<< BACK <<

Page 1
Page 2

Crime Information

Justification for Structure of Crime and Disorder Audit.

There are three drivers behind the choice of issues examined in this audit:

• Government Guidance 
• Comparative Information about Crime Rates
• Resident Opinion

Government Guidance

The Home Office provides guidance on how police and local authorities should together implement the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and undertake a Crime and Disorder Audit.  The Act makes it clear that Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategies should be based on the findings of the local Crime and Disorder Audit.  This will ensure that Strategies are firmly based on local issues. 

The Government guidance does not prescribe the issues that local Crime and Disorder Audits should examine.  However it makes clear that partners should show they have carefully considered the measures required to address national targets and a small number of other issues that the Government sees as high priority, such as: Racial Crime, Fear of Crime, Repeat Victimisation, Anti-Social Behaviour and Domestic Violence.

National crime targets are reprinted in guidance on Public Service Agreements published in July 2001.  Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships are expected to meet national crime targets.  This suggests an expectation from government that the Crime and Disorder Audit would cover these areas.  National targets are set for:

• Vehicle Crime (crime rates),
• Domestic Burglary (crime rates),
• Probation (re-conviction rates),
• Youth Offenders (re-conviction rates),
• Drugs (drug use and drug treatment),
• Road Safety (accident rates).

The guidance also suggests that Strategies should focus on local solutions, resulting from, where possible, low level and small area geographical analysis of data.  Safer York Partnership has found this analysis very difficult to achieve within the timeframe of this Crime and Disorder Audit, but has appointed an Information and Data Analyst to carry out this type of work in the future.

Comparative Information about Crime Rates

Home Office Statistical Bulletins (Issues 12/00, 12/01) provide very simple comparative data on 6 categories of crime.  The table below shows how recorded crime rates in York compare with a group of 62 similar Local Authorities across England.

Crime Rate per 1000 Population

	York		Family Group Average
	99/00	00/01	99/00	00/01
Violence Against the Person	9.3	8.5	7.2	7.6
Sexual Offences	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.5
Robbery	0.5	0.4	0.5	0.6
Burglary Dwelling*	29.5	23.9	12.5	11.3
Theft of a Motor Vehicle	5.8	5.2	4.3	3.9
Theft from a Motor Vehicle	14.3	12.0	10.3	9.5

* Crime Rate per 1000 Households

The table suggests a number of key issues.

• York's crime rate fell for all six crime categories.
• The biggest percentage fall was for sexual offences (25% drop), while the smallest fall was for violence against the person (9% drop).
• Average crime rates for the family group showed a more mixed pattern.  Burglary and Motor Vehicle crime rates fell, the Sexual Offence rate stayed the same, while the Violence and Robbery rates rose slightly. 
• In all 6 categories, York improved its position against the family group average over the period.
• York has a lower than average crime rate for sexual offences and robbery.
• York has a 12% higher crime rate than the family group average for crimes of violence against the person.
• York has around a 30% higher than average crime rate for vehicle crime.
• Even after an improvement over the period, York still has over double the number of burglaries than other family group local authorities.

The comparative data suggests that domestic burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime should be considered in detail in the crime audit.

Resident Opinion

We used three main sources of information about resident perception of community safety issues, in order to clarify the priorities for inclusion in this Crime and Disorder Audit: 

• Residents Opinion Survey
• Community Planning Focus Group
• Talk About Panel Survey

Resident's Opinion Survey

Each year since 1996, the Resident Opinion Survey has provided robust data on the most important issues facing York residents and their families, as well as those facing the area as a whole.  Since 1996 respondents have identified crime and vandalism as among the two most important issues facing them and their families, and as one of the top three issues facing York.

Community Planning Focus Groups

In late 2000 City of York undertook a number of focus groups with residents to explore their views about the community's needs and aspirations.  The focus groups identified 'reducing crime and the fear of crime' as one of 5 key objectives for the Council and its partners to address.

The respondents were then able to identify 4 key actions and a number of success measures that they associated with 'reducing crime and the fear of crime'.  The key actions were:

• Improve communications and links between communities and those responsible for fighting crime.
• Take positive action to tackle drugs and alcohol misuse.
• Install CCTV in public places, particularly high crime rate areas.
• Work with young people to raise awareness of the impact of crime and divert those at risk of offending into attractive and appropriate leisure or educational opportunities.

This suggests that key issues for the audit are:

• Fear of Crime
• Problems associated with Drug and Alcohol Misuse
• Insecurity arising from the activities of Young People

Talk About Panel Survey

City of York Council uses a Citizen's panel survey called Talk About that reports three times per year.  The Talk About questionnaire in September 1997 asked a series of questions about attitude to various safety and security issues.  These findings provided insight into respondents' concerns about crime, and were important in developing the first York Crime Audit.  The questions asked in 1997 were repeated in 1999 and 2000 and have been asked again in the latest Talk About survey report, published in November 2001.  Each Talk About survey contains a large amount of data.  The key relevant messages are summarised here.   

In the 2000 Survey, 'Safety from Crime and Violence' was the most important aspect of life for respondents, but was an area which respondents rated very low in terms of satisfaction.  This was the same for all age groups.  Respondents all ranked 'Safety from Crime and Violence' as the top priority for York, on a number of measures.

The November 2001 Talk About Survey asked about the aspects of safety and security that residents were most concerned about.  The responses in 2001 are very similar to those in the three earlier surveys.  In general concern is higher during the evening or night than during the day, but the aspects highest on the list are similar both during the day and evening.  The most concerning aspects were:

Concern during the day	Concern during the evening / night
Speeding cars / lorries (73%) Theft from your home (73%) Vandalism (62%) Thefts of motor vehicles (58%) Groups of young people (57%) Thefts from motor vehicles (53%) Children causing a nuisance (48%) Drug Addicts (42%) Noise (41%) Street Robbery (40%) Minor Traffic Offences (40%)	Theft from your home (77%) Groups of young people (68%) Speeding cars / lorries (67%) Vandalism (63%) Thefts from motor vehicles (61%) Thefts of motor vehicles (55%) Children causing a nuisance (50%) Noise (46%) Street Robbery (44%) Drug Addicts (42%) Drunks (40%)

Source: Talk About Report Nov 2001 Table 19 & 20. 

(The results should accurately reflect York's adult population to within +/-3.1% with 95% confidence.)

This suggests that key issues for the audit to investigate are:

• Traffic offences
• Vehicle crime
• Domestic burglary
• Vandalism
• Nuisance caused by groups of children and young people
• Drugs and alcohol
• Street robbery
• Noise

Summary

The three sources of information each suggest a slightly different emphasis. 

