Your Councillors


Appendix 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMP1 (Small)

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Assessment

2018-19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                                     Page

 

1.

Introduction

3

 

1.1  What is a Strategic Assessment?

1.2  Local perspective   

1.3  Headline information aligned to key priorities 2017-2018      

1.4  Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP)

1.5  Priorities recommended to the SMP for 2018-2019  

1.6  Methodology

1.7  Demographic and Economic Information    

3

3

4

5

5

6

6

2.

Total Recorded Crime

7

 

2.1  Total recorded Crime in Maidstone November 2016 - October 2017

2.2  Police SPC Charts – Force wide Jan13 – Nov 17

2.3  Police SPC Charts – Maidstone Jan 13 – Nov 17     

2.4  Maidstone Crime Survey 2017 results

2.5  Total recorded crime per 1,000 population in Kent – year ending March 2017

2.6  Volume of crimes by type within Maidstone for November 2016 – October 2017 and the same time period in 2015 - 2016                                                      

7

8

9

10

13

13

3.

Violent Crime

14

 

3.1  Total Violent Crime 

3.2  Levels of Violence in the Borough Wards April 2017 – October 2017

3.3  Violent crime – Other          

3.4  Domestic Abuse

3.5  One-Stop Shops & Sanctuary

3.6  Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARACs)        

14

16

16

17

18

18

4.

Anti-Social Behaviour & Statutory Nuisance

19

 

4.1  Anti-Social Behaviour in Maidstone 

4.2  Statutory Nuisance

4.3  Community Trigger

19

20

20

5.

Substance Misuse                             

20

 

5.1  Substance Misuse in Maidstone                                                              

5.2 NPS related hospital admissions   

5.3 Alcohol related hospital admissions

5.4 Clients in treatment  

5.5 Countrywide Young People’s statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS)

5.6 Needle Finds

5.7 Substance Misuse recommendations               

20

21

21

22

23

 

24

24

6.

Reducing Re-Offending

25

 

6.1  Availability of ‘Proven adult reoffending’ Data         

6.2  Integrated Offender Management (IOM)       

6.3  Reducing Re-Offending recommendations  

25

25

25

7.      

Local Profiles

26

8.

Safeguarding (self-neglect & hoarding)

26

9.

Mental Health

26

 

9.1 Mental Health recommendations

27

10.  

Unlawful Encampments (UE’s)

27

11.

Environmental Crime

27

12.

Recommendations to Safer Maidstone Partnership

27

13.

How to get further information

27

 

      

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix 1 Information sources

28

Appendix 2 – KCC Community Warden Case studies

29

Appendix 3 – Methodology notes

31

Appendix 4 – Acronym glossary

Appendix 5 – Maidstone Crime Survey 2017 – Community Safety questions

33

34

 

 

1.     Introduction

 

1.1 What is a Strategic Assessment?

 

Section 6 of the 1998 Crime & Disorder Act requires the responsible authorities (commonly referred to collectively as a Community Safety Partnership (CSP) in a local government area to work together in formulating and implementing strategies to tackle local crime and disorder in the area. The 2007 Regulations set out the way in which the responsible authorities should carry out their functions as a CSP under Section 6 of the Act, and require the preparation of a partnership plan for the local government area, setting out the CSP’s priorities;

 

Locally, our Community Safety Partnership (CSP) is known as the ‘Safer Maidstone Partnership’ (SMP). Each year an assessment is completed that identifies any crime and disorder trends which can then be used to inform the priority planning for the SMP in the coming year.  This then feeds into the partnership plan and ensures we are focusing our efforts collectively on the areas that are most in need.  This is done by analysing data and intelligence reports from the previous year to produce recommended priority areas that the data is telling us are of most threat, risk and harm to the community.

           

1.2 Local perspective

 

It should be noted that part of the reason for increases in certain offences this year is because of changes in the recording of offences from April 2017.  For example, a single offence of affray involving 6 people is now counted as 6 incidents instead of being collated together as one.

 

Certain crimes have also been re classified into other thematic areas, also where a particular offence has been targeted for enforcement and individuals have been caught and charged; there will inevitably be a percentage increase in offences recorded. The results of reclassifications and targeted enforcement will be known in future quarterly crime briefings and strategic assessments.

 

Kent Police have had an organisational restructure. ‘New Horizon’ structural changes have been specifically designed to enhance the quality of service to vulnerable victims by ensuring crime is allocated based on the victims needs not the motivation of the offender or the seriousness of the offence. There are now designated PCSOs in different areas including: Missing Child Exploitation Team Officers, Vulnerable Adult Intervention Officers, Youth Engagement Officers and Domestic Abuse Support Officers.

 

The latest (2017) HMIC PEEL (police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy) assessment of Kent Police reported: ‘Kent Police is judged to be good in the efficiency with which it keeps people safe and reduces crime. Our overall judgment this year is the same as last year. The force is judged to be outstanding in its understanding of demand; its use of resources to manage demand is assessed to be good; and its planning for future demand is judged to be good’.

 

In July 2017, the council’s Community Safety Officers joined with the Environmental Enforcement Officers to create the Community Protection Team (CPT), a new specialist team bringing together various elements of enforcement into one team.  Historically, there had been a degree of input on the same case from both teams.  This new team now takes a broader approach to case working, making the service more efficient and proactive when dealing with threat, risk, harm and vulnerabilities.  Training has taken place by all staff in the areas that they were not so experienced in, resulting in greater resilience across the team.

 

The CPT also takes a larger role in unauthorised development cases such as ‘matrix’ sites or sites of significant interest.  These may require a multi-agency approach where planning breaches may have occurred or co-ordinated targeting to disrupt an organised crime group is needed for example.

 

 

 

1.3 Headline information aligned to key priorities from 2017-2018:

 

Organised Crime Groups (including modern slavery)

 

Partners and Police have established a District based forum to share information around Organised Crime Groups (OCGs).  This has been used to target a local carwash based OCG and disrupt the criminal activity linked to it. A number of brothels have been closed down with a significant eastern European OCG dismantled and brought to justice; this investigation has also led to arrests in both Lithuania and Poland.

 

Gangs and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)

 

The Maidstone Gangs meeting discusses intelligence relating to local gangs and forms action plans to disrupt their behaviour. As well as lower level local gangs, a number of London street gangs are associated with the area and their drug networks, exploiting vulnerable people.  A number of targeted multi-agency operations have taken place in the town which have had the positive outcome of disrupting gang activities in the borough. Work is being done in secondary schools to help educate young people on the risks of becoming a gang member and gang culture.

 

Substance Misuse

 

Education, prevention, enforcement and treatment remain at the forefront of the SMPs response to substance misuse issues in Maidstone.  Figures this year show a 1% drop in drug offences, a 50% sign up to the ‘Reduce the Strength’ scheme from off-licences that were approached in the town centre and a 12% rise in alcohol related hospital admissions.  We continued to fund a theatre project delivered to all year 6 pupils raising the awareness of substance misuse and worked with ‘Community Payback’ to turn an ASB hotspot in the town centre frequented by street drinkers and drug users into a community garden.

 

Domestic Abuse and other violent crime

 

Maidstone has seen an increase of 11.6% in DA crimes and serious incidents (Kent Force increase was 10.3%). Other Violent crime rose by 43%. One Stop Shop use is down 7%.  Maidstone has the second largest night time economy in the south, and stranger violence in the town centre was the lowest for some time this festive period. Domestic violence accounts for 60% of all violent crime and this will continue to increase as the public are reassured that they can be safeguarded if they come forward and report domestic incidents.

 

Sexual offences (especially rape) is on the increase, but up to 75% of this is historic reporting often by domestic abuse victims who are no longer frightened to come forward and report offences. The new vulnerability police model for investigation is providing an enhanced service to victims and there continues to be more reporting as police and partners increase accessibility to services and safeguarding.

 

Mental Health (including identification of vulnerabilities)

 

In Maidstone during 2016-17, the use of Section 136 (where those experiencing a mental health episode are detained under the mental health act for their own or others safety) rose by 7.5% to 72. Young Adult mental health referrals were down by 10.9% to 1,232, Older Adult referrals rose by 8.3% to 756.

 

The SMP held a sub-group meeting for the Mental Health priority which conducted a ‘horizon scanning’ exercise on the provision, trends and risks around mental health in the borough.  It was noted that there were already other forums where mental health is discussed at a strategic level such as the Mental Health Action Group and the Kent & Medway Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat. We have decided to link in with those groups rather than introduce a specific sub-group for this priority. 

We seek to raise the profile and lower the stigma of mental health through the promotion of awareness campaigns and the inclusion of mental health considerations in organisations operating procedures and policies for example.

 

1.4 Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP)

 

The SMP brings together people from local government, the NHS, the police, the fire service, probation, local businesses, housing providers and the voluntary and community sector to work as a team to tackle crime. 

