Understanding Crime in Urban and Rural Areas Jeff Hardy Research and Information Team Leicestershire County Council t: 06 265 7342 e: jhardy@leics.gov.uk
i
Foreword Crime and the fear of crime is an important issue affecting people in both urban and rural areas alike. It is important that we continue to research the nature of community safety issues in urban and rural parts of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. This report provides a useful contribution to the ongoing debate about community safety and the work of local Community Safety Partnerships and the Leicestershire Rural Partnership. This report sets out some headline figures looking at crime and the fear of crime in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland based on an urban/rural classification. The report uses information from a number of sources including offences recorded by Leicestershire Constabulary, information on perceptions of crime from Leicestershire County Council s Citizens Panel survey and information on business crime from the Leicester Shire Economic Partnership s biannual Business Survey. As well as providing an overview of community safety issues in urban and rural areas, this report will serve as the catalyst for further research in this topic area in the future. It is encouraging that overall crime is down over the last three years in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. It is also encouraging that the biggest reductions have been in the most rural areas of the county. However, it is also evident that there have been slight increases in crime in some urban areas of Market Towns in Leicestershire County and the perceived likelihood of becoming a victim of crime is much higher than the actual risk. It is vital that all Partners work together to continue to reduce crime and tackle the fear of crime in urban and rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Mr Byron Rhodes Cabinet Lead Member for Community Safety Leicestershire County Council Chairman of Leicestershire Police Authority Mrs Lesley Pendleton Cabinet Lead Member for Rural Affairs Leicestershire County Council Chairman of Leicestershire Rural Partnership ii
Reader Information Contents Document Purpose Title Use the ONS Urban Rural Classification 2004 to provide a comparison of recorded crime and perceptions of crime in urban and rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Understanding Crime in Urban and Rural Areas Foreword Contents Page ii iii Author Jeff Hardy, Research Officer, Leicestershire County Council Executive Summary iv Publication Date November 2005 Target Audience Leicestershire Rural Partnership Community Safety Partnerships (Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland) Contact Details Jeff Hardy Research Officer Research & Information Team Leicestershire County Council County Hall Glenfield Leicester LE3 8RA Tel: 06 265 7342 Email: jhardy@leics.gov.uk Introduction 2 Urban / Rural Classification 2 3 Applying the Classification 3 4 Recorded Crime : Total Offences 4 5 Recorded Crime : Changes over time 5 6 Recorded Crime : by offence category 7 7 Arson 9 8 Business Crime 9 Public Perception 3 0 Domestic Violence 5 Racist Incidents 5 2 Conclusions & Recommendations 6 Appendices Appendix : Urban / Rural Classification by Unitary Authority / Local Authority District Appendix 2 : Number of offences and percentage change actuals 7 26 iii
Executive Summary The Rural and Urban Area Classification 2004 provides a method of identifying issues specific to rural areas. The classification defines each census output area as urban, town and fringe, village or hamlet and isolated dwelling. Using this classification in conjunction with recorded crime data, arson data, the Leicester Shire Business Survey and Leicestershire County Council s Citizens Panel enables a comparison of crime issues between the urban and rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Between 2002/03 and 2004/05 the total number of offences recorded by the police in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland had decreased. The largest percentage decrease was in the hamlet and isolated dwelling areas. The only increase in recorded offences was within the urban areas of Leicestershire County. The recorded offence rate per,000 resident population shows the likelihood of being a victim of crime in the most rural areas of Leicestershire and Rutland to be virtually the same as in the urban areas of the county (excluding Leicester City). Three-quarters of the population of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland live in urban areas, concentrated in a relatively small geographical area. More than three-quarters of offences recorded by Leicestershire Constabulary occur within these urban areas of the city and county. The report highlights that even though the volume of recorded offences is much higher in urban areas there are some clear differences in the crime issues that affect the urban and rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Violence against the person is a growing problem across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, being a bigger problem in urban areas compared to rural areas. The larger percentage increases in reported violence against the person offences suggest it is a growing problem outside the city urban areas. Vehicle crime is a relatively bigger problem for rural areas, with theft from motor vehicles accounting for double the proportion of offences in hamlet and isolated dwellings compared to city and county urban areas. Vehicle crime had the largest percentage decrease of all offence types across all of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during the three year period. Rural areas had the largest percentage decrease in theft from motor vehicle offences over the three year period. Damage offences are a bigger problem in both county and city urban areas and town and fringe areas compared to more rural areas. There has been a considerable decrease in the number of reported damage offences in city urban areas in the last three years. In comparison, there is an upward trend in the recording of damage offences outside the