You are here: Home | Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) | Enfield Place | Safer Stronger Communities - Including Feeling Safe

Safer Stronger Communities - Including Feeling Safe

pdf file Download this section

Overview

According to the Health & Wellbeing Survey for Enfield, designed to engage with the public and identify their views of risks to health and wellbeing, crime topped the list of concerns in 2010, with just fewer than two in five respondents (38%) citing fear of crime as a risk to good health and wellbeing.

There were 22,467 victims of crime in Enfield in 2011-12, with the volume of reported offences declining consecutively since 2002-03, when there were 30,042 recorded offences. Since 2004-05 (when the National Crime Recording Standards/NCRS were introduced), there has been a 20% reduction in recorded crime in Enfield, which compares to a 23% reduction across the London region and a 29% reduction nationally. During the same period, serious acquisitive crime (burglary, robbery and vehicle crime) reduced by 12% in Enfield, by 14% across London and by 38% nationally. For violent crime (including violence against the person and sexual offences) during the same period, there was a reduction of 22% in Enfield, 24% across London and 27% nationally.

Total Recorded Crimes in Enfield: 1999/2000 - 2011/12

Total Recorded Crimes
Enlarge the graph showing the Total Recorded Crimes in Enfield 1999/2000 - 2011/12

Source: Police Crime Data

Serious acquisitive crimes account for around 35% of crimes reported in Enfield, with Violent Crime accounting for just fewer than 20% of reported crimes. Serious Acquisitive Crime (with a focus on burglary and robbery) and Violent Crime (specifically Violence Against Women and Girls and Serious Youth Violence), form two of Enfield’s top priorities for community safety.

A further priority is Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), which has been the overall top community safety concern chosen by Enfield residents over the past three years during annual consultation processes.

Perceptions of ASB are measured based on 8 specific nuisance behaviours, including: people using or dealing drugs; rubbish or litter lying around; people being drunk or rowdy in public places; people being attacked because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion; noisy nuisance neighbours; and vandalism, graffiti and other criminal damage. There were 17,622 reports of ASB to police in 2012 with a further 5,761 reports to the local authority regarding environmental ASB (fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, graffiti). In Enfield, since 2008, there has been a 27% reduction in the volume of ASB reports across partner agencies.

Those aged 18-24 and 25-34 are the most at-risk of becoming crime victims in Enfield, whilst those aged 15-19 are severely overrepresented as victims of robbery and serious violence (including knife and gun injuries sustained during assaults). Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups suffer higher rates of victimisation in most crime categories (Enfield SSCB Strategic Assessment 2012 – based on police crime data).

Fear and worry about crime has increased consecutively in Enfield each quarter since March 2011 according to survey data collected by the Metropolitan Police (MPS). Victimisation by gender varies across crime types, with males most likely to be victims of robbery and non-domestic wounding offences and females most likely to be victims of domestic wounding, sexual offences, snatch thefts and pick-pocketing.

In terms of offenders, those aged 10-19 account for the largest proportion of suspects in crimes reported in Enfield (21%), followed by those aged 20-24 (17%). Offenders were predominantly male for all crimes, accounting for 84%. Those offenders who were identified as being part of offending groups (i.e. gangs), were significantly overrepresented as suspects (and victims) in offences of robbery and serious violence, and those offences which involved weapons. That said, weapons were used in just 2.6% of all reported crime in Enfield, with less than 2% of reported offences committed by gangs.

Financial management, including lack of finance, has increasingly been cited as a factor influencing offending, currently 41% of London Probation clients cite financial management as a factor (September 2012, London Probation Assessment Data). Long term drug and alcohol misuse, as facilitating factors of offending, (Criminogenic needs) has been decreasing, although in the latest 12-months (to September 2012), there was a stable performance for alcohol and an increase in offenders citing drugs misuse. Furthermore, there was an increased proportion of offenders yielding positive test results for class A drugs in the past 12-months to September 2012 (31% up from 23%, according to the Drug Intervention Project data).

There is an established evidence base which identifies crime reduction benefits from drug treatment. The National Treatment Agency in a 2012 study showed that clients who were in effective treatment saw an average reduction in offending of -25.7% (National Treatment Agency: Estimating the crime reduction benefits of drug treatment and recovery, 2012). This figure is based on clients who sustain long term recovery. Crime reduction is a central aim of all drug treatment services. In Enfield a specialist Drug Intervention Programme team works exclusively with drug and alcohol related offenders as part of a wider Integrated Offender Management service.  