 

The priorities identified from the last strategic assessment (2017-18) were:

 

  • Organised Crime Groups (including modern slavery)
  • Gangs and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
  • Substance Misuse
  • Domestic Abuse and other violent crime
  • Mental Health (including identification of vulnerabilities).

                                                                                           

Emerging themes that occurred through the year:

 

This year, no new emerging themes or trends occurred through the year that were not already named priorities. However, it was suggested and agreed at the Safer Maidstone Partnership meeting that ‘Other Violent Crime’ be removed as a priority in name. 

 

This was due to the fact that a substantial proportion of violent crime incidents were Domestic Abuse related. Any non-related serious violent crime is already dealt with robustly by the police and a degree of cases have a cross-over into other areas such as Gangs, OCG’s and Substance Misuse. It is not therefore necessary to be included as a specific priority.

 

These priorities were closely aligned with the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner’s Safer in Kent plan and that of the Kent County Council community safety agreement to ensure a continuity of strategy locally. Consideration has also been given to the Kent Police ‘Control’ strategy which is a 4-year plan that’s reviewed yearly. Their current 6 key priorities are:

 

  • Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
  • Gangs
  • Human trafficking and modern slavery
  • Organised acquisitive crime
  • Counter terrorism and domestic extremism
  • Domestic abuse, serious violence and sexual offences

 

1.5 Priorities recommended to the Safer Maidstone Partnership for 2018 – 2019.

 

Our priorities for this year have been extracted from a wide variety of information shared with our partners and represent the most important issues to focus on this (2017/18) year.  Based on the information in this Strategic Assessment, it is recommended that the Safer Maidstone Partnership confirm the following five 2018/19 priorities:

  • Organised Crime Groups (including modern slavery);
  • Gangs and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE);
  • Substance Misuse;
  • Domestic Abuse;
  • Mental Health.

 

These priorities (except violent crime) are the same as last year and have again been borne out by the use of the MoRiLE scoring matrix which ranks priorities based on threat risk and harm to the public and organisations. They are similar to the Police Control Strategy priorities and that of the Police & Crime Commissioner’s Safer in Kent Plan.

 

‘Prevent’ and Reducing Reoffending continue to be cross cutting themes rather than named priorities along with ASB. All the priorities require a robust multi-agency response, but as they are important for residents and communities, achieving them will have a positive impact on people’s quality of life.

 

1.6 Methodology

 

Data for this year’s Strategic Assessment has been sourced by the Kent Community Safety Unit from a variety of statutory partners including Police, Health, Probation and KCC Services. They are available in the Partnership data sets section on the Kent Safer Communities portal. A number of different data display tools have been included in this year’s assessment for the purpose of putting the context of crime data into more perspective, over a longer period of time.

 

Maidstone Borough Council and other authorities in Kent have again incorporated the MoRiLE (Management of Risk in Law Enforcement) scoring matrix methodology of ranking offences based on threat, risk and harm within this year’s Strategic Assessment. (Appendix 3). 

 

Statistical Process Control Charts (SPCs) have been used again this year. These give a clearer visual perspective of crime figures over a specified timescale and allow for natural variations within the control limits. (Appendix 3).  Serious Organised Crime Local Profiles are published by Kent Police for each Local Authority area.  They highlight the risk for each topic in the Police ‘CONTROL’ strategy and offer advice to partners around what to look out for. (Appendix 3).

 

Most of the data relating to crime and disorder collated for this strategic assessment covers the period November 2016 – October 2017 unless otherwise stated. Changes to crime definitions in 2013 and to data collection practices, means that comparisons before 2014 were not always possible. The data in this assessment will be used to identify trends in criminal activity in Maidstone and is cross referenced with other districts and previous Maidstone data sets to highlight specific issues in Maidstone.  

 

The Maidstone Residents Survey 2017.  Often, the perception of levels of crime and the likelihood of being a victim of crime don’t always correlate.  Indeed, many older members of the community may feel at risk when they are less likely to be a direct victim.  Adversely, teenagers may feel less at risk despite being a cohort who statistically are more likely to be victims. 

 

The resident’s survey is a large document full of data explaining the social demographic of the borough and people’s views on a number of issues. The survey will be published in due course. Within the Strategic Assessment, we take a snapshot at these results at ward level and compare people’s perceptions to the numerical reality of different crime types in different areas. A precis of the survey specific to community safety issues is attached (Appendix 5).

 

To assist with conveying the message that the likelihood of being a victim of crime may not be as high as is once thought, positive media messages from all agencies will be promoted.  Not only around crime prevention but also championing success stories such as convictions of offenders etc.

 

1.7 Demographic and Economic Information

 

Population profile

The latest population figures from the 2016 Mid-year population estimates show that there are 166,400 people living in the Maidstone Borough. This population size makes Maidstone Borough the largest Kent local authority district area.

 

75% of the borough’s population live in the Maidstone urban area with the remaining 25% living in the surrounding rural area and settlements. 

 

Over the last 10-years Maidstone’s population has grown by 14.5% (an additional 21,100 people). This is the second highest rate of growth of any Kent district. The growth in Maidstone’s population is set to continue with current forecasts suggesting a further increase of 24.3% between 2016 and 2036. This rate of growth is higher than the county average (22.2%).

 

This forecast is based on KCC’s assessment of the district authority’s future housing targets as at September 2017. Such targets will be subject to changes as district authorities develop their Local Development Framework.

 

In 2015 Maidstone Borough was ranked as the 9th most deprived district in Kent (out of 12 districts, with the most deprived being ranked 1).  Nationally, Maidstone ranks 198th out of 326 local authority districts in England.  This rank places it within England’s least deprived half of authorities.

 

Unemployment rates

 

Maidstone’s unemployment rate is currently 1.2%. This is lower than the county average of 1.7% and the national average of 1.9%. In September 2017 there were 1,230 unemployed people in Maidstone which is 0.4% higher (5 more people) than August 2017 and 0.8% higher (10 more unemployed people) than September 2016.    

 

 

                                                         

 

2. Total Recorded Crime

 

 2.1 Total recorded Crime in Maidstone November 2016 - October 2017

 

This section looks at total crime data and is followed by a more detailed analysis of the crime categories that have formed Maidstone’s strategic assessment.

 

Countywide there were 313,628 emergency ‘999’ calls received to the Kent Force Control Room from November 16 – October 17.  This was an increase of 4.4% on the previous 12 months. ‘101’ non-emergency calls stood at 564,705, a decrease of 3.2% on the previous 12 months. The average percentage of 999 calls answered was down 0.25% at 98.6%. The average percentage of 101 calls answered was down 0.7% at 81.7% in the same period.

 

All crime in the borough rose by 32.4% in the period November 2016 to October 2017 compared with the same period the previous year, from a total of 10,271 crimes to 13,594 crimes. This compares to a Kent Force wide increase of 30.0%. Using financial year data (April 16 to March 17), recorded crimes equated to 68 offences per 1,000 population in Maidstone. When compared to the county, Maidstone has a below average number of offences per 1,000 of the population and is ranked 6th out of all of the districts in Kent. This is a continuing position on previous years.

 

 

2.2 Police SPC charts - Force wide Jan13 – Nov17

 

 

 

 

2.3 Police SPC Charts - Maidstone Jan13 – Nov17

 

 

 

Police SPC Charts

 

The above Police Statistical Process Control (SPC) Charts for Kent force wide and Maidstone cover the period January 2013 – November 2017

 

 

They show the trends in crime figures of 8 offences:

 

 

  • Victim Based Crime
  • Violence Against The Person (VATP)
  • Burglary - Residential
  • Burglary – Business & Community
  • Vehicle Crime
  • Criminal Damage
  • Theft
  • Shoplifting

 

 

It can be seen that locally, victim based crime and VATP have seen an increase in the period.  This will be in part due to recording of offences individually rather than grouping them into one offence (for example an affray). Also from April, Burglary has been split into Residential and Business/Community so won’t give a true comparison until next year. Shoplifting is still decreasing and against the Force trend.  The remaining 3 crime types have held relatively steady over the period.

 

The methodology for the charts is attached but put simply; SPC charts are generated based on historical data to produce the following:

 

 

  • The Centre Line (CL) which is the average no. of recorded crimes / incidents
  • The Upper (UCL) and Lower Control Limits (LCL) which are the limits of natural variation

 

 

Any result above the UCL suggests that there may be a problem.  In addition, other indications that a category is out of statistical control includes when several results in a row are above the CL or when several results in a row show an increasing trend.

 

If the figures are consistently below the CL this indicates an improvement and will result in the centre line and the control limits being lowered, often referred to as a ‘step change’.

 

This shows over a near 5 year period, a better visual picture of how crime figures for different offences have fluctuated.  Rather than relying just on a table showing a percentage change from the previous year, it allows for naturally occurring rise and falls in offences year on year.