city urban areas. Burglary other than dwelling offences have decreased across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during the last three years. Burglary other than dwelling is a relatively bigger problem for rural areas, though the largest percentage decreases are outside the city urban areas. Theft offences account for the highest proportion of offences within villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. Rural businesses are less likely to have been a victim of crime in the last 2 months compared to businesses located in city or county urban areas. The perceived likelihood of being a victim of violence against the person or burglary is a lot higher than the actual risk. The perceived risk of burglary in county urban areas is thirty times higher than the actual risk. The disparity between the perceived likelihood of being a victim of violence is greater in urban and town and fringe areas compared to villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. iv
. Introduction The county of Leicestershire is predominately rural, being characterised by sizable urban settlements, such as the towns of Loughborough, Hinckley, Melton Mowbray and Market Harborough, but also having large geographic areas sparsely scattered by numerous rural village settlements and hamlets. These rural settlements and communities are defined by their own distinct social and economic characteristics. These characteristics should be carefully considered in order to effectively examine the levels of recorded crime, attitudes and experiences of crime within rural areas. Previously, techniques have been used to determine crime hot-spots, identifying those areas with higher concentrations of crime and disorder, helping to target resources and funding initiatives. One problem with this approach is that hot-spot areas are predominately identified in more urban areas, where the concentration of population is greater. Previous research suggests that rural areas are likely to experience lower levels of crime. Applying the process of hot-spotting across an area which is both urban and rural in character, such as Leicestershire, is unlikely to identify hot-spots in more isolated rural areas. This does not address the issue that the nature of certain aspects of rural crime may be different to that in urban areas and key priorities and issues may have different implications for rural areas. Individuals perceptions and experiences of crime and disorder are likely to be different and rural areas suffer from rural specific crimes such as agricultural or livestock thefts. The aim of this report is to adopt a clear and definitive classification system of urban and rural areas and apply it to Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Thereafter, the classification can be used to quantify the extent of recorded offences and individuals perceptions of crime, allowing comparisons between rural and urban areas. The report provides a high level comparison of recorded crime and perceptions of crime between urban and rural areas. The report also demonstrates how this classification can help to identify and quantify crime issues specific to rural areas. The high level analysis and resulting conclusions provides an evidence base and recommendations for further detailed analysis and research into the difference and similarities in crime between urban and rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. There is a lower number of crimes in rural areas and there are fewer people living there. Both these factors are taken into account in trying to ascertain the relative impact of crime in rural areas. Caution needs to be taken when looking at percentage changes and crime rates when they are based on low numbers. However, the purpose of this report is precisely that: to look at crimes and the perceptions of crime in rural areas,
2. Urban / Rural Classification In order to provide a quantitative analysis and identify issues specific to rural areas it is necessary to adopt a clear system of classification to identify urban and rural areas and apply it to Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Map 2.: Urban / Rural Classification : Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland One such methodology is The Rural and Urban Area Classification 2004 which has been jointly produced by the Countryside Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the Welsh Assembly Government. This system of classification is based on population density and clustering rather than the socio-economic characteristics of an area. The classification process results in eight distinct categories, ranging from the most densely populated urban areas to areas with a sparse and dispersed population. The classification process can be applied to different levels of geography, including electoral ward and census output area. For more details refer to the paper Developing a New Classification of Urban and Rural Areas for Policy Purposes the Methodology, Bibby, P and Shephard, J (2004). This system has been used to apply an urban/rural classification at individual census output area level, across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. This resulted in output areas being classed into one of four classifications: Urban > 0k Town and Fringe Village Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling Map 2. (right) shows the classification applied to Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. (See Appendix for more detailed maps by Community Safety Partnership area.) Urban > 0k Town & Fringe Village Hamlet & Isolated Dwelling based on the Urban / Rural Classification 2004 2