Early Estimates of proven re-offending rates for adult drug-misusing offenders: December 2011

Re-offending for Drug-Misuse
Enlarge the graph showing Early Estimates of proven re-offending rates for adult drug-misusing offenders: December 2011

Source: Enfield Drug Action Team

Early estimates of proven re-offending by drug misusing clients is currently rising and is now at its highest level in Enfield since April 2009 (35% - 4th highest in London). During the same period early estimates of proven re-offending by Youth Offending Service (YOS) clients has been increasing with the number of re-offences per offender now above the national average.

Another factor to consider is that of mental health. Whilst only a small proportion of offenders in the community have an identified mental health need (1% according to Salisbury Centre for Mental Health, 2008), it has previously been established that those who receive custodial sentences are significantly more likely to have a mental health disorder, or develop a mental health disorder within prison. According to a study in 1998, Psychiatric Morbidity Among Prisoners in England & Wales, more than 70% of the prison population assessed had two or more mental health disorders.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that released prisoners may have unmanaged mental health problems which could be a facilitating factor for reoffending.

Crime and ASB in Enfield occur across all geographical areas, and the nature, characteristics and geographical distribution varies by specific categories of crime and types of disorder. The highest volumes of reported offences occur within town centres and industrial and retail areas (i.e. Enfield Town, Edmonton Green Shopping Centre, Green Lanes – Palmers Green, Southbury Retail Parks, Angel Fore Street, Ravenside Retail Park, Brimsdown Industrial Estate). Personal crimes, such as robbery and violence, are most frequently reported in Enfield’s more deprived wards (the eastern, south eastern, and southern areas of the Borough), the ‘Inverted L’, whereas household crimes (such as burglary) are concentrated throughout most residential areas in the south-west, south-east and north-east of the borough.

The most deprived neighbourhood classification areas tend to have reported rates of crime of 1.6-2.5 times higher than the least deprived neighbourhood classification areas (based on crime data triangulated with ACORN classification data).

Number of Priority Anti-Social Behaviour Concerns by Ward: 2011-2012

Enfield Offence Hotspots: October 2011 – September 2012
Enlarge the map of the Offence Hotspots

Source: Enfield Community Safety Partnership Strategic Assessment: 2011 - 2012

Four wards in particular suffer disproportionately from seven of the eight main volume/priority areas of ASB, those areas being Edmonton Green, Lower Edmonton, Upper Edmonton and Southbury. Those suffering disproportionately from five-six categories are mainly within EN3 and include Enfield Highway, Enfield Lock and Ponders End.

Offenders in treatment (i.e. MPS targets, London Probation or Youth Offending clients, Drug Intervention Programme clients) are unevenly distributed throughout Enfield and reside predominantly east of the A10.

Key issues and gaps

Most offenders come to the notice of community safety services between the ages of 14-18; therefore opportunities for early year’s intervention are often missed. Early year contact points are largely situated within health and education services, for example Sure Start children’s centres, health visits, family nurse partnerships and schools, where risk factors are first likely to be discovered.

Currently, partnership working between community safety and health services is underdeveloped, and opportunities for early prevention and intervention, to protect victims and reduce the likelihood of future offending, may not be as effective as they could be. This has a negative impact on financial and human resources for all services including community safety, health and social care, education, criminal justice system and so on.

From available data on emotional and psychological impact resulting from victimisation (based on serious acquisitive crime and violence), there were over 12,000 separate victims reporting a negative impact in 2012. Crime victimisation is often a risk factor for a multitude of future diseases and health problems, for example panic and anxiety attacks, depression and mental health disorders.

Current gaps in knowledge and service provision could be addressed through improved partnership working, early identification and advice, and by bridging gaps that arise during transitional phases (i.e. victims and offenders often are known individually to health, education, social services, community safety and criminal justice services throughout their lifetime, however, their personal history and engagement patterns across multiple services is rarely accessible to a single service).

