Collecting Data

Where necessary, partnerships should ensure that they:

Review police and local authority data systems now. This is so that any improvements to recording practices, special data collection exercise, or the setting up of integrated multi-agency data systems, can be achieved.

Undertake a detailed review of all local authority departments and sources of data within police forces should be completed to see what community safety data is available. This should encourage departments such as trading standards to supply data, if appropriate.

Voluntary and community organisations should be encouraged to contribute their data to the audit, since they may provide a rich source of data on crime that is not reported to the police, particularly in relation to domestic violence and racist and homophobic incidents. Access to data on broader community safety issues of local concern may also be made available.

Organisations representing local businesses and the business community itself should be engaged as they are a potential source of useful data on commercial crime patterns.

Partnerships must also consider at an early stage whether the research and analysis skills to undertake an audit exist in-house, or whether these need to be bought in through a consultant for example. These skills are vital to enable partnerships to produce a meaningful analysis of relevant crime and disorder data, rather than simply presenting all available data in an unstructured way.

A minimum of two years of data is required to understand changes over time.

Attention should be given to including data on repeat victimisation and victim profiles, as this may assist in the prioritisation of crime types outlined in the Crime & Disorder Strategy.

Serious thought should be given to investing in a sophisticated Geographical Information System (GIS) if one is not currently available within the partnership. The geographical mapping of crime and disorder is allows maps to be overlaid with socio-demographic data to give a more detailed picture of problems in small areas. Also, the value of GIS extends beyond analysis of crime and disorder.

Where GIS data is utilised, partnerships need to consider the potential output of the information, particularly when identifying hotspots (or in some cases, individuals). This is critical where information is placed in the public domain.

It is desirable for partnerships to include both short-term and long-term objectives in their strategy documents, or at least, in their detailed action plans. Objectives should include interventions1 and results2 targets, which are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-scaled (SMART).

For example:

1)To increase the number of households fitted with basic security by 25% by March 2002

2 )To reduce domestic burglary by 4% by March 2001.

Data on crime and disorder is needed on a regular basis between the full 3-yearly audits in order to monitor progress on SMART objectives and to appreciate the effectiveness of outcomes.

The review found the most commonly used data by partnerships included:

(source: A Review of Audits and Strategies produced by Crime & Disorder Partnerships in 1999 [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/brf800.pdf]). 259 audits were surveyed.