Managing Anti-social Behaviour in a Time of Austerity in Wales

MANAGING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN A TIME OF AUSTERITY IN WALES: Dr. H. Innes & Prof. M. Innes Universities’ Police Science Institute

Managing Antisocial Behaviour in a time of Austerity for Wales Dr. H. Innes & Professor M. Innes Universities’ Police Science Institute May 2014

1

INTRODUCTION In the ongoing climate of economic austerity, the police, in common with other public services across Wales, must operate with more limited resources and the prospect of further significant cuts in their funding.

This analysis uses comprehensive and reliable data for Wales to show where there exist opportunities for a more targeted and effective police intervention around antisocial behaviour, one that reduces its harmful effects on individuals and communities in Wales and better meet the needs of all victims.

The empirical focus of this report is on how the four police force areas respond to and perform in relation to antisocial behaviour. A sample survey1 of the public who called each police force over a one-month period in 2011 is used along with a graded assessment of how the police manage antisocial behaviour conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 2012. The potential for the police to work in partnership with others to resolve antisocial behaviour is increasingly advocated in these times of economic hardship and its potential is considered here using social housing as an exemplar.

The three research questions are: 1. How effective are police systems and processes at managing antisocial behaviour with a focus on meeting victim needs within Wales?

2. What are the characteristics of calls to the police about antisocial behaviour that are likely to signal the most negative impact or have potential to cause the most harm?

3. What are the opportunities for a more targeted police or multi-agency response to improve victim outcomes?

In 2010 and 2012, HMIC identified that police forces could improve the way they respond to, and protect, victims of antisocial behaviour. The early identification of ‘repeat victims’ who experience multiple episodes of victimisation and ‘vulnerable victims’ most at risk of its harmful effects was highlighted as a priority. This is because victims who can be identified as repeat and vulnerable on one or more characteristics are likely to be at greatest risk of experiencing antisocial behaviour and be more susceptible to its harmful effects on quality of life and wellbeing. Better identification of these victims by the police can facilitate speedier and more targeted interventions that minimise both the risk of the antisocial behaviour escalating and its harmful effects on the individual concerned.

Using the data for an in-depth investigation of repeat and vulnerable victims in Wales, this analysis then extends and elaborates our understanding of different forms of vulnerability among victims that can have a significant impact on their resilience to antisocial behaviour.

1

Ipsos MORI (2011) Policing antisocial behaviour: the public perspective

2

Three types of vulnerability are identified: 1. Situational vulnerability refers to the wider socio-economic context in which people live, such as their housing or the level of deprivation in their local area.

2. Personal vulnerability refers to the characteristics of the victim themselves, such as their health status, age and gender that may make people more vulnerable to ASB harm.

3. Incidental vulnerability refers to characteristics of the antisocial behaviour itself; its type, its focus, its duration or repeated incidence.

The profile of these vulnerabilities varies across the four Welsh forces but each captures information pertinent to an effective police response on ASB. •

The victims’ perception that antisocial behaviour is personally targeted at them, their family or a group they are part of is a form of incidental vulnerability with most potential to ‘harm’ quality of life. For all forces in Wales, the police were less likely than the victims themselves to classify and record an anti-social behaviour incident as personally targeted.

•

Those most affected by the persistence of antisocial behaviour depends to some degree on how this incidental vulnerability is defined. For example, calling the police repeatedly (3+ times a year), a high number of repeat calls (10+ times a year) or the longevity of the same underlying ASB problem.

Situational, personal and incidental vulnerabilities do not exist in isolation from each other but interact. In doing so, the harmful effects of antisocial behaviour can be magnified, as illustrated in Figure 1 and evidenced from the victim survey: Figure 1: Victim vulnerability, antisocial behaviour and harm

3

The victims’ survey analysis showed: •

Area deprivation (situational vulnerability) increases the volume of ASB calls to the police and callers from highly deprived areas are also more likely to have personal vulnerability and live in social housing.

•

The vulnerability profile of victims varies widely between police force areas in Wales. Dyfed Powys police have a much lower percentage of victim callers from high deprivation areas (situational vulnerability) than forces in North and South Wales, but the highest percentage of victims with personal vulnerability on health or with multiple vulnerabilities.

•

The likelihood of victims experiencing harm in the form of intimidation or repercussions after reporting anti-social behaviour is associated with both personal and situational vulnerability characteristics.

The amount and type of vulnerabilities that exist among the public is significant for police performance on victim outcomes.

•

Members of the public who contact the police most frequently about ASB, and for whom it had greatest impact, are least likely to be satisfied with their police response.

•

The HMIC assessment data shows that police forces in Wales each have their own strengths and weaknesses in terms of their processes and systems for dealing with antisocial behaviour and the victim survey suggests each differ in the relative characteristics of vulnerability in their caller profile.