Government   Guidance ß	Comparative Information ß	Resident Perception Data ß
Racial Crime	Domestic Burglary	Traffic offences
Fear of Crime	Vehicle Crime	Vehicle crime
Repeat Victimisation	Violent Crime	Domestic burglary
Domestic Violence		Vandalism
Anti-social Behaviour		Nuisance caused by groups of children and young people
Youth Offending
Vehicle Crime
Drugs		Crime related to drug and alcohol misuse
Probation
Domestic Burglary		Street robbery
Road Safety		Noise
		Fear of crime

Having considered the above, along with the experience of other local stakeholders, York's Crime Audit Review Group agreed that the audit should present detailed information under the following headings and sub-headings:

Offenders, Victims, Domestic Burglary, Vehicle Crime, Youth Crime and Disorder, Crimes based on Prejudice, Violent Crime, Fear of Crime, Drug and Alcohol Related Crime, Traffic Offences and Road Safety, Retail and Business Crime

Each section will include information about offenders and victims.  While this may mean duplication, it will ensure a good picture of each crime area.

Strategic Information Gaps

In undertaking this Crime and Disorder Audit we have identified a number of key gaps in the availability of strategic information.  These gaps mean the analysis that follows is not as sophisticated or as detailed as we would have liked.  The main information gaps were in relation to:

• Disorder
• Anti-social behaviour
• Graffiti and vandalism
• Offender profiles
• Victim profiles
• Types of property stolen
• Health data on patients accessing treatment for violence related injury.

There were various reasons for this data not being available for analysis when undertaking the Audit:

• Incompatibility of IT systems, definitions, age groupings
• Insufficient detail, such as fields not completed or groupings too broad
• Inability to reduce data to only York information
• Inability to search large databases in a sufficiently detailed manner to obtain useful data
• Reluctance of potential providers to release data

It must be stressed that some data providers were very keen to overcome these problems, but were unable to do so within the timescale required for this Crime and Disorder Audit.

In addition to gaps in data and information, we also encountered inadequacies in our analysis capacity.  For example we had limited capacity to geocode and geographically map data, or to jointly analyse data from different sources to create an holistic picture of problems.

As we establish our new joint information system of crime and related issues, Safer York Partnership and the relevant partners will take steps to address the gaps that have been identified.

Offenders

A) Introduction

Data on offenders is only available once people have been apprehended.  We have no way of knowing the demographic make up of those who commit crime but are not caught.  We have 3 major sources of data on offenders: Police, Probation and York's Youth Offending Team.  These can provide information about people who commit crime. 

'Offenders' was chosen as a separate heading within this Crime Audit document to reflect Safer York Partnership's concern at the number of prolific repeat offenders and the view that targeted work with offenders could be effective in reducing crime in the city.  This reflects the view that a fairly small number of offenders commit a large proportion of the crimes experienced within the City.  Understanding offenders better may suggest strategies and actions to help prevent or divert people from becoming offenders and change the behaviour of prolific repeat offenders. 

B) Formal Consultation Data

Safer York Partnership has carried out, in conjunction with the Youth Offending Team, a focus group with young offenders in order to gain their views on crime in York, their experience of being victims and their views on how to reduce crime in the City.  The findings are reported in the section on youth offending.

Other consultation in late 2001 suggested that people wanted to see more work done with young people to raise awareness of the impact of crime and divert those at risk of offending into attractive and appropriate leisure or educational opportunities.  Talk About respondents saw the implementation of 'community warden patrols' (21%), followed by 'action in schools to encourage children and young people to become good citizens' (15%) and the 'provision of more out-of-school activities' (12%) as the most important actions to fight fear and crime.  When questioned about other important actions, 'action in schools to encourage children and young people to become good citizens' and the 'provision of more out-of-school activities for young people' were the most popular responses, with 57% and 55% respectively.   'Work undertaken with offenders to reduce and/or prevent their offending behaviour' came third with 52%.  Next on the list was 'local action to reduce drug and alcohol misuse' (48%).

The results appear to be far from the 'hard' response to offenders that might have been expected.  Instead respondents felt that prevention and diversion initiatives would be more beneficial and given the cost of court and prison placement potentially cheaper as well.  Home Office estimates suggest that a contested trial in the Crown Court costs around £12,000, and a six-month prison sentence (with three months served) costs around £6,000.  Any contact with the Criminal Justice System will include costs at every stage.  Residents also linked the likelihood of offending to a lack of alternative options.  In particular, they linked the likelihood of offending to young people lacking leisure or educational opportunities. 

C) Quantitative Data

North Yorkshire Police

In the York Crime Audit published in February 1999, information about the age, gender, employment status and repeat offending patterns of offenders was presented.  Where relevant, comparisons are made between this and the last audit period.

The information within this crime audit about offenders relates to detected offenders of recorded crimes.  In the audit period 26% of all crimes in York were detected and cleared.  This means that the information we have relates only to a small proportion of actual offenders.  We have no way of telling whether the data is representative of the wider group of offenders including those who are not actually caught.  This is in common with other analyses of offenders nationally.

Since the last crime audit period the age profile of offenders appears to have changed slightly.  In particular, the proportion of offenders aged 10 to 17 has reduced from 28% to 22%.  As would be expected the largest offending group is those between the ages of 18 and 24 years forming 38% of all offenders.

Age Group of Offenders, February 1999 to March 2001

Age group	Number	%
10-17	2851	21.7
18-24	5003	38.0
25-29	2094	15.9
30 and over	3201	24.3
Total	13149	100.0

According to Police data, females are responsible for 44% of crime committed by 10 to 17 year olds, yet only 29% of crime committed by 18-24 year olds.

Age Group of Female Offenders, Feb 1999 to March 2001

Age group	Number	%
10-17	868	28.0
18-24	1121	36.2
25-29	435	14.0
30 and over	675	21.8
Total	3099	100.0

 

Age Group of Male Offenders, Feb 1999 to March 2001

Age group	Number	%
10-17	1983	19.7
18-24	3882	38.6
25-29	1659	16.5
30 and over	2526	25.1
Total	10050	100.0

 

Males are responsible for 76.5% of crime in the City.  This proportion is similar to the 80% found in the last crime audit.  Where females do offend, it remains predominantly in the areas of shoplifting and fraud.

Over the two-year period, 38 offenders, 27 male and 11 female, were identified as committing 20 or more offences.  Six of those, 3 male and 3 female, had committed over 40 offences.  The most prolific offender was a female who had committed 54 crimes.

We do not have information about the socio-economic status of all offenders.  However where this information is available, 57% are unemployed.  The next most significant groups are blue-collar workers who form 21.5% of offenders, and schoolchildren who form 14.5% of those offenders for whom we have this information. 

A large majority of offenders are local people.  Less than 10% of offenders come from other parts of the UK.  This shows that, despite our easily accessible location, very few people travel to York for the purposes of committing crime.

North Yorkshire Probation Service

North Yorkshire Probation Service supplied data on 1094 offenders who have been subject to court orders in the period April 1999 to March 2001.  In line with the Police data and findings of the previous Audit, the Probation data shows that men make up the majority of their clients.