Recommendations for consideration by commissioners including short and long term priorities

  • Develop partnership working to cover all services and agencies within the statutory and non-statutory sectors (i.e. specific projects, Public Health/Domestic Violence Partnership Project)
  • Development of incentives for education/training and employment providers to work with young offenders, especially in regard to ensuring realistic outcomes for young people
  • Development of specialist services for communities with higher rates of under-reporting (Black Minority Ethnic groups (BME), the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community (LGBT), those with mental health problems etc.)
  • Encourage reporting of offences
  • Improving data collection, analysis and information sharing
  • Increased commitment and support for services in delivering preventative measures
  • Outreach services for children and young people
  • Providing community based services for victims of crime, including those which deal with health problems resulting from victimisation
  • Reduce the number of victims experiencing repeat incidents
  • Support voluntary and community sector in providing positive activities for young people, mentoring and outreach services
  • Targeted employment and training for offenders

Who is at risk and why?

At-risk of victimisation 12-months to September 2012, police recorded crime data, from SSCB Strategic Assessment 2012)

  • Those aged 18-24 and 25-34 are the most overrepresented age groupings for victims of crime in Enfield.
  • Those aged 15-19 are most overrepresented as victims of street crime (robbery and snatch thefts) and serious violence
  • BME residents are overrepresented as victims for the majority of crime types
  • Males (49%) and females (51%) are represented equally across all crime. However, this varies considerably amongst specific crimes (for example domestic violence victims are mainly female with 86%, whilst robbery victims are mainly male with 84%)
  • Crime reporting rates are higher in more deprived areas / vulnerable localities, predominantly wards east of the A10 and New Southgate/N11.
  • Those residing in N9, N18 and EN3 areas experience have a greater fear of crime and ASB, and equally these post-code districts produce the highest volume of ASB complaints.

Likelihood and risk of victimisation varies considerably by crime type and location, for example, many robbery offences occur on routes between schools and transport hubs from 3pm-6pm Monday to Friday as offenders know that they will encounter young vulnerable people who have expensive mobile phone technology that they can take with ease (school children at-risk). Burglars will target households in wealthier areas where people are likely to be out at work during the day, homes empty and with valuable goods (home-owners at-risk). Stranger violence is more likely to occur during the night-time economy and under the influence of alcohol (drinkers at-risk).

(Enfield SSCB Strategic Assessment 2012 – based on police crime data)

At-risk of offending

The risk factors for offending and substance abuse, according to the Youth Justice Board, overlap significantly with the risk factors for educational underachievement, young parenthood and mental health problems. Risk factors in youth offending include:

Family

  • Poor parental supervision, conflict, history of criminal activity, parental attitudes that condone ASB and criminal behaviour, low income, poor housing

School

  • Low achievement beginning in primary school, aggressive behaviour (i.e. bullying), lack of commitment (i.e. truancy), school disorganization

Community

  • Living in disadvantaged neighbourhood, disorganisation and neglect, availability of drugs, high population turnover and lack of neighbourhood attachment, availability of firearms, community norms favouring drug use, firearms and crime, media portrayals of violence

Personal

  • Hyperactivity and impulsivity, low intelligence and cognitive impairment, alienation and lack of social commitment, attitudes that condone offending and drug misuse, early involvement in crime and drug misuse, friendships with peers involved in crime and drug misuse.

Risk factors of re-offending, and including development into a habitual offender as an adult, can include: thinking and behaviour (i.e. lacking interpersonal skills and underlying hostility or uncooperative behaviour); lifestyle (including friends and associates, peer influences); and poor educational attainment (lack of training or qualifications, leading to unemployment).

Certain childhood experiences, such as abuse by adults or time spent in public care, have been shown to result in children being disproportionately likely to leave school without qualifications, become unemployed young parents and commit offences which result in a prison sentence.

Source: Risk and protective factors Study Youth Justice Board.

Local prevalence

At the end of 2011-12 the rate of crime in Enfield was 70 offences per 1,000 population, with 22,467 offences reported to police in 2012. There were over 35,000 victims resulting from reported offences (one offence can have multiple victims), which means potentially 1 in 10 residents reported being victims of crime in 2012. Furthermore, the British Crime Survey estimates that just 5 in 10 crimes are reported to police with just 3 in 10 recorded as crimes, therefore overall victimisation could be as high as 4 in 10 residents in Enfield (without taking consideration of repeat victims).

Overall crime rates varied across the borough with those wards within the ‘Inverted L’ having rates of up to 135 crimes per 1,000 population whilst in the western wards rates were as low as 42 per 1,000 population.

