assembly Police and Crime Committee. Tightening the net: The Metropolitan Police Service’s response to online theft and fraud. 2015. London: Greater London Authority. Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/tightening-net

Thiara, R. K. 2012 Domestic Violence, Child Contact, Post-separation Violence: Experiences of South Asian and African-Caribbean women and Children. London: NSPCC. Available from: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/domestic-violence-child-contact-post-separation-violence-report.pdf

Walby, S., and Allen, J. Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office; 2004.

Signed off by

Surrey Community Safety Board, 14th June 2017