Again in relation to age and gender profile the Probation data does not show substantial differences from the Police data, except that it does not include significant data on offenders under the age of 16, as these do not normally fall within their client group.

The Probation Service data uses a slightly different analysis of socio-economic and employment status; however, similar to the Police data it shows that the unemployed form by far the largest group of offenders.

The following table shows the significant factors, which affected the offending patterns of individual offenders dealt with by the Probation service in York over a three-year period.  For example it shows that alcohol misuse was either the single or one of a number of causal factors behind the offending behaviour of 46% of offenders. 

York Youth Offending Team

We have only been able to obtain information from the York Youth Offending Team for the period from April 2000 to March 2001.  During this period the Youth Offending Team dealt with 656 young offenders.  Of these, 508 or 77% were male and 23% were female.  The section on youth crime and disorder provides more information on young offenders.

Comparative Data

The Youth Lifestyles Survey (YLS) investigated the extent of self-reported offending among over 4,000 people aged 12 to 30 living in England and Wales.  The survey uses a nationally representative sample and was carried out between October 1998 and January 1999. 

YLS found that 20% of young people aged 12 to 17 admitted committing at least one offence in the last 12 months.  Only 15% of young women aged 12 to 17 admitted committing at least one offence in the last 12 months, and they formed 38% of those young people admitting the commission of at least one offence in the last 12 months.  The survey found that among 12 to 13 year-olds, there was little difference between males and females in offending, but that after the age of 14 the difference between men and women became more marked.

Further analysis of the age and gender profile of offenders in the City of York, is needed to indicate whether this is a static pattern or a sign of a change in trend.

D) Informal / Other Data

Information from YACRO. 

YACRO provided quarterly data on the number of referrals, and of people living in YACRO supported housing and hostels.  All YACRO clients have been involved in offending, but many do not originate from York, having come to York from different locations in order to take a place in the housing scheme.  The data is also broken down by age, gender, ethnicity and by whether the clients misuse either alcohol or drugs.

Referrals to YACRO

Dates	Number of referrals	Ages	Gender	Ethnicity	Substance Misuse
1.04.99 – 31.3.01	217	16 – 17 = 10 18 – 20 = 45 21 – 25 = 56 26 – 30 = 53 30+ = 53	194 male 23 female	214 white 2 black 1 not recorded	150 107 – drugs 43 – alcohol

New Residents accepted into YACRO housing

Dates	Numbers of New Residents	Ages	Gender	Ethnicity	Substance Misuse
1.04.99 – 31.3.01	121	16 – 17 = 3 18 – 20 = 27 21 – 25 = 35 26 – 30 = 25 30+ = 31	112 male 9 female	120 white 1 black	90 65 – drugs 25 - alcohol

This data suggests that the majority of offenders referred to YACRO are young white males, in line with general offending patterns.  49% of those referrals concerned offenders who had drug problems.  20% had alcohol problems.  Less than 1% of referrals concerned non-white ethnicity offenders.

This data suggests that the majority of offenders living in YACRO housing are young white males.  74% of the new residents had some kind of substance misuse problem.  54% of the 121 new residents into the YACRO housing in the two years up to March 2001 were drug users.  21% of the 121 new residents had alcohol misuse problems.  Just 1 of the 121 new residents were not of white ethnicity.

This data suggests that substance misuse is one of the most significant factors in offenders' lives.  Further analysis of the link between substance misuse and offending can be found in the section on Drugs and Related Crime.

E) Key Messages

• Substance misuse is a significant factor in offending within City of York.
• Proportionately offenders in the 10 to 17 age bracket are reducing with an increase in 18 to 24-year-olds offending.  This suggests that diversion activities and early intervention work are being successful.
• Offending by young women may be increasing.  This should be an area investigated further in the coming months. 
  

Victims of Crime

A) Introduction

National Context

The latest edition of the British Crime Survey (published in mid-October 2001) provides information about trends in reported and unreported crime.  The survey found that the estimated victimisation rate in 2000 fell to its lowest ever level of 27%, compared to 30.5% in 1999 and 39% in 1995.  This is the proportion of people subject to one or more crimes during the year.

The table below, and other information from the 2001 British Crime Survey, identifies a number of risk factors, which increase the chances of a household falling victim to burglary, vehicle crime or violent crime.  They are as follows:

• households headed by younger adults
• single parent households
• lower income households
• households living in rented accommodation
• households where the head is unemployed or economically inactive
• households in inner-city areas
• households in areas of high physical disorder

Percentage of adults or households victims of burglary, vehicle related thefts and violence in 2000, by household characteristics from 2001 British Crime survey
Characteristic	Burglary	Vehicle related thefts	Violence
Age of household: 16 – 24 25 – 44 45 – 64 65 – 74 75+	7.6 4.2 3.1 2.3 2.0	19.3 13.5 11.0 4.7 4.0	N/A
Head of household under 60     Single adult and child(ren)     Adults and child(ren)     No children Head of household over 60	7.9 3.4 3.8 2.2	14.8 12.4 13.2 5.5	9.2 4.8 5.1 1.0
Household income     Less than £5,000     £5,000 less than £10,000     £10,000 less than £20,000     £20,000 less than £30,000     £30,000 or more	3.8 4.3 3.9 2.5 3.3	9.8 10.4 10.4 10.2 13	4.7 3.7 3.7 3.1 4.4
Tenure     Owner occupiers     Social renters     Private renters	2.7 5.5 3.9	9.9 15.1 13.2	2.9 5.1 8.9
Head of household employment status     In employment     Unemployed     Economically inactive	3.3 7.0 5.7	12.8 12.5 10.2	N/A
All adults or households	3.4	10.9	3.9

The 2001 BCS shows that repeat victimisation rates were highest for violence and vandalism, with 29% of victims of violent crime and 34% of victims of vandalism experiencing victimisation twice or more.  Repeat victimisation rates were highest in domestic violence, where 54% of victims were repeat victims.  The domestic burglary repeat victimisation rate was 21%.

An increasing proportion of crimes are being reported to the police, and there has been a small increase in police recording of crime.  It is estimated that 45% of crime was reported to police in 2000, up from 41% in 1999.  However reporting rates differ very markedly by type of crime.  In 71% of cases where crime was not reported to the police, this was because people thought the incident was too trivial, there was no loss or the police could not do much about it.  The survey also found that there was an increase in perception of seriousness that victims attach to all types of crime.

B) Formal Consultation Data

Resident Experience of Crime

The November 2001 Talk About Survey asked respondents whether they had experienced crime themselves, or knew someone else who had experienced crime in the last 2 years.  The following table sets out the responses.