The most recent Resident Survey data from 2012 shows that 13% of residents, based on approximately 1,200 respondents, perceive ASB to be a big or fairly big problem in their local area. This compares to 26% in 2008 and 45% in 2004.

The emotional and psychological impact resulting from victimisation varies by crime type. According to the British Crime Survey 2012, the most common type of emotional response to crime generally was anger, annoyance and shock. A further breakdown of other emotional responses experienced is shown in the table below with estimated volumes for Enfield based on crimes reported in 2012.

Emotional and Psychological Impact Resulting from Victimisation, by crime type, 2012

Enfield Offence Hotspots: October 2011 – September 2012
Enlarge the Emotional and Psychological Impact Resulting from Victimisation, by crime type, 2012, table

Source: British Crime Survey 2012

The table shows that there were 12,474 reported crimes where one or more persons suffered emotionally and psychologically as a result of their victimisation in 2012. This includes at least 1,384 persons who suffered anxiety or panic attacks and at least 1,223 persons who suffered depression for example.

Currently, victim support services available within Enfield are available and commissioned for violence victims (domestic violence, violence against women and girls, and gangs), however, there are no locally commissioned services available specifically for victims of burglary for example, which surprisingly impacts detrimentally on a larger proportion of victims than all other crime categories.

Describe the existing ‘local offer’

Below is an overview of some of the activity which comes under community safety in Enfield

Acquisitive Crime (burglary, robbery and vehicle crime) & Anti-Social Behaviour

  • Alleygating: Each year the Enfield Community Safety Unit and Environment services work together to successfully gate problem alleyways that run past the back of people’s homes, providing burglars with easy access.
  • Crime Prevention Officers (CPOs): CPOs use their expert knowledge to provide recommendations to local planners and architects for example on the design and layout of buildings for the purpose of reducing crime and opportunities for crime through design. This extends to making recommendations on designing out crime aspects in public spaces where crime or anti-social behaviour occurs.
  • Domehawk Cameras: Domehawk cameras are used by the anti-social behaviour team to collect evidence and deter various types of anti-social behaviour as tasked from the Street Action for Enfield meeting. There are fifteen cameras in use across Enfield.
  • Environmental Crime Unit (ECU): Provides performance and intelligence reports on all aspects of environmental crime and works to pro-actively remove and deal with reports of behaviours such as flytipping, abandoned vehicles and noise nuisance.
  • Graffiti Action Team (GAT): Responsible for removing graffiti from parks, open spaces, the public highway, private land visible from the highway and non-illuminated street furniture in Enfield.
  • Hate Crime Case Management Panel (CMP): Monthly meeting to monitor and discuss incidents of hate crime.
  • Hate Crime Forum (EHCF): A multi-agency group that brings together a number of local organisations to tackle various strands of hate crime such as racial harassment, homophobia, disability hate crime, Islamaphobia and faith discrimination. It brings together the work of the local authority, Metropolitan Police, Enfield Racial Equality Council (EREC), Racial Incident Action Group (RIAG), Enfield Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender network (LGBT), Enfield Faith Forum, Enfield Disability Action and Victim Support.
  • LGBT Network: Lesbian Gay Bi-Sexual Transgender network for Enfield
  • Operation Lesina: Launched by the Metropolitan Police to tackle burglary dwelling in the borough of Enfield.
  • Operation Mayfly: Metropolitan Police initiative addressing crime on public transport (buses).
  • Operation Pullman: Metropolitan Police initiative to address robbery around transport hubs.
  • Operation Target: Metropolitan Police initiative aimed at reducing acquisitive crime in London’s highest volume wards, focussed on Edmonton Green and Upper Edmonton.
  • Parkguard: Parkguard is a private security company which works along the Safer Neighbourhood Parks Unit to tackle the problem of irresponsible dog ownership by engaging with dog owners and offering free training (dog education project).
  • Street Action for Enfield (SAFE): Multi-agency meeting to task resources to deal with issues of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour using intelligence led approaches.
  • Safe House: Multi-agency initiative where vulnerable residents, receive crime prevention advice on home safety from Police crime prevention officers and can have the work carried out by a funded handyman scheme. Aimed at reducing repeat victimisation, particularly for victims of burglary and domestic violence.
  • Safer Neighbourhoods Estate Team (SNET): Responsible for providing support to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in residential areas and estates in Enfield.
  • Safer Neighbourhoods Parks Unit (SNPU): Responsible for policing all parks and open spaces in the borough of Enfield.
  • Safer Tasking Team: Support for Safer Neighbourhood Teams in areas suffering various crime and anti-social behaviour problems within local neighbourhoods and retail and industrial areas (i.e. Operation Napolina, reducing motor vehicle crime at Ikea)
  • Safer Transport Team (STT): Responsible for policing key transport routes throughout Enfield.