 

 

2.4 Maidstone Crime Survey 2017 results

 

The tables below compare crime type figures at ward level against resident’s perceived risk of being a victim of crime in the areas of residential burglary and violence against the person. Figures for Leeds & Loose should be ignored due to a small response rate to the survey in those areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This table shows that in areas where residents were very or somewhat worried about having their house broken into, the reality is not always the case.  Areas such as Downswood & Otham and Headcorn are good examples of this where over half fear the crime happening but residential burglary figures are very low in those areas.  Adversely, Marden & Yalding wards are at the lower end of fearing burglary but statistically they are more likely to be a victim.

 

Interestingly for this question there was not much difference in responses depending on someone’s age. For example, a similar percentage of those over 75 years old and those aged between 35 – 44 years old were very or somewhat worried about having their home broken into.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above table relates to how worried residents are about being assaulted/attacked. Boughton Monchelsea & Chart Sutton had quite a high fear percentage despite having low ‘Violence against the Person’ (VATP) figures.  Again, similarly to the previous table, Marden & Yalding don’t fear assault or attack as much as other areas despite relatively high VATP figures. 

 

Expectedly, High Street ward features highest in both tables. Figures for VATP especially are with no doubt skewed because of the size of the night time economy in Maidstone being the largest in the county and the sheer numbers of visitors the town has throughout the year. Also not forgetting that offences involving more than one person are now recorded as separate incidents.

 

 

 

2.5 Total recorded crime per 1,000 population in Kent – year ending March 2017

 

Area

Number of offences

2017 rate per 1,000 pop.

2016 rate per 1,000 pop.

 

2015 rate per 1,000 pop.

 

County Ranking

 

 

Tunbridge Wells

5140

48

44

43.4

1

Sevenoaks

5894

53

50

47.5

3

Tonbridge & Malling

5961

55

48

45.3

2

Ashford

6551

65

53

51.6

4

Dover

6581

66

58

57.8

5

Maidstone

9332

68

58

56.7

6

Canterbury

9557

70

61

57.1

7

Shepway

6671

71

61

56.6

8

Swale

10059

77

71

67.7

9

Dartford & Gravesham

15650

91

75

68.8

11

Thanet

11980

98

87

82

12

KCC Total

89643

69

59

59.4

 

Medway

20285

84

74

70.3

10

Kent

109928

73

64

61

 

 

 

2.6 Volume of crimes by type within Maidstone for November 2016 – October 2017 and the same time period in 2015-2016

 

The table below and overleaf identifies the different categories of crime reported in Maidstone and highlights the main areas where crime has increased/decreased. 

 

 

Month

 

Rolling year

 

 

October 2017

 

RY ending Oct 2017

 

RY ending Oct 2016

 

RY

ending

Oct 2015

Number change

 

% change

Victim based crime

1214

 

11890

9245

8488

+ 2645

 

+28.6%

Violent Crime

588

5378

3743

2964

+ 1635

+43.7%

- Violence Against The Person

539

4833

3390

2665

+ 725

+21.4%

- Sexual Offences

40

446

284

222

+ 162

+57.0%

- Robbery

9

99

69

79

+30

+43.5%

Burglary Residential

77

N/A*

286

357

##

##

Burglary Business and Community

40

N/A*

532

495

##

 ##

Vehicle Crime

57

755

686

583

+ 69

+10.1%

- Theft Of Motor Vehicle

20

254

182

132

+ 72

+39.6%

- Theft From Motor Vehicle

37

501

504

451

-3

-0.6%

Vehicle Interference

6

97

110

82

-13

-11.8%

Theft and Handling

269

2868

2422

2633

+446

+18.4%

- Shoplifting

89

955

804

1077

+151

+18.8%

- Theft of Pedal cycle

6

158

136

111

+ 22

+16.2%

- Other Theft

174

1755

1482

1445

+ 273

+18.4%

Criminal Damage

177

1732

1466

1372

+ 266

+18.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crimes against society

232

 

1704

1026

701

+ 678

 

+66.1%

Drug Offences

27

 

342

345

282

-3

 

-0.9%

Possession of weapons

14

 

85

50

45

+ 35

 

+70.0%

Public order offences

156

 

923

402

227

+ 521

 

+129.6%

Other crimes

35

 

354

229

147

+ 125

 

+54.6%

 

 

All crime

1446

 

13594

10271

9189

+ 3323

 

+32.4%

                                              

 

The data clearly illustrates an increase in almost all crimes with the exception of vehicle interference, theft from motor vehicle and drug offences. Crime increases are partly be due to new police recording measures. Some crimes against society figures have increased because of different classification of crimes and will be reflected better in subsequent Strategic Assessments.

 

*Please note: Due to Home Office Counting Rule changes Burglary Dwelling and Burglary Other only apply to offences up to 31st March 2017. From 1st April 2017 the new categories are Burglary Residential and Burglary Business and Community. As such it is not possible to provide a comparison.

 

 

3.    Violent Crime

 

3.1 Total Violent Crime

 

Maidstone has the second largest night time economy in the south, and stranger violence in the town centre was the lowest for some time in this last festive period. Domestic violence accounts for 60% of all violent crime and this will continue to increase as the public are reassured that they can be safeguarded if they come forward and report domestic incidents.

 

Sexual offences especially rape is on the increase but up to 75% of this is historic reporting often by domestic abuse victims who are no longer frightened to come forward and report offences. The new vulnerability police model for investigation is providing an enhanced service to victims and there continues to be more reporting as police and partners increase accessibility to services and safeguarding.

 

‘Violent Crime’ covers a wide range of offences including murder, manslaughter, GBH, ABH and other assaults without injury, threats to kill, harassment, sexual offences and robbery. Maidstone has seen an increase of 43.7% in violent crime this year compared with the period of November 2015 – October 2016.  It is important to mention that this may be partly attributed to a change in police recording.  This increase is however below the division and county percentage and the 4th lowest increase out of 13 areas. 

 

 

 

 

Violent Crime

Month

Rolling year

 

October 2017

RY ending October 2017

RY ending October 2016

Number change

% change

Dartford

437

4125

2956

+ 1169

+39.5%

Gravesham

494

4488

3116

+ 1372

+44.0%

Medway

1278

11871

8252

+ 3619

+43.8%

Swale

565

5343

3701

+ 1642

+44.4%

North Division

2774

25827

18025

+ 7802

+43.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maidstone

588

5378

3743

+ 1635

+43.7%

Sevenoaks

288

2582

1702

+ 880

+51.7%

Tonbridge and Malling

335

3150

2117

+ 1033

+48.8%

Tunbridge Wells

315

2694

1962

+ 732

+37.3%

West Division

1526

13804

9524

+ 4280

+44.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ashford

396

3951

2378

+ 1573

+66.1%

Canterbury

634

5570

3874

+ 1696

+43.7%

Dover

479

4653

2799

+ 1854

+66.2%

Shepway

413

4011

2960

+ 1051

+35.5%

Thanet

786

7242

5262

+ 1980

+37.6%

East Division

2708

25427

17273

+ 8154

+47.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Force

7008

65058

44823

+ 20235

+45.1%

 

Violent Crime November 2016 - October 2017                    

 

The majority of violent crime offences occurring in Maidstone within the 12 months ending 31st October came under the ‘Violence Against The Person’ (VATP) category. This category covers offences ranging in severity from assault without injury to murder, however does not include robberies or sexual offences.

 

There were 4833 VATP offences in Maidstone spanning this period of time. This is up from 3390 in 2015-16, an increase of 42%.  It should be noted that many VATP offences will be minor assaults and on further investigation some of these will be found to be accidental contact with no malicious intent, rather than situations where force has been used intentionally.

 

The table below shows the outcome percentages for VATP offences in Kent compared to the most similar group (MSG) of police forces and against the previous year’s percentages.

 

MSG

Recorded VATP crimes

Charge/

Summons

Cautions

Comm Res.

No suspect identified

No victim support

 

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

Kent

51,637

40,090

9.4%

10.8%

2.1%

3.0%

1.5%

1.8%

6.4%

4.8%

36.4%

41.3%

Nottinghamshire

22,910

18,423

16.6%

19.9%

2.8%

2.9%

2.9%

5.2%

5.7%

3.5%

28.7%

22.2%

Essex

34,619

32,578

11.4%

15.0%

1.6%

3.3%

5.5%

6.4%

12.3%

11.5%

32.2%

27.9%

Staffordshire

26,131

25,433

11.8%

14.9%

2.1%

2.3%

2.7%

2.6%

6.1%

4.9%

39.6%

33.4%

Avon & Somerset

35,211

35,968

11.9%

10.7%

2.6%

2.8%

1.3%

1.4%

7.6%

7.4%

37.0%

34.4%

Northamptonshire

14,429

14,251

12.5%

14.0%

2.9%

3.8%

3.1%

5.8%

6.7%

6.5%

35.1%

24.3%

Derbyshire

11,158

12,465

23.4%

23.7%

5.1%

5.9%

10.1%

10.8%

3.1%

2.3%

13.0%

11.2%

Hertfordshire

20,260

18,184

10.8%

16.1%

3.5%

6.4%

1.2%

1.5%

7.3%

7.3%

32.8%

33.0%

 

We can see from this table that almost all MSG areas with the exception of Kent and Hertfordshire have seen an increase in the victim not supporting. All but Avon & Somerset saw a reduction in charge/summons figures too with Kent having the lowest charge/summons percentage of 9.4%.