	Respondents' household			Neighbour / someone known
	1999	2000	2001	1999	2000	2001
	%	%	%	%	%	%
None	66	61	58	27	32	25
Vandalism to property	15	18	19	23	21	27
Theft from garden	13	14	11	25	24	27
House burgled	10	9	10	54	45	48
Theft from garage / shed	10	10	11	34	38	38
Theft of / from car	4	-	3	4	-	2
Other	1	*	2	1	*	1

N.B. Excludes 'don't know' responses (between 9% and 13% answered in this way)

* Less than 0.5%

The survey suggests that a slightly smaller number of people have not experienced crime.  This contrasts with the national data from the British Crime Survey, which suggests that the victimisation rate has fallen over the last couple of years.  However none of the individual types of crime show a significant rise in the number of direct victims. 

There is little sign of any change in the number of respondents who say that a neighbour or someone else they know has experienced crime in the last 2 years.

C) Quantitative Data

Hard information about the nature of victims within the City of York is difficult to obtain, for the following reasons:

• for many crimes the victim recorded is actually the person reporting the crime who may or may not be the victim
• victim details such as age, date of birth, employment status, are often not completed
• whether the victim is an individual or an organisation often is not clearly identified
• some offences have no clear victim
• victims may choose not to reveal certain details.

Some analysis of victim data will simply serve to repeat analysis of offending behaviour.  Therefore for all victims we have simply looked as age, gender and origin in this Crime Audit.  The victim data in this section is from North Yorkshire Police and relates to the period February 1999 to March 2001.

Despite the large numbers of tourists and visitors present in York, about 95% of crime victims are local people.  York is a very safe place for visitors, with only 5% of victims coming from other parts of the UK, and a negligible number from abroad.

Where employment status of individual victims is recorded (10,011 out of 20,473 i.e. 49%) the majority of victims are employed. 

Victim information is most usefully applied when looking at specific crime types.  Therefore we have chosen primarily to consider victim characteristics relating to the three crime areas upon which the British Crime Survey focuses: domestic burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime. 

Victims of Domestic Burglary

The gender of victims of domestic burglary showed an equal split between male and female victims, with 50% of domestic burglary victims being female and 49% male.

We know the age of 47% of domestic burglary victims.  The peak age group for victimisation is 25 to 34, with 26% of victims.  Risk of victimisation gradually falls from this point onwards, with older people in the age group 65 - 74 forming 5% of domestic burglary victims, then rises slightly with 75-year-olds and over making up 9% of victims.

We have also looked at the employment status of domestic burglary victims. Employed people form the largest group of victims of domestic burglary.  The number of victims who are retired reflects the number of victims in the older age group.  Students also form a significant proportion of victims, which reflects the large number of students resident in York.

Victims of Vehicle Crime

Three-fifths of the total of 7999 victims of vehicle crime were male.  This is in line with national driving licence statistics, which show that 57% of those with full car driving licences are male (Transport Statistics Great Britain, DETR, 2000).

Risk of victimisation is greatest among those aged 25–34 - with 30% of victims in this age bracket.  This age profile may simply be linked to the profile of age and car type ownership.

Victims of Violence

During the audit period, 1112 victims of violent crime were recorded.  56% of these victims were male, 42% female and 2% not known or not applicable.

Risk of victimisation reduces greatly as people get older with 26% of victims of violent crime being 17 or under, 26% being 18 - 24, 24.5% between the ages of 25 - 34, 13% aged 35 - 44, 7% aged 55 - 64, and less than 1% (0.66%) for each of the age groups 65 - 74 and 75 and over.  People over 55 years old are highly unlikely to be victims of violent crime.

Summary

The peak age for victimisation for burglary and vehicle crime is the same -  25–34.  However victims of violence are more likely to be younger, with teenagers and people aged 18-24 forming a significant proportion of victims of violence.  There are no large variations between the number of victims who are male or female in any of these three categories.  The largest difference relates to vehicle crime were 60% of victims were male apparently in line with driving and car ownership.  Men were also more likely to be victims of violent crime forming 56% of these victims.

These statistics relate to known victims of recorded crimes.  Due to a large number of crimes not being reported to the Police (variable across different forms of offence), we have no way of knowing how many York residents have actually been victims of crime in the last 2 years, nor the make up of these victims. 

D) Informal / Other Data

Victim Support York & Selby dealt with 3226 victims of crime resident in York during 1999/2000 and 2720 in 2000/2001.  During the period from 1st January 2000 - 31st March 2001 Victim Support dealt with 145 victims through their repeat victimisation programme, 64 of whom were repeat victims with the remainder being vulnerable victims.

E) Key Messages

• Victims of crime should be encouraged to report incidents to the Police and provide as much information as possible, as so little hard data about the nature of victimisation is available.
• Older people are less likely to be victims of crime, particularly violent crime.
• Young people, whilst being perceived generally as the perpetrators of crime, suffer higher rates of victimisation from violent crime.

Domestic Burglary

A) Introduction

The latest edition of the British Crime Survey (published mid-October 2001) provides information about national trends in reported and unreported crime. 

The key relevant results from BCS were:

• A 17% fall in the estimated number of domestic burglaries between 1999 and 2000.
• A national trend of a 7% annual fall in the total number of burglary incidents since 1995. 
• 3.4% of households had a burglary or attempted burglary in 2000, compared with 4.3% in 1999.
• Young households, single-parent households and those in areas of high physical disorder were most at risk. 
• Decreases in risk of victimisation for all groups.
• Risk of burglary in rural areas (1.9%) is about half that in non-rural areas.

The 2001 British Crime Survey estimates that there were 1,063,000 burglaries in England in 2000.  The police recorded 409,000 domestic burglaries in this period. 

66% of those saying in BCS they had experienced a burglary in 2000  reported it to the police.  Of these the police recorded just 59% of reported burglaries.  Therefore in total Police only recorded an estimated 38% of all burglary incidents in 2000.

	Police (000s)	BCS (000s)	% BCS reported	% recorded of reported	% recorded of all BCS
Burglary	409	1063	66	59	38
Attempted and no loss	106	660	55	30	16
Burglary with loss	303	403	84	90	75

Source:  BCS 2001 page 8.

Attempted and no loss burglaries made up about 62% of all burglary incidents.  Unsurprisingly, burglaries where a loss is involved are more likely to be reported to police than attempted burglaries and no loss burglaries.  They were also significantly more likely to be recorded by Police.  The police figures only record 16% of all attempted and no loss burglaries, and just 75% of all burglaries where there was a loss.

Compared to other types of crime, reporting of burglary incidents is high, and recording by police just above average.

In 2000 3.4% of households experienced at least one burglary.  Risk of burglary victimisation varies considerably across households with different characteristics, and those situated in different localities.