3. Applying the Classification The Urban Rural Classification 2004 results in four classes being applied to Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, as shown in Map 2. on the previous page. As part of this report an additional classification has been created to help distinguish between the urban areas within Leicester City and the urban areas within Leicestershire county. Therefore, a separate class has been created for those areas defined as urban which are within the administrative boundary of Leicester City. This has been done to help identify those issues specific to Leicester City and highlight any differences compared to the other urban areas such as the principal district towns. This section of the report provides an overview of the resulting classification. Table 3. (below) shows the population and the area in hectares 2. Unsurprisingly, the table shows that a large proportion (75%) of the population live in a relatively small proportion of the geographical area of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (6%). Table 3.2 (below, right) shows the distribution of recorded offences 3 between October 2004 and September 2005 by urban/rural classification. Table 3.2 shows that half (49%) of the 90,220 offences recorded between October 2004 and September 2005, within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, were recorded within the urban area of Leicester City. Table 3.: Population and area of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland by Urban / Rural Classification population area (hectares) 2 classification count % count % urban >0K - city 279,298 30% 7,07 2.8% urban >0K - county 4,572 45% 33,350 3.% town and fringe 30,77 4% 22,456 8.8% village 90,983 0% 55,583 6.0% hamlet & isolated dwellings,54 % 36,590 4.3% TOTAL 924,38 00% 255,087 00.0% Table 3.2 also shows the number of recorded offences relative to the resident population within each class. In the urban area of Leicester City the offence rate per,000 population is 57, double the rate for the urban areas within Leicestershire and Rutland. This means that the likelihood of being a victim of crime within the urban area of Leicester City is twice that of the urban areas of Leicestershire and Rutland. Only % of the population of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland live in the most rural areas, hamlets and isolated dwellings, and only % of crimes are recorded within these areas. However, relative to the resident population of these rural areas, the offence rate per,000 population (76) is comparable to the county urban areas (82). This means that the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime in the most rural areas of Leicestershire and Rutland is virtually the same as in the county urban areas. The offence rate per,000 population in both town and fringe areas and villages are both similar, 56 and 49 respectively. Therefore, the likelihood of being a victim of crime within these areas is a third of that in the urban area of Leicester City. Table 3.2: Number of recorded offences by Urban / Rural Classification recorded offences 3 classification number % rate per,000 population urban >0K - city 43,894 49% 57 urban >0K - county 33,627 37% 82 town and fringe 7,382 8% 56 village 4,447 5% 49 hamlet & isolated dwellings 870 % 76 TOTAL 3 90,220 00% 98 2 based on the 200 census output area population based on the area of 200census output areas 3 3 based on the number of offences recorded by Leicestershire Constabulary CIS - October 2004 to September 2005
4. Recorded Crime : Total Offences Table 4. (below) shows the total recorded offences by each of the five urban / rural classifications for the last three years. In Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland there was an overall decrease of 5% in the total number of recorded offences between October 2002 and September 2005. The largest reduction in recorded offences is within the hamlet and isolated dwellings category, down 23% between October 2002 and September 2005. The number of offences recorded within the urban areas of Leicester City has also decreased, down by 0% over the three year period. Over the three year period, there were also decreases in recorded offences within the town and fringe and village areas, down 2% and 6% respectively. The only increase in recorded offences was within the county urban areas, a slight increase, up 2% in the three year period. The total number of offences recorded within the county urban areas accounts for approximately one third of all recorded crime in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland so it is important to understand why the number of offences in this class is relatively stable compared to the decreases in recorded offences across the other four classes. The next section of the report identifies changes in the number of recorded offences over time by offence category to look more closely at the changes in offences over time across the five classes. Table 4. : Total recorded offences 2 by financial year for each urban/rural classification number of recorded offences year on year % change classification 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2002/03 to 2003/04 to 2003/04 2004/05 overall % change 2002/03 to 2004/05 urban >0K - city 48,757 46,045 43,894-6% -5% -0% urban >0K - county 33,025 34,446 33,627 4% -2% 2% town and fringe 7,538 7,429 7,382 -% -% -2% village 4,728 4,706 4,447 0% -6% -6% hamlet & isolated dwellings,36,0 870 -% -4% -23% TOTAL 3 95,84 93,637 90,220-2% -4% -5% annual offence counts are for the year October to September 2 recorded offences sourced from Leicestershire Constabulary CIS 3 includes data for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland 4
5. Recorded Crime : Changes over time Table 5. (right) shows a summary of the percentage change in recorded offences between 2002/03 and 2004/05 by offence category across the five urban / rural classes. The table is designed to show how the levels of the different recorded offence types have changed over time and how this contributes to the overall change within each of the urban rural classes 2. Viewing the table horizontally shows the change in recorded offences for each offence type during the three year period for each of the five urban / rural classes. There has been an overall increase in the number of recorded offences in five of the seventeen offence categories during the three year period. The largest overall increases were indecency, up 33%, violence against the person, up 3% and public order up 9%. There has been an increase in recorded offences in two of the seventeen offence types within city urban areas, compared to increases in nine of the seventeen in county urban areas. Key down more than 50% down between 25% and 50% down between 5% and 25% no change. Table 5. : Percentage change in recorded offences by urban / rural classification, comparing October 2002 - September 2003 with October 2004 - September 2005, by offence category offence type Urban City Urban County Town and Fringe Village indecency. Hamlet Isolated violence against the person public order.. miscellaneous. drugs. theft of cycle. damage theft from stores.. theft dwel. Total..... theft from person. damage to motor vehicles fraud & forgery.. burglary other robbery. burglary dwelling theft of motor vehicle theft from motor vehicle. up between 5% and 25% TOTAL.. up between 25% and 50% Source: Leicestershire Constabulary CIS up more than 50% the percentage change is greater in categories where it is based on smaller numbers 5 2 actual figures used in the production of Table 5. are included in Appendix 2