Engagement and Scrutiny

  • Community Action Partnership for Enfield (CAPEs): CAPE meetings are made up of members from the public and local business representatives who are met by police, safer neighbourhoods team and community safety representatives across all twenty-one wards. CAPEs provide an opportunity for local policing priorities and information to be shared with the local community.
  • Crime and Safety Scrutiny Panel: The scrutiny panel focuses on the work of the Safer and Stronger Communities Board to look at all aspects of community safety, anti-social behaviour, youth offending and CCTV. Scrutiny processes have covered a range of topics including safer travel to and from school, gangs and knife crime.

Offender Management

Violence

  • Domestic Violence Forum (EDVF): The domestic violence forum is composed of local agencies that provide support and assistance to victims of domestic violence abuse.
  • Domestic Violence Strategic Group: The strategic group brings together key partners to identify resources and provide the strategic direction in ensuring delivery of local work in dealing with domestic violence abuse.
  • Gangs Action Group (GAG): A multi-agency group set up to monitor individuals suspected of gang membership and/or deemed at risk from serious group violence.
  • Gangs Call-In: Several events to offer support to those deemed or perceived to be involved in gangs in Enfield.
  • Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA): MAPPA stands for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. It is the process through which the Police, Probation and Prison Services work together with other agencies to manage the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community in order to protect the public.
  • Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC): Meets on a three-weekly basis to deal with highest risk domestic violence cases.
  • Operation Athena: A Metropolitan Police wide initiative which tackles domestic and hate crimes, since 2006 these have taken place to coincide with partnership campaigns such as White Ribbon Day and International day against Homophobia.

Youth Crime

  • Community Help Point Scheme (CHPS): An on-going campaign aimed at pupils, raising their awareness re the benefits and availability of premises within their areas. Direct result of consultation with young people around their fears and concerns.
  • Detached Youth Team: The detached youth team runs youth activities across the borough to engage and divert young people from crime and anti-social behaviour.
  • Edmonton Unity Team has acquired a major lottery win of £3.4million pounds to refurbish the Craig Park Centre and create a hub for all local young people to learn new skills, take up shared interests and take control of their lives.
  • Junior Citizenship Days: Promotes junior citizenship and helps support children in their transition from primary to secondary education.
  • LEAP programme Resolving Group Conflict: Multi agency delivery team (Safer Schools, YOS, LBE BSS, YSS, ASB Team) have been trained to deliver programmes which focuses around territory, power and revenge. Target work with YOS clients, PRU and other targeted areas.
  • Weapon Sweeps: Weapon sweeps are routinely carried out on a regular basis in areas suffering from serious youth violence and gang tensions.
  • Youth Inclusion and Support Panel (YISP): Targeted work by a multi-agency panel, putting in place support programs for youngsters at risk of offending or anti-social behaviour.
  • Youth Offending Service (YOS): Works with young people whose criminal activity has brought them into contact with the Police or the Courts.

Additionally, the Enfield Public Safety Centre (EPSC) provides combined CCTV control, traffic enforcement and alarm receiving 24-hours a day, seven days a week.

Community resources – input into services and interventions to improve outcomes – local offer

Community resources are used for a range of services in Enfield, particularly with regards to youth work and diversionary schemes, domestic violence and violence against women and girls services and hate crime.