4

CONTENTS

Section

Title

1

Police performance on antisocial behaviour in Wales

2

Profiling vulnerability in Welsh Police Force Areas.

3

Police recording of Personal antisocial behaviour

4

Police performance on victim outcomes

5

ASB and housing tenure in Wales: the potential for a partnership approach

6

Conclusion

Page

Appendix

5 Â Â

Section 1: Police Performance on Antisocial behaviour in Wales This section uses assessment grades from HMIC based on a number of wide-ranging questions about aspects of their police performance in relation to antisocial behaviour. This includes, for example, how quickly and effectively forces can identify potentially ‘higher risk’ vulnerable victims when they first report antisocial behaviour to the police, as well as their efforts in making follow up contact with the victim.

This re-analysis of HMIC data from 2012 does not cover all of their questions but focuses on areas most pertinent to victim outcomes2.

These areas are: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Police performance at the point of report3 Use of IT systems Follow up contact with the victim Harm and risk assessment Management and communication

Each question is graded from 1=excellent to 4=poor. A low score is therefore associated with good or excellent performance and a higher score is indicative of poorer performance on that indicator, as assessed by HMIC field officers.

Figure 2 shows the performance distribution of all 43 police forces in England and Wales when scores in the five key areas for this report are summed together into a single scale.

For Wales: •

Dyfed Powys police force is in the fifth strata of good performing forces in England and Wales.

•

North Wales and South Wales are both in the middle of the overall performance distribution.

•

Gwent is in the second strata of the poorest performing forces in England and Wales.

2 3

The full questions are given in the Appendix to this report Defined as the first occasion the victim has contact with the police

6

Figure 2: The distribution of overall police performance scores: England and Wales

Further differences between the Welsh forces can be seen in Table 1 for each area of performance (a low score is indicative of better performance in each area).

Table 1: Police performance on selected HMIC grades for Wales Performance scores by police force Dyfed Powys

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

Performance at point of report4 (scale 2.25 to 3.75)

2.25

3.5

2.75

2.75

Use of IT systems (scale 1 to 4)

2.5

3

2

2

Follow up contact (scale 1 to 3.5)

1.5

3

2.5

2.5

Harm and risk assessment (scale 1 to 3)

1.5

3

2.5

3

Management and communication (scale 1 to 3.5)

2

2.5

3

2

4

Based on ASB categorisation; identification of repeat victims; identification of vulnerable victims; identification of local priorities

7

•

Dyfed Powys police have a solid overall profile with particular strength in the identification of repeat and vulnerable victims at the point of report, as well as in providing harm and risk assessment to all victims of ASB.

•

South Wales police perform well on their use of I.T, particularly to identify trends and hotspots, as well as management and communication.

•

Gwent police have a profile of average to poor performance overall, particularly in their assessment of harm and risk and overall performance at the point of report.

•

North Wales police share a similar profile to South Wales but the former has the poorest performance on management and communication out of the Welsh forces.

8

Section 2: Profiling vulnerability in Welsh Police Force Areas In this section, the caller profile of each Welsh force is examined using data from a survey of 800 antisocial behaviour victims in Wales who contacted their police force in September 2011.

The focus is on the proportion of victims in each police force area who are likely to be most vulnerable or ‘at risk’ from the harmful effects of antisocial behaviour. We begin by examining the profile of: 1. Repeat victims 2. Vulnerable Victims 3. Repeat and Vulnerable Victims

1. Repeat Victims Repeat victimisation can be defined as when an individual experiences multiple incidents of antisocial behaviour. One indicator of repeat victim status is their repeated contact with the police (although it must be recognised that this excludes an estimated two-thirds of victims who do not contact the police about antisocial behaviour5).

Figure 3 shows the percentage of repeat callers (defined as a minimum of 3 calls to the police over a one year period) by police force in Wales.

Figure 3: Percentage of repeat callers by police force in Wales

5

British Crime Survey: less than one third of ASB is reported to the police.

9

•

The overall percentage of repeat caller is broadly comparable for South Wales and Gwent at just over 60 percent. It is lowest for Dyfed Powys where just under half of callers can be classed as repeat callers.

•

However, in three out of the four Welsh forces, around one-quarter of ASB victims are contacting the police ten or more times over a one year period. Identifying and responding to these high frequency callers is one way that police can act to have a sizeable impact on overall caller demand.

Figure 4 singles out repeat callers from callers who also present with vulnerability characteristics (detailed below).

Figure 4: Percentage of repeat-only victims by police force in Wales 100 80 60 40 20

20

12

7

8

0 Dyfed Powys

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

The overall volume of repeat callers drops markedly for all forces once key indicators of vulnerability are taken out of the equation, indicating that the vast majority of victims who ring the police repeatedly about ASB are also vulnerable on some other characteristic.