The biggest differences in the percentage change in offences during the three year period between the city urban and county urban areas are damage offences and theft from person offences. Both these offence types decreased in the city urban areas during the three year period compared to increases in the county urban areas. Violence against the person Violence against the person offences is the only offence type with an increase of 5% or more across all of the urban / rural classes during the three year period. The smallest percentage increase in violence against the person offences is in the urban city areas, up 22%, compared to the largest increase of 46% in town and fringe areas. However, the actual number of violence against the person offences are lower in county areas. dwelling areas, down 25%, compared to the smallest percentage decrease in city urban areas, down by 5%. Burglary dwelling There have been substantial decreases in the number of recorded burglary dwelling offences in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, down by 22% during the three year period. The largest decreases in burglary dwelling were recorded in villages and city urban areas, down by 28% and 25% respectively. Vehicle Crime The largest overall percentage decreases by offence type during the three year period are theft from motor vehicle, down by 28%, and theft of motor vehicle, down by 25%. The largest percentage decrease in theft from motor vehicles is in hamlet and isolated dwelling areas, down by 43% (though again this is based on smaller numbers). The largest decrease in theft of motor vehicles is in city urban areas, down by 32%. Lower percentage decreases occurred in county urban areas and town and fringe areas, though they were still substantial (down by 9% and 4% respectively). Damage Table 5. also shows that the only percentage decrease in recorded damage offences is in city urban areas, down 7%. The largest percentage increase in damage offences is in villages, up by 23%. Burglary Other Burglary other offences, which includes burglary from business premises and outbuildings, has decreased across all five urban / rural classes, with an overall decrease of 6% during the three year period. The largest percentage decrease in burglary other offences is in hamlet and isolated 6
6. Recorded Crime : by offence category Chart 6. (right) shows each offence type in a separate chart. Each chart shows the offence type as a proportion of total offences within each of the five urban / rural classes. The charts can be used to highlight the relative magnitude of each offence type for each of the five urban / rural classes. The charts are based on offences recorded between October 2004 and September 2005. Violence against the person Violence against the person offences account for one quarter of all recorded offences in the city urban areas, with similar slightly lower proportions for county urban areas and town and fringe areas. The proportions for villages and hamlets and isolated dwellings, 5% and 0% respectively, show that violence against the person is less of a problem in these areas. The number of violence against the person offences represent the highest proportion of total offences within city urban, county urban and town and fringe areas. Damage The proportion of damage offences (excluding damage to motor vehicles) is similar in urban city, urban county and town and fringe areas, 3%, 4% and 4% respectively. The proportion of damage offences is lower in villages and hamlet and isolated dwelling areas, 9% and 8% respectively. Damage to motor vehicles However, the proportion of damage to motor vehicle offences does not follow the same pattern as damage offences. Damage to motor vehicles is a greater problem for town and fringe areas compared to the city and county urban areas and the more rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwelling areas. Violence against the person Count % Urban >0K - City,293 25.7% Urban >0K - County 7,663 22.8% Town and Fringe,547 2.0% Village 676 5.2% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 89 0.2% damage Count % Urban >0K - City 5,69 3.0% Urban >0K - County 4,838 4.4% Town and Fringe,028 3.9% Village 46 9.4% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 70 8.0% damage to motor vehicle Count % Urban >0K - City 2,339 5.3% Urban >0K - County 2,302 6.8% Town and Fringe 668 9.0% Village 282 6.3% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 34 3.9% Chart 6. : Offence types as a proportion of 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 0.0% Theft from motor vehicle Theft from motor vehicles constitutes a bigger problem for rural areas compared to urban areas. Theft from motor vehicle offences account for double the proportion of total offences in hamlet and isolated dwelling areas,8%, compared to 9% in both city and county urban areas. theft from motor vehicle Count % Urban >0K - City 3,796 8.6% Urban >0K - County 2,927 8.7% Town and Fringe 803 0.9% Village 665 5.0% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 53 7.6% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 20.0% 7