Projected service use and outcomes in 3-5 years and 5-10 years

The Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPAC) has set a target to reduce crime by 20% over the next four years. Therefore, based on this target, the number of reported incidents could see the following changes in Enfield:

  • 22,467 baseline
  • 21,344 (2013-14)
  • 20,221 (2014-15)
  • 19,098 (2015-16)
  • 17,975 (2016-17)

The changes across specific crime categories will vary depending on a plethora of factors, such as: resources; prioritisation; funding; reporting and recording practices; and, socio-economic and demographic changes. For example, Enfield has a significantly high proportion of younger residents, (according to Census 2011 Enfield has over 1 in 5 residents who are 14 and under (21%), this compares to 18.7% in London and 17.6% in England and Wales. Enfield also has the 7th highest highest proportion of 5-7 year olds in England and Wales, 10th highest proportion of 0-4 year olds and 13th highest of 8-9 year olds Enfield also has the 2nd highest proportion of households with no adults in Employment with dependent children in all of England and Wales (8.5%) and one of the highest rates of child poverty)., and we know that young people are overrepresented as offenders; therefore this could have a detrimental impact in meeting targets. Similarly, if the population continues to expand, then there will be more available victims/targets for offenders, again this could impact detrimentally on volume of reported crimes.

This said, reported crime in Enfield declined by 20.6% between 2001 and 2011 (Met Police crime data), whereas the usual resident population increased by 14.2% during the same period (2001 and 2011 Census Data).

Evidence of effective interventions

N/A - Effective interventions are dependent on numerous factors, including likely victims, targets, offenders and locations for crime as well as specific crime activities. Also will be dependent on targeted service users and aims (e.g. treatment aims will differ for victims and offenders).

Please use these links as examples of effective interventions in Enfield:

Enfield Safe as Houses, Burglary Reduction Initiative

Enfield Gangs Action Group.

Tackling Gangs and Serious Youth Violence

There are also three community safety led processes.

Public and user/patient and carers views including quality assurance

An annual face the public exercise is conducted within the borough to gauge whether or not the public are in agreement with the strategic priorities identified within the community safety strategic assessment.

An annual resident’s survey is conducted in Enfield, which includes questions relating to perceptions of anti-social behaviour and fear of crime. For analysis purposes, responses are available at post-code level.

The Metropolitan Police conduct a quarterly survey which asks about fear of crime; this is available at borough level.

Equality Impact Assessments

The Community Safety Partnership produces an Equality Impact Assessment (in March 2008 and updated in March 2011) which sets out ways in which the service contributes to eliminating discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity, and promoting good relations between different groups in the community. This includes, but is not limited to, the following groups:

Enfield Hate Crime Forum, co-ordinated by a full-time Hate Crime co-ordinator, tackling racially and religiously motivated incidents. The forum also links in with,

  • Enfield Disability Action (EDA)
  • Enfield Faith Forum
  • Enfield Racial Equality Council (EREC)
  • Lesbian Gay Bi-Sexual & Transgender network (LGBT)

Violence Against Women and Girls agenda, addressing gender-based violence

Other specific work and groups within the Community Safety Partnership, work with, and have in previous years consulted with: carers; older people; young people; parents; voluntary sector; those of specific races, nationalities or religious beliefs; those in socially, privately rented or owner occupied properties; those not in employment, education or training; those with low educational attainment; lone parents; those on low incomes; and, those in poor health.

Impact on Other Areas

Crime victimisation is a risk factor in a range of diseases and illnesses that may later be treated by the health services, for example:

  • Anxiety / panic attacks
  • Depression
  • Insomnia / Sleep deprivation
  • Mental health disorders
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder
  • Sexually transmitted infections

Furthermore, there is also a cross-over with drugs and alcohol misuse. Drug tests of offenders show that those involved in theft and acquisitive crimes are most likely to test positive for class A substances, whereas those who have been arrested for violent crimes are more likely to have consumed alcohol (Enfield Probation and Drug Intervention Project data 2012).

Various factors within the family (i.e. low income, child poverty), school (i.e. truancy and poor attainment) and community (i.e. availability of drugs) can increase the risk of offending, as can child abuse, time spent in care and domestic violence in the home.

Most offenders come to the notice of community safety services between the ages of 14-18; therefore opportunities for early year’s intervention are often missed. Early year contact points are largely situated within health and education services, for example sure start children’s centres, health visits, family nurse partnerships and schools, where risk factors are first likely to be discovered.

This is most pertinent in relation to violent crime. In the United States early detection and screening tools have been developed by public health, law enforcement agencies and academics to predict and manage future risk of violence. General Practitioners and paediatricians are used to gauge the level of risk by identifying risk factors such as early childhood behavioural problems, poor child rearing methods and low socio-economic status for example. Regular screening for specific problems then leads to appropriate responses such as providing advice and educational resources and referring families to community resources.