 

3.2 Levels of Violence in the Borough Wards April 2017 – October 2017

 

High Street ward had the highest number of recorded violent crimes in the borough with 863 incidents reported (up 42% from 607 on same period in 2016) alongside Fant with 250 (up 41% from 178), Parkwood 243 (up 48% from 164) and Heath with 227 (up 91% from 119).  

 

The wards with the lowest levels of violent crime were Loose with 18 incidents (down 18%), Barming with 23 (up 44%) and Detling & Thurnham and Downswood & Otham both had 28 incidents (increases of 8% and 180% respectively).  Apart from High Street ward, the highest numerical increases were Heath +108, North + 98 and Bridge + 94. In contrast, Loose had 4 less incidents than the previous year (18 from 22) and Shepway North saw just 9 extra incidents (180 from 171).

 

It should be noted that some of these rises are attributed to new ways of recording crime from April 2017.  This now records an incident such as Affray as one incident per person involved instead of a single incident.  Also, there is no differential for offences in the High Street ward, to say if they were related to residential addresses or as is most probable for the majority, to businesses, shopping areas and the night time economy in general.  At this time it is not possible for future assessments to separate this data so as not to portray such a skewed view of the ward.

 

The table below illustrates hospital admissions for assaults covering the last 2 years. Maidstone has seen a sizeable increase on last year compared to most other authorities (5th largest increase). It must be taken into account however that Maidstone has the largest of night time economies in Kent and some admissions may not be resident in the borough.

 

Hospital Admissions due to Assault (ICD10: X85-Y09)

Number of Individuals

 

 

 

District

September 2015 to August 2016

September 2016 to August 2017

Number Difference

% change from previous year

Ashford

37

26

-11

-29.7

Canterbury

32

25

-7

-21.9

Dartford

36

38

+2

5.6

Dover

30

26

-4

-13.3

Gravesham

31

64

+33

106.5

Maidstone

73

97

+24

32.9

Sevenoaks

25

41

+16

64.0

Shepway

38

29

-9

-23.7

Swale

59

64

+5

8.5

Thanet

36

31

-5

-13.9

Tonbridge & Malling

36

54

+18

50.0

Tunbridge Wells

30

56

+26

86.7

All Kent

463

551

+88

19.0

Source: SUS, KPHO (LLY), 11/17

 

3.3 Violent Crime - Other

 

Maidstone has a highly active night time economy (NTE) which generates around £60 million each year; this is considered to be a key contributing factor to the heightened levels of violence in the High street ward. Bearing in mind the size of the County town’s NTE though, it is still considered by agencies and the public as a relatively safe place to visit compared to similar large towns/cities.  This was enforced by an overall sense of feeling safe in the town via a public consultation into the town centre and NTE.

 

Violent crime has seen a year on year increase in Maidstone and it is clear that focus needs to remain to ensure violence is reduced. Current work undertaken to reduce the levels of other violent crime in Maidstone is reported in the CSP rolling plan but as a large proportion of Violent Crime incidents relate to Domestic Abuse, ‘Other Violent Crime’ is being removed as a named priority.   Serious violent offences continue to be dealt with robustly by the police and that work also cuts across the Gangs, OCGs and Substance Misuse priorities.

 

3.4 Domestic Abuse

 

The cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse is:

any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to:

 

  • psychological
  • physical
  • sexual
  • financial
  • emotional

 

Domestic Abuse (DA) has and continues to account for a considerable proportion of violent crime.  In Maidstone, DA attributes to 58% of all violent crime offences, as well as being a fundamental feature of other offences such as criminal damage. Its prioritisation is not just in response to the serious nature of the behaviour involved but is also necessitated by the volume of incidents that are being recorded – made all the more significant as this is one crime category that has historically suffered from considerable under-reporting.

 

Domestic abuse sits as both a local, county and national priority which is supported through local mechanisms such as the Multi–Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) which provides support and protection to families and individuals in high risk domestic abuse situations. There is also the commissioning of the Independent Domestic Violence Advisor service (IDVA) which provides support and guidance to victims of DA. Each district also delivers a ‘one-stop shop’ where all victims of domestic abuse can receive advice and support.

 

Recorded Incidents of Domestic Abuse and Repeat Victims

 

Between the periods November 2016 - October 2017, Maidstone had recorded 3096 incidents of Domestic abuse (25.7% average repeat victims) compared to 2683 incidents (26.4% repeat victims) in the same period in the previous year.  This translates to a 15% increase in cases, though percentages of repeat victim figures are virtually unchanged.  

 

Whilst our incidences are lower than the average in the county our rate for repeat victims is the second highest in Kent with a 26% rate of repeat victimisation. Domestic abuse is a complex crime which puts great pressure on victims to return to their relationships on the basis of fear, low self-esteem, family ties and a hope for change.   

 

It is widely recognised that increased recorded incidents of domestic abuse are not necessary indicators of a worsening situation.  Since domestic abuse has been an under-reported crime, increased reports indicate that DA victims feel more confident to come forward to report the abuse they are suffering. Many of our partners on the domestic abuse forum champion domestic abuse in their respective services encouraging clients and service users to be open about their circumstances and feel confident in the services that can support them to move out of domestically abusive relationships.

 

3.5 One-Stop Shops & Sanctuary

 

Domestic Abuse ‘One Stop Shops’ offer free advice, information and support from a range of agencies under one roof to help victims of domestic abuse. Maidstone’s one stop shop is hosted at the Salvation Army in Union Street and provides advice on housing, legal matters, policing and specialist DA advice. Information regarding the One-Stop Shop usage has been provided by the Kent and Medway Domestic Abuse Strategy Group for the period of 2010/11 – 2015/16.  This year’s figures (July 16 – June 17) for attendance at the Maidstone One Stop Shop were 205.  This was a reduction of 17 on last year’s total. 

 

 

(Comparisons with other boroughs for One Stop Shop figures will be published in the final draft of the Strategic Assessment). Home visits for the ‘Sanctuary’ scheme that helps keep high risk victims of domestic abuse in their own homes by installing extra security measures seem to have plateaued in the past 12 months to 35. This suggests that more DA victims are receiving an earlier intervention and not escalating to ‘high risk’ despite a rise in MARACs and overall DA incidents.

 

3.6 Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARACs)

 

MARACs are meetings where information about high-risk domestic abuse victims (those at risk of murder or serious harm) is shared between local agencies.  By bringing all agencies together at a MARAC, a risk-focused, co-ordinated safety plan can be drawn together to support the victim.  MARACs now cover all persons aged 16 years and over.

Maidstone has had 177 MARAC cases between the periods of October 2016 – September 2017.  This compares to 161 cases the previous 12 months, an increase locally of 10% and countywide increase of 4%. 58 of those cases were repeat cases, this equates to 33% of all cases which is up from 18% on last year.  This is a mid-range increase over other areas in Kent and the county average is 33.46%. Last year the county repeat case figure was 31.6%.

 

Violent Crime - domestic abuse

 

The Safer Maidstone Partnership has put considerable effort into raising the awareness of domestic abuse in the borough and has also put in practical measures at the home of victims to keep them safe from their abuser. A number of initiatives have been supported this year and are outlined in the CSP plan. Due to the high levels of domestic abuse and repeat incidents, recommendation is made that Domestic Abuse reverts again to a priority on its own.

 

4.    Anti-Social behaviour & Statutory Nuisance

 

4.1 Anti-Social Behaviour in Maidstone

 

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, requires responsible authorities to consider crime and disorder (including antisocial behaviour and other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment). ASB was removed as a priority in name last year as it was seen as ‘business as usual’ with strong partnership working and information sharing continuing to resolve issues.

 

Figures have shown this year that there has been a decrease in ASB of 12% in Maidstone from November 2016 – October 2017 with 3243 cases compared to 3697 in the previous year. County wide saw a decrease of 11% in cases over the same period. The MBC CSU/CPT received 130 ASB cases between January 17 – December 17.