all offences within each urban / rural classification Burglary Dwelling Count % Urban >0K - City 2,693 6.% Urban >0K - County,975 5.9% Town and Fringe 454 6.2% Village 292 6.6% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 48 5.5% Burglary Other Count % Urban >0K - City 2,099 4.8% Urban >0K - County,946 5.8% Town and Fringe 563 7.6% Village 563 2.7% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 2.8% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% Burglary dwelling Burglary dwelling offences accounts for a similar proportion of total offences across all five of the urban / rural class, at around 6%. Burglary other However, burglary other is a much greater problem for rural areas. Burglary other accounts for 3% of total recorded offences in villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, more than double the proportions for both city and county urban areas (5% and 6% respectively). Burglary other represents the second highest proportion of all offences in villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, but only the eighth highest proportion in city and county urban areas. theft from stores Count % 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% Urban >0K - City 2,44 5.6% 0.04883 0.02465 0.00472 Urban >0K - County,642 4.9% Town and Fringe 82 2.5% Village 2 0.5% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 7 0.8% Theft from stores Theft from stores is a much greater problem in urban areas and to a lesser extent in town and fringe areas. The proportion of theft from stores offences is ten times the proportion in hamlet and isolated dwellings. This is likely to be a reflection of the concentration of retail premises in urban areas. theft Count % Urban >0K - City 4,867.% Urban >0K - County 4,002.9% Town and Fringe 972 3.2% Village 792 7.8% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 59 8.3% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 20.0% Theft Theft offences include the theft of unattended personal items. Theft offences account for the highest proportion of offences within villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, 8%. It is also a problem in urban areas and town and fringe areas, where it ranked third of the offences categories. Source: Leicestershire Constabulary CIS 8
7. Arson Table 7. shows the total number of arson incidents recorded by Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service in the period October 2004 to September 2005, split by the urban / rural classification. The table highlights that over half (54%) of all recorded arson incidents occur within the urban areas of Leicester City and a further third of the incidents occur within the county urban areas. Only 2% of arson incidents recorded between October 2004 and September 2005 occurred within the most rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, within the hamlet and isolated dwelling class. Taking into account the resident population within each of the five urban rural classes provides a different picture of arson across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Relative to the resident population, the number of arson incidents within the urban areas of Leicester City is the highest, with a rate per,000 population of 5.5. The next highest arson rate per thousand population is for the category of hamlet and isolated dwelling, with 4.2 per,000 population. Table 7.2 : The change in total recorded arson offences by year for each urban/rural classification number of recorded offences classification 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 % change 2002/03 to 2004/05 urban >0K - city 2,67 2,83,545-4% urban >0K - county,327,27 939-29% town and fringe 245 79 67-32% village 207 86 82-2% hamlet & isolated dwellings 48 49 48 0% TOTAL 4,444 3,724 2,88-35% Source: Leicestershire Fire & Rescue Service Table 7. : Arson offences by financial year for each urban/rural classification recorded offences classification number % rate per,000 population urban >0K - city,545 54% 5.5 urban >0K - county 939 33% 2.3 town and fringe 67 6%.3 village 82 6% 2.0 hamlet & isolated dwellings 48 2% 4.2 TOTAL 2,88 00% 3. Table 7.2 (above) shows the relative change in the number of arson incidents in each of the five urban rural classes over the last three years. Recorded arson incidents have fallen by a third during the last three years across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, down from 4,444 in 2002/03 to 2,88 in 2004/05. The largest decrease in arson is in the city urban areas, down by 4%. The decrease in the county urban areas and town and fringe areas is similar at around 30%. The downward trend in more rural areas is smaller with a decrease of 2% in arson incidents recorded in villages and no change in the number of recorded incidents in hamlets and isolated dwellings. Table 7.3 (next page) shows the arson incidents for the last year by type of fire, for each of the five urban rural classes. Overall, the biggest arson problem in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is the deliberate ignition Source: Leicestershire Fire & Rescue Service annual offence counts are for the year October to September 9
Table 7.3 : Different types of arson offences for each urban/rural classification - October 2004 to September 2005 arson incidents refuse container grassland motor vehicle dwelling house other TOTAL urban >0K - city,545 48% 9% 6% 4% 2% 00% urban >0K - county 939 42% 22% 6% 4% 6% 00% town and fringe 67 28% 24% 24% % 23% 00% village 82 8% 2% 46% 0% 24% 00% hamlet & isolated dwellings 48 3% 9% 46% 0% 23% 00% TOTAL 2,88 43% 20% 9% 4% 5% 00% Source: Leicestershire Fire & Rescue Service of refuse containers, accounting for 43% of all arson incidents in 2004/05. This is followed by deliberate grassland fires which account for 20% of all arson incidents and motor vehicle arson 9%. There are noticeable differences between the types of arson incident between urban and rural areas. Refuse container fires account for over 40% of arson in both city and county urban areas, compared to 3% in the more rural hamlet and isolated dwelling areas. The distribution of the different types of arson in town and fringe areas is more evenly spread, with approximately one quarter of reported incidents in each of the top three types. Nearly half of the arson incidents recorded in the most rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, within the villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, are recorded as deliberate motor vehicle fires. Examining the location of these fires, looking at the census output areas with the highest number of arson incidents, reveals that these fires tend to occur on remote country roads in proximity to major roads. 0