Households most at risk of burglary in 2000 (estimated actual burglaries)

Average England and Wales	3.4%
Head of household 25-44	4.2%
Household income £5000 to £10000	4.3%
Household income less than £5000	4.3%
Flats	4.5%
Inner-City areas	5.4%
Head of household unemployed	7.0%
Head of household 16-24	7.6%
Areas with high levels of physical disorder	7.9%
Single parents	7.9%

Source:  2001 BCS page 25

Comparative Information

The Home Office Statistical Bulletin (Issues 12/00, 12/01) provides very simple comparative data on burglary.  The table below shows how recorded burglary rates have changed in York between 99/00 and 00/01, and compares these rates against 62 similar Local Authorities across England.

Crime Rate per 1000 Households (HO Class 28, 29, recorded by Police)

	York		Family Group Average
	99/00	00/01	99/00	00/01
Domestic Burglary and Aggravated Domestic Burglary	29.5	23.9	12.5	11.3

While York's burglary rate has fallen significantly over the period (by 19%), it is still more than double the rate for the 62 local authorities in our Crime and Disorder Partnership family group.  York has the highest burglary crime rate than any other local authority in the group – still 14% higher than the next worst authority (Solihull). 

Other authorities with high rates have managed to reduce burglary rates by more than York.  The two best examples are Gloucester (down 38%) and Cheltenham (down 33%).  Both these authorities are in the Gloucestershire Constabulary area – it may be that we could process benchmark here to see what lessons we could learn. 

Other areas have much higher burglary rates than York.  Metropolitan areas tend to have higher rates (e.g. Hull 47.0 per 1000 households, or Leeds 43.8).  Rural areas tend to have much lower rates (e.g. Ryedale 6.2, or Craven 6.8).

B) Formal Consultation Data

Resident Perception of Burglary

The November 2001 Talk About Survey concentrated on the aspects of safety and security that residents were most concerned about.  The results are very similar to the three earlier surveys.  Concern is higher during the evening or night than during the day, but the aspects highest on the list are similar both during the day and evening.  The most concerning aspects were:

Concern during the day	Concern during the evening / night
Speeding cars / lorries (73%) Theft from your home (73%) Vandalism (62%)	Theft from your home (77%) Groups of young people (68%) Speeding cars / lorries (67%)

Source: Talk About Report Nov 2001 Table 19 & 20. 

(The results should accurately reflect York's adult population to within +/-3.1% with 95% confidence.)

This suggests that about 75% of residents were concerned about burglary.  This proportion (for both day and evening/night) is slightly higher than in 2000, but still slightly lower than in 1997. 

Concern about leaving the house empty.

Concern	Concern during the day	Concern during the evening / night
Very concerned	15	27
Fairly concerned	44	44
Neither concerned nor unconcerned	20	14
Fairly unconcerned	15	12
Very unconcerned	5	4
Excludes 'don't know responses

Source: Talk About Report Nov 2001 Table 21. 

59% of respondents were concerned about leaving their house empty during the day, and 71% concerned about leaving their house empty during the evening / night.  These are lower figures than in 1997.  This level of concern is highest among those who have lived in York for the longest period.  For example 83% of those who had lived in York for over 40 years were concerned about leaving their home empty during the evening, compared to just 46% of those who had lived in York for up to 5 years.  Older residents were more concerned than younger residents (77% of people 55+ were concerned compared to 62% aged 16-34).  Residents in social groups DE were more concerned than those in social groups AB[1] (81% compared to 61%).  Residents in the North East and South East of the City were less concerned about leaving their homes empty during day or evening than those in the West or South of the City.

	Concern during the day %	Concern during the evening / night %
Total	59	71
16-34	54	62
35-54	58	71
55+	68	77
AB	49	61
C1	55	65
C2	65	74
DE	67	81
Resident < 5 years	40	46
Resident 5-20 years	55	65
Resident 20-40 years	61	72
Resident > 40 years	70	83
North East	50	67
North West	63	75
South	62	70
South East	58	66
West	63	72

Excludes 'don't know' results

Source: Talk About Report Nov 2001 Table 22. 

Perception of Domestic Burglary

30% of respondents felt the level of domestic burglary was high in their area.  37% felt it was low in their area.

Those who have lived in York for under 5 years were more likely to think the level of burglary was low (56% compared with 37% overall).  People in the North West of the City were also more likely to perceive domestic burglary as being low, despite also being more likely to be concerned about leaving their homes empty during the day or evening. 

People in social class AB were also more likely to feel that domestic burglary in their area was low.

	High %	Low %
Total	30	37
AB	24	46
C1	32	38
C2	31	34
DE	31	30
Resident < 5 years	27	56
Resident 5-20 years	25	25
Resident 20-40 years	32	32
Resident > 40 years	32	32
North East	27	44
North West	35	24
South	26	44
South East	26	41
West	34	31

Excludes 'don't know' results

Experience of house burglary

10% of Talk About respondents in 2001 had had their house burgled in the last 2 years.  This has changed very little since 1999.  48% of people claimed to know someone whose house had been burgled.  There is a downward trend suggested in this figure. 

Similar proportions of people have experienced theft from their garden (11%), or from a shed or garage (11%) over the last 2 years. 

The Talk About data about experience of burglary suggests risk of being a victim of domestic burglary is higher in York than the national average.  This supports the comparative data which shows the recorded burglary rate in York to be double the average for the family group of local authorities.

C) Crime Data

North Yorkshire Police have provided data on domestic burglary incidents for the period 1999 – 2001. 

1999-2000	2000-2001	1999-2001	Difference
2190	1789	3979	-18%

During 2000/2001, 72 properties recorded more than one burglary.  Most had 2 burglaries, but 8 were burgled 3 times and 2 properties were burgled four times.  This means 4.2% of burglary addresses were repeat victims.

In 1999/2000, 10.5% of all recorded crimes were domestic burglaries, and in 2000/2001 this fell to 9.3%. 

If York follows the national picture, with an estimated 38% of domestic burglaries incidents recorded in police data, there could be as many as 4700 burglaries – giving an actual rate of 62.9 per 1000 households.

Over the 2 year period of the audit, about 33% of burglaries were reported to police on a Friday and Saturday.  Only about 25% of burglaries were reported on a Sunday and Monday.  Data is also available on the most likely times of day for burglaries to be reported.  This was around breakfast (8-9am), lunchtime (noon), tea-time (6-7pm) and late evening (11pm).  However these figures may just reflect the time when the victim discovered that the burglary had taken place - for example when people wake up or when they come in from work. 

Police data suggests the following about the socio-economic status of domestic burglary victims.  55% of victims were in paid employment and 45% were not working. 

Socio-economic status of domestic burglary victims 1999-2001

	Percent
Retired	16.7
Student	12.0
Unemployed	9.7
White Collar	31.3
Blue Collar	25.2
Housewife	5.2

 

Police data suggests that about 80% of burglaries were committed by men and about 20% by women.  A very large majority of burglary offenders during this period were aged 10-29.  Almost half were in the 18-24 age group.