 

 

Nov 2016 – Oct 2017

Nov 2015 – Oct 2016

Nov 2014 – Oct 2015

Number difference

% difference

County ranking

Shepway

2374

2948

2890

-574

-19.5%

1

Tunbridge Wells

1877

2287

2200

-410

-17.9%

2

Dartford

2467

2990

2620

-523

-17.5%

3

Sevenoaks

1691

2012

1970

-321

-15.9%

4

Thanet

4670

5368

5337

-698

-13.0%

5

Gravesham

2850

3274

3337

-424

-12.9%

6

Maidstone

3243

3697

3588

-454

-12.3%

7

Dover

2975

3380

3701

-405

-12.0%

8

Tonbridge & Malling

2089

2326

2469

-237

-10.2%

9

Canterbury

3502

3852

4231

-350

-9.1%

10

Swale

3553

3904

3991

-351

-9.0%

11

Medway

8124

8747

8983

-623

-7.1%

12

Ashford

2073

1856

1582

+217

+11.7%

13

Kent district

41488

46641

46897

-5153

-11.0%

 

 

The decrease in ASB further supports our decision to remove it as a priority in name which allowed us to explore more emerging issues.  The weekly Community Safety Vulnerabilities Group focuses on repeat locations as well as individuals. Many of those on the case list have a degree of mental health issues which benefit from wider partnership involvement.

 

The wards most affected by ASB in order of number of offences recorded are High Street ward (although no differential between residential locations and public), Fant, East, Parkwood and Shepway South.   

 

4.2  Statutory Nuisance

 

As the newly formed Community Protection Team tackle statutory nuisance as well as from October - ASB, this year’s assessment includes some data on the breakdown of those nuisance cases by case type.  The table below compares 2016 and 2017 figures and shows an overall decrease of 4.5% in cases (allowing for the removal of ASB cases). This reduction enforces the targeted promotion of issues through social media and poster campaigns such as responsible dog ownership. 

 

There have also been changes made to customer responses put into place which offer advice and empower customers to seek resolution to their reported issues at an earlier stage.  This will have led to less repeat cases as a result.

 

 

Code

Description

2016

2017

ASB

All Anti-social behaviour complaints

0

40

CARA

Caravan Licensing enquiries/complaints

11

7

DOG

Dangerous and Nuisance dogs (Not strays)

73

45

DRAIN

Drainage enquiries/complaints

33

47

ENV

Environmental Enquiries (Most of which are now dealt with by the Waste Crime team. CPT still deals with some accumulations relating to pest and public health matters.

350

191

FOUL

Dog Fouling

78

47

FPN

FPN enquiries/complaints

0

3

GEN

General enquires including Smoke free and non-coded enquiries/complaints

103

80

NOISE

All noise nuisance including amplified music and barking

713

732

NUIS

Other Nuisance (Odour, dust etc

314

361

PEST

Pest Control enquiries/complaints

202

194

STRAD

Street trading enquiries/complaints

7

9

STRAY

Straying and lost dogs enquiries

522

488

 

4422

4261

 

 

4.3 Community Trigger

 

The ‘Community Trigger’ gives victims of persistent anti-social behaviour the ability to demand a formal case review where the locally defined threshold is met, in order to determine whether there is further action that can be taken. In 2017 there was one application for the Community Trigger, this met the threshold for investigation but it was concluded that everything that could have been reasonably done to assist with the issue had been.

 

5.    Substance Misuse 

 

5.1 Substance Misuse in Maidstone

 

Substance misuse relates to the use of drugs, alcohol and includes New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) previously known as ‘legal highs’. Neither alcohol nor NPS were included in the recorded drug offences as they were both legal. Since the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 became law in May 2016, NPS supply would be included in drug offence figures but not possession.  It is however important to mention alcohol and NPS as there is a clear connection between criminal activity and the excessive use of these substances.

 

Kent police recorded drug offences includes both offences of drug supply and possession. Under this category of crime Maidstone has seen a 1% decrease in drug offences from November 16 – October 17 when compared to last year’s data. This is a decrease from 345 offences to 342 offences; or 3 less crimes this year.  The force as a whole saw a reduction of 4.8% and only Gravesham (+43.1%) and Canterbury (+6.4%) saw a rise.

 

5.2  NPS related hospital admissions.

 

The table below illustrates hospital admissions for mental and behavioural disorders (due to psychoactive substance misuse) for Maidstone compared to last year. It shows a slight rise in Maidstone’s figures which is against the county trend. Maidstone did however have more ‘head’ shops than any other area in Kent selling NPS before the Psychoactive Substances Act came into being.  As such, there may be a higher proportion of regular NPS users in the borough and/or more prevalence of its use in the night time economy.

 

 

Mental and Behavioural Disorders due to Psychoactive Substance Use
(ICD10: F10-F19 Excluding F17)

Number of Individuals

 

 

 

District

September 2015 to August 2016

September 2016 to August 2017

Number Difference

% change from previous year

Ashford

209

210

1

0.5

Canterbury

539

365

-174

32.3

Dartford

231

268

37

16.0

Dover

334

273

-61

18.3

Gravesham

321

319

-2

0.6

Maidstone

504

583

79

15.7

Sevenoaks

251

253

2

0.8

Shepway

286

257

-29

10.1

Swale

393

370

-23

5.8

Thanet

561

440

-121

21.6

Tonbridge & Malling

276

334

58

21.0

Tunbridge Wells

241

325

84

34.9

All Kent

4,146

3,997

-149

3.6

Source: SUS, KPHO (LLY), 11/17

 

 

5.3 Alcohol related hospital admissions.

 

This table illustrates alcohol related hospital admissions in Maidstone.  Maidstone is mid table in terms of percentage change with a slight increase in admissions over last year. This is against a Kent wide reduction in admissions.

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence of Alcohol Involvement by Blood Alcohol Level/ Level of Intoxication (ICD10: Y90/Y91) or Toxic Effects of Alcohol (ICD10: T51)

Number of Individuals

 

 

 

District

September 2015 to August 2016

September 2016 to August 2017

Number Difference

% change from previous year

Ashford

57

34

-23

-40.4

Canterbury

191

95

-96

-50.3

Dartford

31

61

30

96.8

Dover

83

40

-43

-51.8

Gravesham

50

49

-1

-2.0

Maidstone

111

125

14

12.6

Sevenoaks

40

58

18

45.0

Shepway

57

37

-20

-35.1

Swale

93

46

-47

-50.5

Thanet

117

72

-45

-38.5

Tonbridge & Malling

52

72

20

38.5

Tunbridge Wells

55

66

11

20.0

All Kent

937

755

-182

-19.4

Source: SUS, KPHO (LLY), 11/17

 

5.4 Clients in treatment.

 

The substance misuse charity ‘Change, Grow, Live’ (CGL) has seen a rise in the use of the 3 needle exchange schemes in Maidstone over the past 12 months:

 

 

January 2017- December 2017

January 2016 – December 2016

January 2015 – December 2015

Number difference

% difference

Clients on exchange programme

478

422

538

56

+13.3%

Clients in treatment

406

313

316

93

+29.7%

 

This represents a 13% increase in needle exchanges and a larger increase in those in treatment, further narrowing the two totals.  CGL explained this is a good sign that an increasing majority of those using the syringe exchanges are accessing treatment.  Those that aren’t, are in the main known to CGL and are serial presenters to treatment.  They are also seeing fewer new clients accessing services.

 

From April 2017 – November 2017, CGL had 82 positive discharges in Maidstone (38 drug & 44 alcohol). Positive discharge for Opiates is drug free and completion of opiate substitute medication.  Alcohol is either abstinence via a detox or reduction regime or controlled drinking – within government guidelines, if that was their goal.  Other drugs such as cocaine, cannabis etc can be occasional users but will have made significant reduction/changes to substance misuse. 

 

As at 30th November 2017, CGL had 141 Opiate only, 59 Alcohol only and 44 Non Opiate & Alcohol clients.

 

 

5.5 Countrywide Young People’s statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS)

 

Data collected from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) from 1 April 2106 to 31 March 2017, show specialist substance misuse services saw fewer young people in 2016-17 than in the previous year (16,436, a decrease of 641 or 4% compared to 2015-16). This continues a downward trend, year-on-year, since a peak of 24,053 in 2008-09.   Although the number of younger children (under 14) in treatment is relatively low, it has increased from 1,219 in 2014-15 to 1,342 in 2016-17 (a 10% increase).

 

The proportion of young people reported by specialist services as having problems with NPS fell by 45% (from 1,056 in 2015-16 to 585 in 2016-17). 2016-17 is the first year since data on NPS use was added to NDTMS that the number of young people in treatment with problematic NPS use has decreased. It also partly reflects the impact of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 which stopped the general sale of these products from ‘Head shops’ and UK based websites.

 

Addaction’s Young Peoples Service has stated that one worrying trend on the rise is that of Steroid use among young people. This is very much an under-reported drug and Addaction have received no referrals into treatment regarding steroids as a primary or secondary substance for young people.

 

Those using do not access treatment groups (often affluent, high achieving young people) and often do not associate their use with a drug service, more with peers within the gym setting.  It also raises the question of young people’s perceptions of their own body image and the associated psychological issues that they may be experiencing. 