8. Business Crime The Leicester Shire Business Survey is conducted twice a year and is produced through a partnership involving Leicester Shire Economic Partnership, Leicestershire County Council, Leicester City Council, Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce, Leicestershire Learning and Skills Council and Business Link Leicestershire Ltd. A telephone survey of 763 businesses within Leicester and Leicestershire was undertaken in June 2003 and a further survey of 765 businesses was undertaken during June 2005. The samples were drawn from data4business and aim to reflect as accurately as possible the mix of businesses found in the survey area. Rutland businesses were not included in this survey. Of the firms surveyed, 43% have been victims of crime in the last 2 months. This is much the same as when this question was asked in the summer survey in 2003 (45%). Half of the businesses surveyed within the urban city areas responded as being a victim of crime in the last 2 months, up slightly by 3% on the responses in the 2003 survey. The proportion of businesses in Table 8. : Proportion of businesses surveyed 2 who have been victims of crime in the last 2 months. Businesses Surveyed 2003 2005 Victims of Crime 2003 2005 urban >0K - city 285 272 32 46% 33 49% urban >0K - county 35 329 48 47% 36 4% town and fringe 6 56 25 4% 8 32% village 49 58 5 3% 23 40% hamlet & isolated dwellings 20 9 45% 4 36% Rural (sub-total) 30 25 49 38% 45 36% Total 730 726 329 45% 34 43% county urban areas who responded as being victims of crime in the last 2 months was down by 6% in the 2005 survey to 4% compared to the 2003 survey response. As the number of responses in the other three urban rural classes is relatively low, the town and fringe, villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings have been grouped together to represent rural businesses. The proportion of rural business who responded as victims of crime in the last 2 months was 36%, similar to the response in the 2003 survey (38%). Therefore, based on the summer 2005 business survey results, rural businesses are less likely to have been a victim of crime in the last 2 months compared to businesses located in both city and county urban areas. Table 8.2 shows the types of crimes that the businesses surveyed had been victim to in the past 2 months. The percentages shown in the table are as a proportion of those businesses who responded as being a victim of crime in the last 2 months. Nearly half (45%) of those businesses who had been a victim of crime in the last 2 months had experienced vandalism in the last 2 months. Vandalism accounted for a higher proportion of business crime in rural areas (56%) than in urban areas in the county (47%) and city (40%). Burglary is a bigger problem for both city (3%) and county (29%) urban based businesses compared to rural businesses (20%). Conversely, vehicle crime is proportionately a greater problem for rural businesses. More than one third of rural businesses who responded as victims of crime in the last 2 months has been a victim of vehicle crime. Shoplifting and harassment are proportionately much bigger problems for businesses in both city and county urban areas compared to rural areas. This is likely to be a reflection of the higher concentration of retail data4business consists of five partners, Leicestershire County Council, Business Link Leicestershire, Learning & Skills Council Leicestershire, Leicester Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Leicester Shire Economic Partnership. The database contains up to date information on businesses in Leicester and Leicestershire. 2 Only those businesses surveyed who returned a valid postcode can be included within the analysis
Table 8.2 : Type of crime businesses have been victim to in the past 2 months 3 businesses as victims of crime proportion of victim businesses by crime type class number % vandalism burglary vehicle crime shoplifting harassment fraud violence urban City 33 49% 40% 3% 25% 32% 23% 7% 9% urban county 36 4% 47% 29% 29% 24% 25% 24% 7% rural 45 36% 56% 20% 36% 2% 9% 3% 4% Total 34 43% 45% 29% 28% 24% 22% 9% 7% and service based businesses within urban areas. Table 8.3 shows the types of crime prevention measures taken by the 726 businesses surveyed in 2005, the results are split by urban / rural classification. The table shows the most prevalent crime prevention measure taken by businesses in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is an alarm. Three quarters of the businesses surveyed, both urban and rural had an alarm installed. Overall, the proportions of urban and rural businesses are very similar for most of the crime prevention measures listed in table 8.3. The table does show some differences between crime prevention measures taken by urban and rural businesses. Based on the businesses surveyed, rural businesses are slightly more likely to have floodlights, gates and fences installed. Urban businesses are more likely to have security doors. The proportion of businesses located in the city urban areas that have joined Business Watch (7%) is twice that of rural businesses (3%), though both figures are relatively low. The proportion of businesses employing none of the security measures listed is 3 based on the results of the summer 2005 business survey Table 8.3 : Crime prevention measures taken by businesses 3 All Urban City Urban County Rural number of businesses 726 272 329 25 alarm 74% 75% 74% 72% new / better locks 58% 56% 59% 62% safe 42% 40% 45% 38% shutters / blinds 4% 42% 42% 38% CCTV 37% 40% 33% 38% flood lights 37% 32% 38% 42% fences / gates 33% 29% 35% 38% security doors 32% 33% 33% 24% toughened glass 20% 22% 7% 2% security guards 7% 8% 6% 6% security tags on property/merchandise % 4% 0% 0% joined business watch 6% 7% 5% 3% ram-raiding posts 5% 5% 5% 2% guard dogs 3% 2% 3% 4% other 8% 0% 7% 6% none of these 7% 7% 6% 0% 2