Other violence prevention projects in the United States begin during prenatal care, identifying mothers to be who have high-risk characteristics prone to health and development problems in infancy, which can be significant precursors to involvement in violence and crime (i.e. teenage mothers, unmarried, low socio-economic status).

Unmet needs and service gaps

Key unmet needs and gaps for victims include the wider role of crime prevention techniques and support and confidence in reporting and dealing with crime, and furthermore health problems which may result from victimisation.

Key unmet needs and gaps for offenders include appropriate provision of education, training, employment and accommodation (would also enhance the success of service provision which is already in place for drug and substance misusing offenders and priority offenders, i.e. through DAAT and IOM).

Public health should seek to take a more prominent role in violence prevention by working with partners to develop early screening and detection tools and improving referral processes.

Recommendations for consideration by commissioners

  • Develop partnership working to cover all services and agencies within the statutory and non-statutory sectors (i.e. specific projects, Public Health/Domestic Violence Partnership Project)
  • Development of incentives for education/training and employment providers to work with young offenders, especially in regard to ensuring realistic outcomes for young people
  • Development of specialist services for communities with higher rates of under-reporting (BME, LGBT, those with mental ill health etc.)
  • Encourage reporting of offences
  • Improving data collection, analysis and information sharing
  • Increased commitment and support for services in delivering preventative measures
  • Outreach services for children and young people
  • Providing community based services for victims of crime, including those which deal with health problems resulting from victimisation
  • Reduce the number of victims experiencing repeat incidents
  • Support voluntary and community sector in providing positive activities for young people, mentoring and outreach services
  • Targeted employment and training for offenders

Recommendations for further needs assessment work e.g. gaps in knowledge

Non-personalised health data on violence, alcohol and substance misuse to be made available for analysis, pattern identification, resource allocation and crime prevention purposes.

Further information on this topic

Violent Crime

The definition of a violent crime is understood to be any crime in which an offender has some form of physical contact with a victim. Examples of violent crime include robbery, mugging, rape, assault, and murder. Violent crimes can be broken down by those that result in injury, and those which do not result in injury.

Violent Crime Rate in Enfield, per 1000 Population: 2011/12

Violent Crime Rate, per 1000 Population: 2011/12
Enlarge the graph showing the Violent Crime Rate

Source: Metropolitan Police Service

Per 1000 population, Enfield’s violent crime rate was the seventh lowest in London in 2011/12. For every 1000 residents in the Borough, there was just over 13 incidents of violent crime.

Violent Crime without Injury in Enfield: 2006 – 2012

Violent Crime without Injury: 2006-2012
Enlarge the graph showing the number of Violent Crimes without injury

Source: Office for National Statistics

Between 2006/07, and 2011/12, the number of violent crimes in Enfield that have not resulted in injury has been fairly erratic. From 2210 in 2007/08, the figure for 2011/12 had increased to 2500; however, this figure was below that recorded in the previous two years. The trend since 2009/10 has been downward.

Violent Crime with Injury in Enfield: 2006 – 2012

Violent Crime with Injury: 2006-2012
Enlarge the graph showing the number of Violent Crimes with injury

Source: Office for National Statistics

Over the same period, between 2006/07 and 2011/12, the number of violent crimes in Enfield that resulted in injury has fallen steadily. From 2032 in 2006/07, the figure for 2011/12 decreased to 1645. Since 2008/0, the figure decreased year on year.

Sexual Offences

Sexual Offences Rate, per 1000 Population: 2011/12

Sexual Offences Rate, per 1000 Population: 2011/12
Enlarge the graph showing the number of Sexual Offences per 1000 of the population

Source: Metropolitan Police Service

In 2011/12, for sexual offences, Enfield’s rate per 1000 population was 0.87. This means that for every 1000 residents in the Borough, there was a total of 0.87 sexual offences. This is the sixth lowest figure in London as a whole.

Sexual Offences: 2006 – 2012

Sexual Offences: 2006-2012
Enlarge the graph showing the number of Sexual Offences per year

Source: Office for National Statistics

Between 2006/07 and 2011/12 the number of sexual offences committed in Enfield has increased slightly, although figures have decreased steadily for the last two years. In 2006/07 a total of 221 sexual offences were recorded. This figure had increased to 340 by 2009/10; however, between 2010/11 and 2011/12 it has decreased. The latest data, for September 2011 to September 2012 gave a figure of 258.