Age group of domestic burglary offenders – 2/99 to 3/01

	Frequency	Percent
10-17	84	15.7
18-24	246	45.9
25-29	147	27.4
30 plus	59	11.0
Total	536	100.0

 

The number of burglaries jumps about from one month to the next over the last 2 years, but suggests an overall reducing trend.

Period	Domestic Burglaries per 1000 households
April 1997 – September 1998	40.3
April 1999 – March 2000	29.5
April 2000 – March 2001	23.9

Comparison over the longer term suggests that domestic burglary has fallen significantly in York, in line with national figures for both actual and recorded burglary.

Police beat areas differ markedly in terms of the number of burglaries recorded over the last 2 years. 

Beat Area	1999/ 2000	2000/ 2001	00/01 as % of 99/00	Total 1999/2001
YCM – Minster area	10	3	30%	13
YCP – Piccadilly	3	6	200%	9
YCV – Bishophill area	31	17	55%	48
YCW – Walmgate	23	26	113%	49
YEF –.Fulford, Heslington	265	161	61%	426
YEG – Groves, Muncaster	288	208	72%	496
YER – Wheldrake, Dunnington, Deighton, Elvington	9	11	122%	20
YET - Tang Hall, Heworth, Osbaldwick	303	272	90%	575
YNC – Clifton	232	147	63%	379
YNH – Huntington, Haxby, New Earswick	96	87	91%	183
YNR – Rawcliffe, Clifton Moor, Skelton	80	20	25%	100
YNS – Strensall	30	43	143%	73
YWA – Acomb	184	200	109%	384
YWB – Poppleton, Knapton, Boroughbridge road area	177	156	88%	333
YWF – Woodthorpe, Foxwood, Copmanthorpe	252	171	68%	423
YWK – South Bank, Dringhouses, Nunthorpe, Clementhorpe	207	261	126%	468

Overall the number of burglaries in 2000/2001 was 18% lower than in 1999/2000.  However in some beat areas there were a greater number of domestic burglaries.  The rise was not confined to beat areas with small overall numbers, where a small change could cause a large impact.  In Acomb and South Bank burglary has increased, on a large actual total number.

Ward	Offences Per 1000 Households	Ward	Offences Per 1000 Households
Acomb	31.1	Heworth Without	21.2
Beckfield	35.2	Holgate	28.4
Bishophill	55.5	Huntington and New Earswick	13.3
Bootham	71.7	Knavesmire	28.8
Clifton	32.7	Micklegate	24.3
Clifton Without	34.6	Monk	37.5
Copmanthorpe	12.3	Osbaldwick	38.2
Dunnington and Kexby	11.2	Rawcliffe and Skelton	16.2
Fishergate	20.6	Strensall	7.9
Foxwood	37.6	Upper Poppleton	7.8
Fulford	5.8	Walmgate	52.8
Guildhall	42.8	Westfield	38.2
Haxby	7.5	Wheldrake	5.4
Heslington	6.2	Wigginton	9.8
Heworth	37.0

The ward table set out above and the map below show the estimated average burglary rate over the two year period of the crime audit.  The analysis suggests an average burglary rate of 28.9 per 1000 households.  Calculations have been based on 1991 Census number of households, with the exception of Heslington ward, where we have incorporated an estimated 3,000 student households not represented in the Census data.

Some wards have much higher than average rates – for Bootham, Bishophill and Walmgate wards over 50 burglaries per 1000 households.  For Bishophill and Walmgate this represents a fall.  Bootham ward's burglary rate has fallen very little.  It has stayed steady at around 70-80 burglaries per 1000 households.

As in the previous audit, wards outside the ring road have burglary rates well below the York average – such as Haxby, Wheldrake, Wigginton and Upper Poppleton.

D) Informal / Other Data

Crime Prevention Measures

The 2001 Talk About Survey asked panel members about security measures they had used due to concern about the safety of their property.  Virtually all (98%) claimed to have taken at least one precaution.  People claimed to use a range of security measures  – 80% claiming to have fitted window locks and 70% claiming to have high standard door locks, to 12% who had a dummy alarm box.  44% had a burglar alarm, while about 25% had received advice on home security from the police or other sources.  27% belonged to a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.

E) Key Messages

• The level of domestic burglary has reduced by over 40% since the period of the last crime audit – from 40.3 per 1000 households in 1997/1998, to 23.9 per 1000 households in 2000/2001.
• The level of burglary varies by ward.  Over the 2 year period of the audit, Bootham ward (the highest rate) had a burglary rate 13.3 times higher than Wheldrake ward (the lowest rate).
• Bootham ward has not seen the same scale of reduction in burglary offences as other wards.
• Residents continue to perceive burglary as their most major concern, both during the day and evening, as measured by the Talk About survey.

Vehicle Crime

There are two sub-headings within the vehicle crime area:

• Theft of Motor Vehicles
• Theft from Motor Vehicles

A) Introduction

The latest edition of the British Crime Survey (published in mid-October 2001) provides information about trends in reported and unreported crime. 

The key relevant results from BCS were:

• An 11% fall in the number of vehicle related thefts between 1999 and 2000.
• 11% of vehicle owning households had a vehicle theft in 2000.
• Younger households continue to be most at risk.  Other high-risk groups include those people living in flats, and those in areas with a high level of disorder.
• The risk of being the victim of vehicle-related theft is lower in rural areas (6.9%) than in non-rural areas (12.5%). 

The 2001 British Crime Survey estimates there were 2,619,000 non-commercial vehicle related thefts in 2000.  There were also 2,608,000 acts of vandalism, many of which were against motor vehicles.  49% of those saying in BCS they had experienced a vehicle theft incident in 2000 reported it to the police.  The police recorded 73% of these reported incidents.  Therefore the police's recorded data relates to about 36% of all vehicle theft incidents.  In turn an estimated 18% of all vandalism incidents are shown within the police's recorded figures.

	Police (000s)	BCS (000s)	% BCS reported	% recorded of reported	% recorded of all BCS
Vehicle Thefts	938	2619	49	73	36
Thefts from vehicles	478	1626	47	63	29
Thefts of vehicles	235	337	90	78	70
Attempted vehicle theft	224	656	33	100	34
Vandalism	481	2608	34	54	18

Source:  BCS page 8

Thefts of vehicles was twice as likely to be reported to police as theft from vehicles, and about three times as likely to be reported as attempted theft.  This means that while theft of vehicles makes up just 13% of actual vehicle crime, it comprises 25% of recorded vehicle crime.  Theft from vehicles is about 5 times more common than theft of vehicles.  Theft of vehicle is the most likely crime to be reported to police.

The national trend is for a 8% annual fall in the total number of vehicle related thefts since 1995.

In 2000, 10.9% of households experienced at least one vehicle-related theft.  Risk of victimisation differs considerably across households with different characteristics.  There is some cross-over with those at high risk of suffering a domestic burglary.