9. Public Perception Leicestershire County Council s Citizens Panel has been in existence since November 2002. It consists of,36 Leicestershire residents who periodically respond to postal questionnaires about a range of different topics. In October 2004, Wave 6 was mailed to the panellists. The main questionnaire covered several themes including experience and perception of crime and policing. The results of this section of the report only cover Leicestershire and do not include Leicester City and Rutland. Table 9.: Proportion of residents who perceived specific crime and disorder issues to be a problem in their local area Total Urban >0K - County Town & Fringe Village Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings number of respondents 922 560 92 5 9 motoring offences 79% 78% 80% 80% 74% vandalism 74% 78% 80% 53% 56% burglary 74% 74% 73% 76% 68% vehicle crime 69% 70% 67% 7% 58% rowdy / disorderly behaviour 67% 74% 74% 36% 33% illegal parking 6% 63% 68% 44% 33% drug offences 46% 45% 54% 33% 39% drink driving 37% 37% 38% 30% 28% robbery 3% 35% 28% 2% 22% serious assault 22% 25% 2% % 22% Members of the Citizens Panel were asked to what extent different types of crime and disorder were a problem in their local area. Table 9. (left) shows the range of crime and disorder issues and the proportion of residents surveyed who perceived each issue to be a problem in their local area. The highest proportion of residents surveyed perceived motoring offences to be a problem in their local area (79%). This proportion is similar in both urban and rural areas. Vandalism ranks highly within county urban (78%) and town and fringe areas (80%) and by comparison, is considered much less of a problem in villages (53%) and hamlet and isolated dwellings (56%) areas. This pattern of response is the same for rowdiness and disorderly behaviour and illegal parking. In addition there is a heightened perception of drug offence problems in the Town and Fringe areas and a perception that serious assault is a comparably minor problem in village areas. Members of the panel were also asked whether they thought different types of crime and disorder had changed over the last three years. Table 9.2 (next page) shows the range of crime and disorder issues and the amount of perceived change by respondents within each of the urban / rural classifications. The table shows the majority view for each offence type, whether it had improved, stayed the same, got worse or whether the respondent did not know. The majority of respondents held views about the more problematic offence types, such as motoring offences and vandalism (as highlighted in table 9.), but tended not to know about what they considered to be the less problematic offence types such as robbery and serious assault. For the majority of offence types respondents in both urban and rural areas deemed levels of crime and disorder to have either stayed the 3
Table 9.2: Perception of change in crime and disorder over the last 3 years by urban rural classification Urban >0K - County Town & Fringe Village Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings motoring offences 39.7% ] 39.9% X 44.3% X 42.% ] vandalism 45.6% ] 40.0% ] 42.% ] 50.0% ] burglary 47.% ] 5.% ] 6.9% ] 6.% ] vehicle crime 39.8% ] 37.0% ] 46.4% ] 36.8% ] rowdy / disorderly behaviour 39.2% X 39.8% X 46.8% ] 44.0% ] illegal parking 42.3% ] 43.6% X 59.3% ] 6.% ] drug offences 44.0% V 40.0% V 43.2% V 50.0% V drink driving 4.% V 45.7% V 42.8% ] 55.6% ] details for violence against the person offences and burglary 2 offences recorded in the twelve month period, October 2004 to September 2005 split by urban rural classification. Table 9.3 shows that the perceived likelihood of being a victim of violence against the person or burglary is a lot higher than the actual risk. The disparity between the perceived likelihood of being a victim of violence and the actual risk is greater in urban and town and fringe areas compared to villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. A similar pattern is evident for burglary, where residents of hamlets and isolated dwellings do not perceive the likelihood of being a victim to be as high as residents in urban, town and fringe and villages. However, the difference between perceived risk of being a victim of burglary and actual risk was far greater for burglary compared to violence against the person, across all four urban rural classes. The perceived risk of burglary in county urban areas is thirty times higher than the actual risk. robbery 47.4% V 48.3% V 39.9% ] 44.4% ] serious assault 55.5% V 55.2% V 49.3% V 50.0% ] Y Improved X Got worse ] Stayed the same V Don't know same or did not know whether there had been any change. The exceptions to this include a perceived increase in motoring offences around town and fringe and village areas, a perceived increase in rowdiness and disorderly behaviour in urban, town and fringe areas and a perceived increase in illegal parking in town and fringe areas. Table 9.3 (right) shows the actual number of recorded offences, as a percentage of resident population 2, compared to the percentage of residents surveyed who thought they were very likely or quite likely to be a victim of crimes within the next twelve months. The table includes Table 9.3: Levels of recorded crime compared to perceived levels of crime for violence against the person and burglary offences violence against the person Urban >0K - County Town & Fringe Village Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings actual crime rate 2 2% % % % perceived likelihood 3 9% 8% 3% 6% burglary actual crime rate 2 % % % % perceived likelihood 3 30% 27% 26% % includes burglary dwelling and burglary other than dwelling offences 2 recorded offences October 2004 - September 2005 (Leicestershire Constabulary CIS) as a percentage of population (200 population census). 4 3 percentage of residents surveyed (Leicestershire County Council Citizens Panel, October 2004) who thought they were likely or quite likely to be a victim of crime in the next twelve months.