 

Long term steroid use can be dangerous and have life changing repercussions.  These are more worrying when a young person’s body and mind are still in the development stage both physically and psychologically. We need to generate awareness, work with local gyms and schools and promote conversation and resources to these otherwise hidden cohorts.

 

 

 

 

The above table shows the breakdown of substances used by age of all young people in treatment in 2016-17. Cannabis and Alcohol are by far the most prevalent substances used. 

 

 

The table below shows this prevalence and trend between the periods 2005/6 – 2016/17. This shows a decline over time of alcohol as a primary substance being used by young people. Cannabis use seems to be at a stable level after peaking in 2009 -10.

 

 

 

 

5.6 Needle Finds

 

The following table shows the official annual figures for needle finds in the borough from April to March that were removed by the council’s waste management service. Even if you exclude last year’s very low figures, the trend over the past six years has very much been on the decrease. This year’s figures look to be on target to be similar to 2015/16 numbers. These figures include the contents of external needle bins that are strategically placed in the town to try and reduce discarded needles and make up between 15% – 60% of the monthly figures.

 

 

 

 

 

5.7 Substance Misuse recommendations.

 

Substance Misuse actions and examples of partnership working are covered in the CSP plan.

Due to the continued need for substance misuse education, prevention, enforcement and treatment, it is recommended that Substance Misuse remains as a priority.

 

 

6.    Reducing Reoffending

 

6.1 Availability of ‘Proven adult reoffending’ data

 

As of June 2014, the former Kent Probation divided into two organisations; National Probation Service (NPS) and Kent, Surrey & Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company (KSS CRC) that manage two separate cohorts of service users.  Reoffending data related to the KSS CRC is currently unavailable, with the first publication due for release by the MOJ in October 2017 (not available at the drafting of this document).

 

As a result of this no information can be used in this strategic assessment that is up to date and is reflective of the current re-offending rate in Kent or Maidstone.

 

Youth Justice first time entrant’s figures for Maidstone have reduced year on year from 222 new offenders in 2013/14 to 183 in 2015/16. 2016/17 figures to date stand at 133 so are on target for another annual reduction by the end of quarter 4. This represents a 17.6% decrease over 3 years. This is particularly encouraging as this will help reduce the prevalence of future ‘prolific offenders’ and the stigmatisation of young people with a criminal record.

 

 

6.2  Integrated Offender Management (IOM)

 

Integrated Offender Management (IOM) brings a cross-agency response to the crime and reoffending threats faced by local communities. The most persistent and problematic offenders are identified and managed jointly by partner agencies working together.

 

The emphasis has moved away from solely Serious and Acquisitive Crime (SAC) to a more Threat, Risk and Harm approach which includes not only SAC, but Domestic Abuse (DA), Serious Violence, Gang activity, Organised Crime Groups (OCG), Troubled Families, Terrorism, Trafficking and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

 

Maidstone has run the most successful IOM programme in the force with the IOM Sergeant ensuring that new methods such as the ‘buddy tag’ both prevent crime (particularly burglary) and for bringing offenders to justice.

 

The Kent IOM Cohort is currently at 203 members, this is 14% increase (+25) compared to the same time last year and is expected to continue to increase as the IOM emphasis continues to transition. West Division represents 42% of the cohort followed by East Division (30%) and North (28%).

 

Those in the community have collectively reduced their reoffending by 88%. Shoplifting, Violence Against the Person, and Burglaries have seen the highest reduction in offending.  Thinking and behaviour as well as lifestyle and associates are the two highest need categories linked to offending.

 

In Maidstone, 92% of the cohort in the community committed no offences in the last 3 months. Between them they committed 33 offences before starting IOM and only 8 offences whilst on IOM.

 

It is clear from the information provided that IOM is a successful way of supporting the most prolific ex-offenders to change their lives.

 

 

6.3 Reducing Re-offending recommendations.

 

Reducing reoffending rates are key to the reduction of crime and thus fewer victims. In the borough it is considered a theme that spans across all of the other priorities. The recommendation is made that Reducing Reoffending continues as a cross cutting theme.

 

 

 

7. Local Profiles.

 

The police Local Profiles have been published for each CSP and for Maidstone highlight the following redacted points for the following topics:

                                                               

  • CSE - 5 CSE crimes or incidents have been recorded and 32 children at risk of CSE have been identified.
  • Gangs – A number of London street gangs are associated with the area and drug networks, vulnerable people being exploited. 
  • Organise Crime Groups - There are 19 active OCGs in the West Kent division. The crime types associated with these groups is commonly drugs related which mirrors the local and national trend.
  • Human Trafficking & Modern Slavery - There are links to some car washes, nail bars and brothels in the District linked to human trafficking via intelligence.  
  • Counter Terrorism & Domestic Extremism – Threat posed by individuals travelling through Kent ports raising funds for terrorism.  Combating the threat from unlawful protest from extreme left and right wing groups.

 

8. Safeguarding (self-neglect & hoarding)

 

ASB cases relating to hoarding and self-neglect continue to play a part in the Community Safety & Vulnerabilities Group meetings in Maidstone. ASB was caused by the lack of care residents took over their properties which increased the levels of vermin in the areas they lived in. The SMP had coordinated many multi-agency case conferences to address the issues highlighted by self-neglect and hoarding.  Partners involved in this process include adult social services, voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations with specialism relating to mental health, housing and health, environmental health/enforcement and the CSU.   

 

The coordination of self-neglect cases has proved affective by enabling multiple agencies to support people in the community. This has reduced the environmental health issues and ensured that an ongoing plan is in place to support local residents. It has also lead to this process being embedded into agencies case management and is now business as usual.

 

A pilot project offering Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) to assist those who are presenting signs of hoarding that require a multi-agency approach is being launched in the borough and is explained further in the CSP Plan.

 

9. Mental Health

 

Approximately 75% of all cases discussed in the weekly community safety & vulnerabilities group meeting have a degree of mental health associated with them.  This is also true of previous self-neglect & hoarding cases.  Figures for Section 136 use in the borough (where an individual is sectioned for their own or others safety) have increased year on year for Maidstone and last year it was used 72 times. This is an increase of 38% over the previous 3 years. 2017/18 figures year to date already show 67 occurrences of Section 136 use, suggesting a forecast increase by April 2018.

 

Last year in Maidstone, mental health referrals for young adults were down by 10.9% to 1,232 and older adults saw a rise of 8.3% to 756.

 

There is a concerted effort taking place to avoid where possible those with mental health issues from being kept in police custody as a ‘safe place’ when their behaviour is causing concern.  Pilots have commenced elsewhere in Kent for designated places for this use and more access to mental health professionals.  A future evaluation will determine what provision suits best and can be rolled out across the rest of the county.

 

9.1 Mental Health recommendations.

 

Because of Mental Health issues being prevalent in so many topics and there being a continued rise in the use of Section 136, it is recommended that it continues to be an SMP priority.

 

10. Unlawful Encampments (UE’s)

 

The last 12 months have seen a total of 12 unlawful encampments set up on Council owned land.  Approximately 3 others have been reported that were on private land.  A revised protocol and documents will be published by the end of the financial year 2017/18 and will see a wider range of enforcement options at our disposal, dependent on the threat and risk the UE’s present to predominantly publically accessible land. Due to the swift reaction and enforcement times of Community Protection Officers, Maidstone borough has gained a positive reputation when dealing with unlawful encampments.

 

11. Environmental Crime

 

With the formulation of the CPT bringing together specialists from a wide range of subjects, we now include more data with regards to the amount and types of complaints and crimes investigated.

 

12. Recommendations to Safer Maidstone Partnership

 

Our priorities for this year have been extracted from a wide variety of information shared with our partners and represent the most important issues to focus on from this year.  Based on the information in this Strategic Assessment, it is recommended that the Safer Maidstone Partnership confirm the following 2018/19 priorities:

·         Organised Crime Groups (including modern slavery);

·         Gangs and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE);

·         Substance Misuse;

·         Domestic Abuse;

·         Mental Health.

 

These priorities have also been borne out by the scoring matrix used in ‘MoRiLE’ which ranked these priorities based on threat risk and harm to the public and organisations.

 

Prevent and Reducing Reoffending continue to be cross cutting themes alongside ASB. All the priorities will require a robust multi-agency response, but because they are important for residents and communities, achieving them will have a positive impact on people’s quality of life.

 

13. How to get further information

 

If you would like further information about the Safer Maidstone Partnership, please contact: Community Protection Team, 6th Floor, Maidstone House, King Street, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ. Tel: 01622 602000. www.maidstone.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1

 

Information sources

 

The list below includes the details of those data sources used to inform this strategic assessment, including the agency supplying the data.  All information was correct at time of document production.

 

Kent Community Safety Unit crime data – Safer Communities Web Portal

 

All data provided by the County CSU is using recorded crime data provided by the Business Information Unit at Kent Police.  This data places the incidents at the time at which they were recorded by the Police.