Vehicle Owning Households most at risk of vehicle theft

	All vehicle theft %	Theft of vehicle %	Theft from vehicle %	Attempted thefts %
Average England and Wales	10.9	1.8	6.8	3.1
Head of Households 16-24	19.3	3.7	12.6	5.3
Flats	17.3	3.8	10.6	4.8
Areas with high level of physical disorder	16.1	3.6	9.3	5.2
Inner-city areas	14.9	2.8	8.2	5.7
Single parents	14.8	1.9	11.6	3.1
Terraced houses	13.8	1.7	8.6	4.5
Head of households 25-44	13.5	2.5	8.1	4.0
Private renters	13.2	1.4	8.3	4.1
Adults with no children	13.2	2.0	8.2	3.9
Households income more than £30000	13.0	1.7	9.1	3.0

Source: 2001 BCS page 59/60

The Home Office Statistical Bulletin (Issues 12/00, 12/01) provides very simple comparative data on vehicle crime.  The table below shows how recorded vehicle crime rates have changed in York between 99/00 and 00/01, and compares these rates against 62 similar Local Authorities across England.

Crime Rate per 1000 Population

	York		Family Group Average
	99/00	00/01	99/00	00/01
Theft of a Motor Vehicle	5.8	5.2	4.3	3.9
Theft from a Motor Vehicle	14.3	12.0	10.3	9.5

The vehicle crime rate in York has fallen by more than 10% over the period for both offences.  This suggests we are catching up with the family group average.  However the rate in York is still above average for the family group (by between 26% and 33%).  Once more high crime rate local authorities such as Cheltenham, Gloucester and Wycombe have seen more significant falls – though this is more likely to be due to a change in reporting and recording levels.  These figures do not include attempted theft or damage.

B) Formal Consultation Data

Resident Perception of Vehicle Crime

The November 2001 Talk About Survey concentrated on the aspects of safety and security that residents were most concerned about.  The proportion of residents concerned about vehicle crime were:

Concern during the day	Concern during the evening / night
Thefts from motor vehicles (53%) Thefts of motor vehicles (58%)	Thefts from motor vehicles (61%) Thefts of motor vehicles (55%)

Source: Talk About Report Nov 2001 Table 19 & 20. 

(The results should accurately reflect York's adult population to within +/-3.1% with 95% confidence.)

The figures for concern during the evening are very similar to 1999 and 2000, but are still about 10% lower than in 1997.  There is a similar pattern for thefts from motor vehicles during the day.  There has been a big jump in concern about thefts of motor vehicles during the day (up from 38% in 2000 to 58% in 2001.)  However this is similar to the figure in 1997 (59%).

Experience of vehicle crime.

Just 3% of respondents stated they had suffered theft of or from their car in the last 2 years.  This is lower than either the recorded crime rate or the victimisation rate set out in the national data.

C) Crime Data (Theft of Motor Vehicle)

North Yorkshire Police have provided data on recorded thefts of motor vehicle incidents in York for the period 1999 – 2001. 

1999-2000	2000-2001	1999-2001	Difference
1006	877	1883	-13%

Over the 2 year period, 369 of these thefts were recorded as taking place in car parks.  This is about 19.6% of all recorded thefts.  In 1999/2000, 17.6% of recorded thefts occurred in car parks, and in 2000/2001 the proportion had risen to 21.9%.  The absolute number of thefts in car parks rose by 8.5% year on year. 

BCS suggests that only 70% of actual thefts of vehicles are recorded in Police figures.  If this was the case in York, it means that the real figure would actually be about 1250 thefts of vehicles in 2000/2001 rather than 877.  This leads to a true rate of theft of vehicles of 7.0 per 1000 population.

The Home Office Statistical Bulletin (Issues 12/00, 12/01) provides very simple comparative data on vehicle theft.  The table below shows how recorded theft of vehicle has changed in York between 99/00 and 00/01, and compares these rates against 62 similar Local Authorities across England.

Crime Rate per 1000 Population (HO class 37/2, 48, recorded by Police)

	York		Family Group Average
	99/00	00/01	99/00	00/01
Theft of a Motor Vehicle	5.8	5.2	4.3	3.9

The rate in York fell by just over 10% year on year.  This is a slightly larger fall than that experienced across the family group – suggesting that we are catching up the family group in this crime area.

Beat Area	1999/ 2000	2000/ 2001	00/01 as % of 99/00	Total 1999/2001
YCM – Minster area	8	13	163%	21
YCP – Piccadilly	15	14	93%	29
YCV – Bishophill area	25	20	80%	46
YCW – Walmgate	18	15	68%	37
YEF – Fulford, Heslington	71	56	83%	135
YEG – Groves, Muncaster	125	134	111%	264
YER – Wheldrake, Dunnington, Deighton, Elvington	8	11	107%	66
YET – Tang Hall, Heworth, Osbaldwick	98	81	83%	178
YNC – Clifton	102	101	99%	207
YNH – Huntington, Haxby, New Earswick	49	38	78%	100
YNR – Rawcliffe, Clifton Moor, Skelton	54	29	54%	171
YNS – Strensall	27	22	81%	48
YWA – Acomb	94	76	81%	219
Beat Area	1999/ 2000	2000/ 2001	00/01 as % of 99/00	Total 1999/2001
YWB – Poppleton, Knapton, Boroughbridge road area	116	110	95%	244
YWF – Woodthorpe, Foxwood, Copmanthorpe	94	69	73%	163
YWK – South Bank, Dringhouses, Nunthorpe, Clementhorpe	101	86	85%	194
All Beat areas	1006	877	87%	1883
CARPARKS – all beat areas	177	192	108%	369

In 2000/2001, 22% of vehicle thefts occurred in Car Parks.  This is an increase from 18% in 1999/2000.  It is concerning therefore that thefts of cars in car parks has actually increased in absolute terms by 8% year on year. 

This map above and table overleaf provide an estimated Theft of Vehicle offence rate by ward, averaged over the 2 year period 1999-2001.  It suggests that central wards such as Guildhall, Clifton, Bootham and Bishophill suffer from the worst rate of vehicle theft in the city.  It must be noted that a large majority of the city's car parking spaces fall within Guildhall and Bishophill wards, and that the ward rates for these wards will be effected by vehicle crime in car parks. 