0. Domestic Violence Incidents Table 0. (below) shows the number of domestic violence incidents in Leicestershire and Rutland (excludes Leicester City) recorded by Leicestershire Constabulary over the last three years, split by the urban rural classification. These domestic violence incidents include all incidents recorded by the police, including those which were not recorded as an offence. Three-quarters of domestic violence incidents recorded by the police were recorded in urban areas of Leicestershire and Rutland. The rate of domestic violence incidents per,000 population for county urban areas is 26. The rate for county urban areas is more than double the rate for villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. There are several possible explanations for this; individuals are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence within urban areas or individuals are more likely to report an incident of domestic violence to the police within an urban area (or a combination of both). The latter explanation would be supported by the likelihood of relatively greater anonymity of an individual within an urban area compared to a sparsely populated rural area. Table 0.: Domestic violence incident recording in Leicestershire and Rutland over the last three years (2002-2005) domestic violence incidents rate per,000 classification count % population 2 Urban >0K - county 0,66 75% 26 Town and Fringe 2,360 7% 8 Village 986 7% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 37 % 2 TOTAL 4,44 00% 22. Racist Incidents Table. (below) shows the number of racist incidents in Leicestershire and Rutland recorded by Leicestershire Constabulary over the last three years, split by urban / rural classification. These racist incidents include all incidents recorded by the police, including those which were not recorded as an offence. Over 80% of racist incidents recorded by the police were recorded in the urban areas of Leicestershire and Rutland. There are several possible explanations for the relatively low level of recorded incidents in rural areas. The black and minority ethnic population represents a relatively smaller proportion of the overall population in the rural areas of Leicestershire and Rutland. However, a more likely explanation is that more incidents go unreported in rural areas. Table.: Racist incident recording in Leicestershire and Rutland over the last three years (2002-2005) racist incidents rate per 0,000 classification count % population 2 Urban >0K - county 7 83% 7 Town and Fringe 03 2% 8 Village 32 4% 4 Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 6 % 5 TOTAL 852 00% 3 includes incidents recorded by Leicestershire Constabulary CIS between October 2002 and September 2005 2 based on 200 census output area population 5
2. Conclusions and Recommendations By applying the urban / rural classification this report successfully highlights differences in the relative levels and types of crime experienced across the whole of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. The aim of this report is not to identify particular crime hot-spots within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland but to identify the different crime issues that are specific to rural and urban areas. Though the majority of offences within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland occur within urban areas there are differences in recorded offences over time between city urban, county urban and rural areas. The most rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, namely the hamlets and isolated dwellings, have had the largest percentage decrease in recorded offences during the last three years. This suggests that not only do the rural areas of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland have lower levels of recorded crime, but that the levels of recorded crime have reduced by a larger proportion compared to both city and county urban areas. The reduction in recorded offences in hamlet and isolated dwellings is largely due to reductions in the number of recorded theft from vehicle, burglary other than dwelling and theft offences during the last three years. These three offence types account for half of all offences in hamlets and isolated dwellings. This highlights that crime types which pose a bigger problem, in terms of number of recorded offences, within hamlets and isolated dwelling areas have seen considerable reductions in the last three years, contributing to a substantial reduction of total recorded crime in rural areas. It would be useful to examine the levels of reported crime in rural areas to more clearly understand the reduction in recorded offences. Are overall levels of reporting in rural areas generally lower than in urban areas? Are people in rural areas more tolerant or have initiatives within rural areas been well targeted and more effective at reducing crime? Further research is required to address these questions. Overall, recorded crime across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland has generally decreased over the last three years. However, contrary to this, there has been a slight increase in recorded crime within county urban areas. This increase is largely due to the increase in the number of recorded violence against the person and damage offences over the last three years. The percentage increase in recorded violence against the person offences in county urban areas is nearly double the percentage increase in city urban areas. Also, there has been a considerable increase in damage offences in county urban areas compared to a considerable decrease in recorded damage offences in city urban areas. As part of the new licensing law reforms, several reports have been produced by the County Council Research Team to analyse violence against the person and damage offences within the county urban areas. With the recent changes in licensing hours, agencies across Leicestershire are already monitoring the potential impact, which will help to address the recent increases in violence against the person and damage offences in county urban areas. Having identified a reduction in recorded crime in more rural areas, it would be useful to examine the geographical distribution of offences in relation to this decrease. Furthermore, it would be useful to look at the policies and initiatives that have contributed to this downward trend in recorded crime and promote examples of best practice in those areas where the reduction in recorded crime is less apparent. The perceived likelihood of being a victim of burglary in county urban areas during the next twelve months is thirty times higher than the actual risk based on actual burglary offences recorded in the past twelve months. This magnitude of this disparity reinforces the need to concentrate not only on the reduction of actual offences but also to target initiatives to reassure the public. 6
Appendix : Urban / Rural Classification by Unitary Authority / Local Authority District Map A: Urban / Rural Classification of Blaby District Table A: Population and area figures for Blaby District by urban / rural classification Glenfield population area (hectares) Thurlaston Leicester Forest East Fosse Park classification count % count % Urban >0K - County 7,62 79% 6,780 52% Town and Fringe 4,862 6% 2,36 6% Village 2,727 3% 3,463 27% Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings,009 % 668 5% TOTAL 90,29 00% 3,047 00% Huncote Blaby Potters Marston Elmesthorpe Stoney Stanton Wigston Parva Countesthorpe Cosby HUrban > 0k TTown & Fringe Village Hamlet & Isolated Dwelling Kilby Table A2: Total recorded offences in Blaby District, October 2004 to September 2004 by urban / rural classification recorded offences 2 classification number % rate per,000 population Urban >0K - County 4,95 87% 69 Town and Fringe 629 % 42 Village 04 2% 38 Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings 26 0% 26 TOTAL 5,70 00% 63 based on 200 census output area population 2 source Leicestershire Constabulary CIS 7