Re-offending

Early estimates of proven re-offending rates for adult drug-misusing offenders in Enfield, by Drug Action Team: 2009 - 2011

Early estimates of proven re-offending rates for adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug Action Team: 2009 - 2011
Enlarge the re-offending rate chart

Source: Ministry for Justice

Having been fairly stable between 2010 and 2011, the re-offending rate for adult, drug-misusing offenders, has now begun to rise. Since being below 25% between April 2010 and March 2011, the rate is now almost 35%.

The number of drug misusing offenders in the cohort has fluctuated between approximately 190 and 240 people between April 09 and Dec 11, with an average cohort size of 215. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period.

A total of 179 re-offences were committed by 80 of the 229 offenders on the cohort between January 2011 and December 2011. On average, the 80 offenders that did re-offend committed 2.24 offences each. The remaining 149 offenders did not commit any offences, or did not commit any offences that were detected or recorded.

The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders – if people are committing crime, but are not caught or their crimes not recorded, they will not be included in this measure.

Early estimates of proven re-offending rates for juvenile offenders in Enfield, by Youth Offending Team: 2009 – 2011

Early estimates of proven re-offending rates for juvenile drug-misusing offenders, by Youth Offending Team: 2009 - 2011
Enlarge the re-offending rate chart

Source: Youth Offending Team

Between 2010 and 2012, the re-offending rate for juvenile offenders also increased. From 8.6% in April 2010 to March 2011, the rate has increased steadily, reaching the April 2011 to March 2012 figure of 12.6%.

Feeling Safe

As part of the annual Enfield Resident’s Survey, residents are asked about their perceptions of safety in the areas in which they live. Residents are asked to describe how safe they feel, both during the day time, and after dark.

Results for older people (aged 65 and older) are particularly important, as perceptions of safety amongst this demographic can have a significant impact upon individuals’ quality of life. Where older people feel unsafe in their local area, there is a possibility that they will feel, and be, isolated.

In Enfield, how safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area after dark: 2011 (aged 65+) (Weighted base 200)

How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area after dark: 2011 (aged 65+)
Enlarge the feeling of safety chart

Source: Enfield Residents Survey 2011

In 2011, 55% of residents aged 65+ responding to the survey stated they felt safe in their local area after dark. At the same time, 29% of respondents stated they felt unsafe in their local area after dark.

In Enfield, how safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area during the day: 2011 (aged 65+) (Weighted base 200)

How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area during the day: 2011 (aged 65+)
Enlarge the feeling of safety chart

Source: Enfield Residents Survey 2011

When asked about perceptions of safety during the day, 92% of residents aged 65+ responding to the survey stated they felt safe in their local area during the day. At the same time, 5% of respondents stated they felt unsafe in their local area after dark.

In Enfield, how safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area after dark: 2012 (aged 65+) (Weighted base of 191)

How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area after dark: 2012(aged 65+)
Enlarge the feeling of safety chart

Source: Enfield Residents Survey 2012

In 2012, 62% of residents aged 65+ responding to the survey stated they felt safe in their local area after dark. At the same time, 15% of respondents stated they felt unsafe in their local area after dark.

In Enfield, how safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area during the day: 2012 (aged 65+)

How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area during the day: 2012 (aged 65+)
Enlarge the feeling of safety chart

Source: Enfield Residents Survey 2012

In 2012, when asked about perceptions of safety during the day, 97% of residents aged 65+ responding to the survey stated they felt safe in their local area during the day. At the same time, 2% of respondents stated they felt unsafe in their local area after dark.

  • Focus groups and interviews with service users, including those in groups with higher levels of under-reporting (i.e. BME, LGBT).
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of the IRIS pilot and Maternity Payment by Results.
  • Implementation of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Gangs and Groups’ recommendations may lead to the identification of Enfield victims.
  • To evaluate how savings can be realised across preventative programmes.
  • Create a blueprint and action plan for a co-ordinated, preventative approach delivered across agencies
  • Build on the developing good foundations, responding to evidenced need and gaps in provision
  • Initiate a full scale rollout of a partnership invest to save programme

Further information on this topic is available from:

Enfield Community Safety

This page was last updated on 08-Sep-2015.