Ward	Offences Per 1000 Population	Ward	Offences Per 1000 Population
Acomb	6.9	Heworth Without	0.4
Beckfield	5.1	Holgate	5.6
Bishophill	15.8	Huntington And New Earswick	1.7
Bootham	12.9	Knavesmire	6.1
Clifton	10.5	Micklegate	5.3
Clifton Without	10.4	Monk	6.2
Copmanthorpe	0.8	Osbaldwick	2.0
Dunnington And Kexby	0.0	Rawcliffe And Skelton	1.3
Fishergate	3.4	Strensall	1.5
Foxwood	3.8	Upper Poppleton	2.7
Fulford	0.0	Walmgate	3.2
Guildhall	24.5	Westfield	9.0
Haxby	0.9	Wheldrake	0.9
Heslington	1.4	Wigginton	0.9
Heworth	4.9

Age Group of Offenders – Theft of Motor Vehicles (Feb 1999 to Mar 2001)

	Number	Percent
10-17	182	51.7
18-24	133	37.8
25-29	18	5.1
30 plus	19	5.4
Total	352	100.0

 

Just over 350 offenders have been identified during the period of the crime audit.  Of these over half were aged 10-17, and a further 38% aged 18-24.  96% of these offenders were male.  Just 10.4% of vehicle thefts over the audit period have been detected and cleared by North Yorkshire Police

Clear ups of Thefts of Motor Vehicles (February 1999 to March 2001

	Number	Percent
Not Cleared	1887	89.6
Cleared	220	10.4
Total	2107	100.0

 

C) Crime Data (Theft from Motor Vehicles)

North Yorkshire Police have provided data on recorded thefts from motor vehicle incidents in York for the period 1999 – 2001. 

1999-2000	2000-2001	1999-2001	Difference
2493	2184	4677	-12%

Over the 2 year period, 1468 of these thefts were recorded as taking place in car parks.  This is about 31.3% of all recorded thefts.  In 1999/2000, 30.4% of recorded thefts occurred in car parks, and in 2000/2001 the proportion had risen to 32.5%, despite the absolute number of thefts in car parks reducing by 6.4% year on year. 

The British Crime Survey 2001 suggests that only 29% of actual thefts from vehicles are recorded in Police figures.  If this was the case in York, it means that the real figure would actually be about 7530 thefts from vehicles in 2000/2001, not 2184.  This leads to a true rate of theft from vehicles of 42.3 per 1000 population.

There is little difference in the proportion of thefts from Motor Vehicles by day of the week.  However just over 50% of thefts from Motor Vehicles are reported between 5pm and 11pm.  This is likely to reflect the time when a theft is discovered and reported to Police.

Clear ups of Thefts from Motor Vehicles (February 1999 to March 2001

	Percent
Not Cleared	97.2
Cleared	2.8

 

Just 2.8% of thefts from motor vehicles were detected and cleared up during the 2 year period of the crime audit. 

Age Group of Offenders – Theft from Motor Vehicles (Feb 1999 to Mar 2001)

	Number	Percent
10-17	33	18.8
18-24	113	64.2
25-29	18	10.2
30 plus	12	6.8
Total	176	100.0

 

The age-group of people stealing from vehicles is slightly older than those stealing vehicles.  Over 83% of offenders are aged between 10 and 24.  Just under 95% of offenders were men. 

The Home Office Statistical Bulletin (Issues 12/00, 12/01) provides very simple comparative data on vehicle crime.  The table below shows how recorded vehicle crime rates have changed in York between 99/00 and 00/01, and compares these rates against 62 similar Local Authorities across England.

Crime Rate per 1000 Population (HO class 45, recorded by Police)

	York		Family Group Average
	99/00	00/01	99/00	00/01
Theft from a Motor Vehicle	14.3	12.0	10.3	9.5

The rate has fallen by more than 16% over the period.  This suggests we are catching up with the family group average.  However the rate in York is still 26% above average for the family group.  Once more high crime rate local authorities such as Cheltenham, Gloucester and Wycombe have seen more significant falls – though in this case this is more likely to be due to a change in reporting and recording levels.  These figures do not include lesser vehicle crime like attempted theft or damage.

Recorded thefts from vehicles in different beat areas has jumped markedly between 1999/2000 and 2000/2001.  The largest absolute number still occurs in the Groves and Muncaster area of the city.  However against the overall picture of falling number of crimes, theft from vehicles has increased in some areas of the city – Minster, Walmgate and the villages to the South and East of York.

Beat Area	1999/ 2000	2000/ 2001	00/01 as % of 99/00	Total 1999/2001
YCM – Minster area	73	120	164%	193
YCP – Piccadilly	69	81	117%	150
YCV – Bishophill area	74	42	57%	116
YCW – Walmgate	47	69	147%	116
YEF – Fulford, Heslington	206	170	83%	376
YEG – Groves, Muncaster	424	395	93%	819
YER – Wheldrake, Dunnington, Deighton, Elvington	20	66	330%	86
YET – Tang Hall, Heworth, Osbaldwick	256	164	64%	420
YNC – Clifton	245	217	89%	462
YNH – Huntington, Haxby, New Earswick	88	107	122%	195
YNR – Rawcliffe, Clifton Moor, Skelton	131	106	81%	237
YNS – Strensall	36	30	83%	66
YWA – Acomb	132	121	92%	253
YWB – Poppleton, Knapton, Boroughbridge Road area	330	196	59%	526
YWF – Woodthorpe, Foxwood, Copmanthorpe	98	100	102%	198
YWK – South Bank, Dringhouses, Nunthorpe, Clementhorpe	264	200	76%	464
All Beat areas	2493	2184	88%	4677
CARPARKS (all beats)	758	710	94%	1468

The next table shows the average theft rate for city wards over the two year period of the crime audit.  The overall rate for the city was 13.4 per 1000 population.  The ward rate of offences is highest in Guildhall ward – almost 3 times the rate in any other ward.  However there were also relatively high rates in other wards within the ring road such as Bishophill, Bootham and Clifton.  A large majority of York's car parking spaces fall within Guildhall and Bishophill wards.  The vehicle crime rates in these two wards is therefore likely to be significantly inflated by the effect of vehicle crime in car parks.

Ward	Offences Per 1000 Population	Ward	Offences Per 1000 Population
Acomb	10.9	Heworth Without	1.1
Beckfield	11.9	Holgate	6.8
Bishophill	35.8	Huntington and New Earswick	3.6
Bootham	33.5	Knavesmire	8.5
Clifton	25.7	Micklegate	10.1
Clifton Without	18.4	Monk	14.5
Copmanthorpe	2.5	Osbaldwick	4.6
Dunnington And Kexby	1.1	Rawcliffe And Skelton	6.7
Fishergate	7.0	Strensall	3.7
Foxwood	5.1	Upper Poppleton	7.9
Fulford	0.5	Walmgate	7.4
Guildhall	90.6	Westfield	11.0
Haxby	2.4	Wheldrake	1.0
Heslington	4.8	Wigginton	1.7
Heworth	11.7

E) Key Messages

• Vehicle crime is falling overall.  Both thefts of and thefts from motor vehicles fell by over 10% between 1999/2000 and 2000/2001.
• Vehicle crime focused within central parts of the City, with Guildhall and Bishophill wards having the highest vehicle crime rates.
• An increasing proportion of vehicle crime is occurring in car parks. 

Page 2