 

Kent Police Intelligence Analysis data

 

Data provided by Kent Police is ‘committed’ data.  The ‘date’ used is the midpoint between the earliest and latest dates that the offence could have been committed.

 

Other data sources

 

Data and information used in producing this Assessment has been provided, directly or otherwise, from the following organisations:

 

Association of Chief Police Officers

Association of Police Authorities

Association of Public Health Observatories (PHO’s)

Centra DA Services

Change, Grow, Live (CGL)

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary

Home Office

IQuanta

Kent Community Wardens

Kent County Council

Kent Police

Maidstone Borough Council

Maidstone Resident’s Survey 2017

National crime agency

National Drug Treatment Monitoring System

Nomis

ONS Labour Market Statistics

Public Health England

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2

 

KCC Community Warden case studies:

 

Case 1: 

 

I received a call from the manager of a local club concerning a resident they were worried about. He had fallen at the club several weeks ago and hit his head on the floor. An ambulance was called and he received treatment but declined to go to hospital. Since then he has collapsed in Maidstone and was taken to hospital. He has also attended the local doctor’s surgery.

 

While in hospital the resident missed his signing on appointment and his benefits were stopped. This has triggered a number of financial problems for him. A fellow club member has been assisting him but his memory has been affected which has caused further delays in rectifying the issues.

 

I attended the resident’s home and with his permission liaised with his doctor’s practice manager to ensure they were aware of people’s concerns. Further medical referrals are under way.

 

I also liaised with CROP (Citizens Rights for Older People) on his behalf to arrange an advocate to support him with completing several forms related to housing benefit and banking and also in discussions with his Housing Association about rent arrears.

 

Concerns were also expressed about his ability to drive safely. When I spoke to him he had already decided to stop driving and stated that he wished to sell his car. I liaised with another club member who organised the purchase of his car.

 

I will continue to visit the resident and liaise with his friends at the club to ensure that he continues to receive the necessary support.

 

Case 2:

 

Mr A is in his early 90’s and attends the Age UK Tea and Exercise club every Tuesday, and is a very fit gentleman.  However on this occasion at the club he was doing the normal exercises and started feeling unwell.  I was concerned for him so assisted him with First Aid at the club, he did start to feel better, but something told me that this situation wasn’t right; I then suggested to him that I would like to visit him in his home.  He agreed to this.

 

I did a visit to Mr & Mrs A; they live alone and have no children or family. The visit did in fact flag up a lot of concerns, it turns out that he is his wife’s carer and his wife is his carer, (they are both in their 90’s) however that week they both had, had a fall at home at the same time so neither of them could help each other and they couldn’t get immediate help of Ambulance could neither of them could get to the phone, so it was a good few hours before the ambulance arrived.

 

Mrs A is registered partially blind due to Glaucoma.

 

After a lengthy chat with them both, I was able to establish that Social Services have been out to the property and fitted grab rails, hand grips and a stair rail, however they don’t have lifeline services installed, I did explain about this service and how it would of helped them both following the fall earlier that week, he did confirm that he had arranged for this to be fitted in the week. 

 

I also noticed that no smoke alarm was fitted in the chalet part of the bungalow, which I wasn’t happy with – he said that he took it out as every time he showered the old smoke alarm would go off, I asked him if I could get Kent Fire and Rescue around to access the bungalow for Fire Safety – he agreed.  KFR have been contacted to attend this property.

 

There will now be ongoing visits to the house, due to concerns for both of the couple’s welfare.

 

Case 3:

 

 

I was contacted by a neighbour re Mr H (70+). On my visit I noticed how thin he was. I sat and chatted and advised Mr H to see a doctor. I spoke to the neighbour and was informed his has a daughter but she doesn’t visit much and gave me her details to contact. I called the doctors and was told to get him there and they would put him at the front of the queue. I called and left a message for the daughter with these details.

 

I later received another call from the neighbour and did a joint visit with another warden. Once again I noticed his weight loss and offered to make him something to eat. We sat and chatted and informed Mr H we had a duty of care and informed him of the next action. I contact the doctors and requested a home visit and later that day done a joint visit with the doctor and straight away called an ambulance. I again left a message for the daughter to contact the hospital regarding her father.

 

When I returned from annual leave I contacted the hospital to see how Mr H was doing and this wasn’t good news. They asked me if he had any next of kin and I was surprised to find that no contact on the past 10 days to the hospital had been made. I said I would again contact the daughter and inform her. I again spoke to the neighbour and was given information regarding her work place.

 

I made contact and was able to inform her regarding her father. She said she didn’t know and hadn’t received any messages because she doesn’t use the house phone. Detail were given and a direct number to the hospital. I later received a call thanking me for the help and advice.  Mr H has cancer and was very ill. He is now in hospital and the family are aware.  I informed Golding Homes regarding this matter.

 

Priority Target Achieved:

Working in partnership,

Housing Association.

Doctors

Golding Homes

NHS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3

 

Methodology Notes:

 

SPC Charts Explained

 

Statistical Process Control (SPC) Charts are a tool used by Kent Police to help identify whether there has been any significant improvements or deteriorations in a particular crime type. 

 

When a category is stable and in control, the data will appear within a set of predicted limits based on past knowledge and experience.  Although there will be some natural variation around the average (also known as common cause variation) as long as the figures remain within the control limits there has been no significant changes to what was anticipated.

 

If the category was unstable and displayed uncontrolled variation (also known as special cause variation), the data would not follow a predicted pattern and would indicate that something had changed and action might be required.

 

Natural variation indicates that any change from month-to-month is expected, e.g. the time you come to work every day varies by a few minutes around an average, however if there was an accident on the road then the time taken to come to work would be significantly longer, this would be unnatural variation indicating that something has gone awry.

 

SPC charts are generated based on historical data to produce the following:

  • The Centre Line (CL) which is the average no. of recorded crimes / incidents
  • The Upper (UCL) and Lower Control Limits (LCL) which are the limits of natural variation

 

Any result above the UCL suggests that there may be a problem.  In addition, other indications that a category is out of statistical control includes when several results in a row are above the CL or when several results in a row show an increasing trend.

 

If the figures are consistently below the CL this indicates an improvement and will result in the centre line and the control limits being lowered, often referred to as a ‘step change’.  Similarly if the figures for a specific category rise due possibly to an increase in activity; a revision to the data (i.e. back-record conversion); or possibly a change in what is recorded within each category then the CL and control limits may need to be raised.

 

NB. If the control limits are closer together this indicates a low level of variation around the average and shows that the category is in control, a wider gap between the limits indicates greater variation and less control.

 

Example of a Kent Police SPC Chart:

 

 

 

Appendix 3

 

MoRiLE:

 

The Kent Community Safety Unit has explored the use of the MoRiLE (Management of Risk in Law Enforcement) scoring matrix to look at ranking offences based on threat, risk and harm. Maidstone Borough Council and others in Kent have again incorporated this methodology within this year’s Strategic Assessment.

 

The ideology behind MoRiLE is that it targets resources at offences that would have the biggest impact on individuals and organisations/areas.  This is in contrast to concentrating solely on crime figure tables which can sometimes provide a skewed view on threats and risk based only on the frequency/volume of crimes.

 

Each thematic crime area is scored individually against various criteria.  There is then a formula that calculates a final score.  These are then ranked high to low, listing priorities based on threat, risk & harm which can then contribute to the SMP’s final recommendation of priorities.

 

Serious Organised Crime Local Profiles:

 

Aims:

  • To develop a common understanding among local partners of the threats, vulnerabilities and risks relating to serious and organised crime.
  • To provide information on which to base local programmes and action plans.
  • To support the mainstreaming of serious and organised crime activity into day-to-day policing, local government and partnership work.
  • To allow a targeted and proportionate use of resources. 

 

Purpose:

  • Local Profiles should inform local multi-agency partnerships, in particular police and crime commissioners, policing teams, local authorities and other relevant partners (such as education, health and social care and Immigration Enforcement); of the threat from serious and organised crime and the impact it is having on local communities.

 

What do we do with the Local Profile?

  • The profile outlines key serious and organised crime issues within your district and provides information on what the offences are, what to look for and recognised serious and organised crime within your community and what to do if you see or suspect anything.  This allows us all to PREVENT young people and vulnerable adults from becoming involved in crime and helping to protect and safeguard those that may already be involved through identifying and working together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4

 

Acronym Glossary:

 

ASB = Anti-Social Behaviour

BOTD = Burglary Other Than Dwelling

CCG = Clinical Commissioning Group

CDAP = Community Domestic Abuse Programme

CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership

CGL = Change, Grow, Live

CPT = Community Protection Team

CSA = Community Safety Agreement

CSE = Child Sexual Exploitation

CSP = Community Safety Partnership

CSU = Community Safety Unit

DA = Domestic Abuse

HMIC = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary

IDVA = Independent Domestic Violence Advisor

IOM = Integrated Offender Management

JSNA = Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

KCC = Kent County Council

KFRS = Kent Fire & Rescue Service

KSSCRC = Kent Surrey & Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company

MARAC = Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference

MBC = Maidstone Borough Council

MOJ = Ministry Of Justice

MoRiLE = Management of Risk in Law Enforcement

MSG = Most Similar Groups

NPS = National Probation Service or New Psychoactive Substances depending on context

NTE = Night Time Economy

OCG = Organised Crime Group

PCC = Police & Crime Commissioner

PS = Psychoactive Substances

SMP = Safer Maidstone Partnership

SOC = Serious Organised Crime

SPC = Statistical Process Charts

UE = Unlawful Encampments

VATP = Violence Against The Person

VCS = Voluntary & Community Services

Appendix 5

Maidstone Crime Survey 2017 – Community Safety Questions

 

In 2017 the Council carried out its biennial Resident Survey which included questions on Community Safety. A summary of what the data from these questions tells us is outlined below. More information on the resident survey results is available on our website.

About the survey

The consultation was undertaken between the 21st June and 20th August 2017 and involved a direct mailing to 6,100 randomly selected households, a direct email to the consultation mailing list as well as being promoted online, through social media and at roadshows around the borough. A total of 2,350 people responded.

The survey was open to all Maidstone Borough residents aged 18 years and over. Data has been weighted according to the known population profile to counteract non-response bias (weighting was applied to 2008 responses where both questions on gender and age were answered). It should also be noted that respondents from BME backgrounds are slightly under-represented at 4.1% compared 5.9%1 in the local area. Residents aged 18 to 24 years were also under-represented but to a greater extent therefore the results for this group are not discussed.

The overall results in this report are accurate to ±2.0% at the 95% confidence level. This means that we can be 95% certain that the results are between ±2.0% of the calculated response, so the ‘true’ response could be 2.0% above or below the figures reported (i.e. a 50% agreement rate could in reality lie within the range of 48% to 52%). Therefore this section only looks at variation greater than 8%.

The Council uses the customer segmentation tool Acorn to create customer profiles. This allows us to classify households using postcode data into categories and gain greater understanding about the behaviours, attitudes and characteristics of our communities. 

Safety in the Home

The survey showed that 93% of residents feel safe in their own home, when we assessed the different demographic groups the data showed respondents from BME backgrounds were more likely to feel unsafe in their own homes than respondents from white backgrounds.  Respondents with a disability had greatest proportion that has no strong views either way with 9.2% (29 respondents) selecting this answer.

Safety walking during the day-time

Respondents were also asked how safe they feel walking in their local area during day-time and night time. Overall, 94% said they feel safe walking in their local area in the daylight, within this figure; 53% responded that they feel very safe.

There is a 10.6% difference in the number of Very and Fairly Safe responses from respondents from white backgrounds and those from BME backgrounds. While the proportion answering negatively are not significantly different, respondents from BME backgrounds were three time more likely to have no strong opinion either way.

In terms of age, the 35 to 34 years group had the greatest proportion responding negatively (Unsafe and Very unsafe) at 4.4% (14 respondents), interestingly this is only made up of respondents answering unsafe as there were no respondents in this group who said they were very unsafe.

Safety walking during the night time

Overall, 59.8% of respondents said they feel very or fairly safe walking in their local area in the night time, just over one in five (21.5%) respondents said they feel unsafe or very unsafe. Across the different demographic groups there were some significant variations.

Male respondents had the greatest proportion responding that they feel very or fairly safe at 68.6% and significantly greater than women by 17.5%.

Respondents with a disability had the greatest proportion responding unsafe and very unsafe with one in three (33.3%) in the group selecting these answers. There was also a difference of 19.1% of the proportion responding that they feel safe between those with a disability and those without a disability, those with a disability were more likely to feel unsafe.

There was also a 22.1% difference between respondents from BME backgrounds when compared to respondents from white backgrounds, with those from BME backgrounds more likely to feel unsafe than those from white backgrounds.

Customer profile shows that the residents who feel unsafe are more likely than average Maidstone resident to live in small flats or terraced properties that are privately rented and have a household income of less than £40,000. Single person households were also over-represented in this group which could contribute to lower feeling of safety at night.

The customer profile for people that responded safe or very safe to this questions shows they are more likely than average to live in detached properties with three or more bedrooms, either owned outright or with a mortgage. Households with three or more people are over-represented in this group as are those with household incomes in excess of £60,000.

Crime specific concerns

The resident survey also asked people how worried they were about particular crimes affecting them.

45.8% of respondents say they are very or somewhat worried about someone breaking into their home. There was only one significant difference in response levels across the different demographic groups: respondents with a disability were 12% more likely than those without a disability to say they feel very or somewhat worried about somebody breaking into their home.

 

Customer profiling shows that those who responded they are worried about someone breaking into their home are more likely than the average Maidstone resident to own their own home either outright or with a mortgage, they tend to have household incomes in excess of £40,000 and are likely to have continued their education after 16 years. The self-employed were over-represented in this group.

Those who responded that they are not very worried or not worried at all about having their house broken into had a similar customer profile to those that responded very or somewhat worried.  However, this group were slightly more likely to have children in the household and slightly less likely to be self-employed.

When asked about how worried they were about being attacked or assaulted 29.2% of respondents said they were very or somewhat worried about being assaulted or attacked, and 70.8% said they were not very worried or not worried at all.

Across the different demographic groups there was a significant difference in the response levels of those with a disability and those without a disability. Those with a disability were more likely to respond very worried or somewhat worried, with more than two in five responding this way compared to just under one in four for those without a disability.

There was also a 12.4% difference between men and women responding very or somewhat worried, with women being more likely to be worried than men.

The customer profile for residents who responded very or somewhat worried shows people in this group are more likely than the average Maidstone resident to live in a flat or terraced property that is privately rented.  Students and single person (non-pensioner) households are over-represented and people aged over 50 years are under-represented. This group is more likely than average to have a household income of less than £60,000 and may have had difficulty accessing credit in the past.

The profile for those that responded not very worried or not worried at all shows people in this group are more likely than average to have a household income in excess of £40,000, reside in a detached property that is owned outright or with a mortgage.  Those that undertook higher education are slightly over-represented.

In the Resident Survey one in three respondents (33.4%) are worried about their car being stolen.

Respondents with a disability had the greatest proportion saying they are very or somewhat worried about having their car stolen at 50.0%. There is a difference of 20.9% between this group and those without a disability.

There was also a difference of 8% in the proportion of people who were worried about have their car stolen between those that were economically active and those that were economically inactive, the economically inactive were more worried than the economically active counterparts. 

The customer profile for the people that responded very or somewhat worried shows that 82% of this group have at least one car in the household with 35% having two or more cars in the household. The majority of this group this group are in employment with slightly higher levels of employment in public sector and professional roles and self-employment. 70% own their home outright or with a mortgage.

Those that said they were not very worried or not worried at all as a group has a similar level of car ownership at 84%, with 38% having two or more cars in the household. However, this group are 20% more likely to own a luxury or executive car than the average Maidstone resident.  Both profiles show that these groups have an marginally higher than average likelihood of driving to work but those that said they were not worried about car theft were more likely to take the train or work from home than those who said they were worried about having their car stolen.

Overall, 56.4% of respondents are very or somewhat worried about being the victim of fraud or identity theft.

There is a significant difference between the levels of worry between the economically active and the economically inactive, with a gap of 11%. Those who are economically inactive have a greater proportion of people saying they are very or somewhat worried.

There is also a significant difference in the worry levels of those with a disability and those without, an 18.2% gap, a greater proportion of those with a disability were worried about being the victim of fraud or identity theft than those without a disability.

There were no significant differences in the customer profiles between those who said they were very or somewhat worried about being the victim of fraud or identity theft and who responded not very worried and not worried at all.

 

Overall, 38.0% of respondents are very or somewhat worried about being pestered or insulted while in a public place or in the street.

The data shows a significant difference in the response levels between respondents from white backgrounds and those from BME backgrounds. Those from BME backgrounds had a greater proportion responding that they are worried about being pestered or insulted while in a public place, by 14.2%, when compared to the response level of people from white backgrounds.

The data also suggests that women are more worried about being pestered or insulted in public than men.

The customer profiles for those worried about being pestered or insulted while in public and those who were not worried about this show those that said they were worried are likely to be younger (35 to 49 years) than those who said they were not worried (50 to 64 years).

Those that were worried are more likely than average to live in privately rented accommodation and those that were not worried are more likely than average to own their property outright or with a mortgage. Those who were not worried were also more likely than average to be educated to degree level.

Our A-Z

If you cannot find what you are looking for in our search facility, you can use our A-Z index to find the service you require.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z