•

South Wales, the force with the greatest overall volume of repeat callers in Figure 3, has the second lowest percentage of repeat-only victims in Wales. More than half of their repeat callers can potentially be classified as vulnerable victims.

•

2 out of 10 callers to Gwent police are repeat victims without any other vulnerability on key criteria, the highest in Wales.

10

2. Vulnerable Victims Vulnerability in the survey was measured on the characteristics of: •

Health: whether the individual or anyone in their household had a longstanding illness or disability.

•

Personal ASB: when the victim considers the ASB they are experiencing to be deliberately targeted at them personally, their family or a particular group they are a part of.

•

‘Other’: this combines two categories of hate crime motivation and quality of life impact. The former is when the victim considers the ASB in question to be motivated by hostility or prejudice on the grounds of race, religion, disability or gender. The latter is when the victim rates the negative effect of ASB on their everyday life as 10 out of 10.

•

Multiple vulnerability: represents victims who have any combination of two or more vulnerability factors listed above.

These indicators of vulnerability are singled out from repeat status in Figure 5. Taking repeat status out of the equation shows that the Welsh forces differ markedly in their vulnerability profile.

Figure 5: Percentage of Vulnerable Victim characteristics by police force in Wales 100 90 80 70 60

Health

50 40 30 20 10

Personal ASB 26

21 9

14 12

18 4

22

17 6

Other

21 8

0 Dyfed Powys

•

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

Health vulnerability without repeat caller status is most pronounced for Dyfed Powys police force area.

11

•

Approximately 2 out of 10 callers to North Wales, South Wales and Dyfed Powys police forces are vulnerable, but not repeat, callers on the basis of personal antisocial behaviour they are experiencing.

•

When repeat caller status is taken out of the equation, all vulnerability markers are lowest in Gwent police force area.

•

Dyfed Powys and South Wales police have the highest percentage of victims who are vulnerable on two or more of these indicators (15 percent). This is slightly lower for North Wales (13 percent) and much lower for Gwent (7 percent).

3. Repeat and Vulnerable Victims When repeat and vulnerable victim status is connected, the percentage of callers to each force increases because most vulnerable victims have contacted the police multiple times about ASB. Figure 6 focuses on three groups of repeat and vulnerable victim (RVV): • • •

Repeat and Vulnerable on health Repeat and Vulnerable on heath and/or personal ASB High frequency6 repeat and vulnerable on health and/or personal ASB.

Figure 6: Percentage of Repeat and Vulnerable Victims by police force in Wales.

Health vulnerability in Dyfed Powys is not associated with repeat caller status: it had no impact on the overall percentage of callers (26 percent). The finding that none of the health vulnerable callers in Dyfed Powys had contacted the police 3 or more times in the last year

6

Contacted police about ASB 10+ times in the last year

12

accords with the HMIC assessment which identified this force as excelling in its identification of repeat and vulnerable victims in 2012.

For other Welsh forces, including repeat status doubles the percentage of health vulnerable callers; to 28 percent in Gwent with similar marked increases for North and South Wales.

•

As a result of combining repeat and vulnerable status, health vulnerability becomes most pronounced in North and South Wales.

Including personal ASB in the definition of repeat and vulnerable victim alongside health increases the percentage of victims by approximately ten percent in North Wales and 15 percent in South Wales. Both of these forces also have the greatest percentage of high frequency callers in these categories of vulnerability.

•

2 out of 10 callers to South Wales police with either a health vulnerability and /or experiencing personal ASB have contacted the police ten or more times in the last year.

The analysis so far shows that vulnerability associated with the personal characteristics of the victim and the very nature and duration of the antisocial behaviour they are experiencing is differently distributed across police forces in Wales.

A sizeable proportion of repeat callers are also vulnerable ones on some other characteristic.

From this we can conclude that vulnerability among victims of antisocial behaviour is associated with increased calls to the police. Repeat caller status - particularly at ‘high frequency’ - may itself be indicative of an acute unmet need among callers that they feel has not been adequately dealt with by any police response. Repeat victimisation, as evidenced by repeated calls to the police, can therefore represent a form of incidental vulnerability; an indicator of one of a number of defining features about the nature and persistence of antisocial behaviour a victim is experiencing that symbolises a failure to find a satisfactory resolution.

Caller demand profiles are inextricably linked with the wider socioeconomic context in which people are living. Figure 7 examines how vulnerability factors (including repeat status) among ASB victims in Wales are associated with the amount of deprivation in the victims’ local area.

13

Figure 7: Percentage of vulnerability among victim callers by area deprivation

•

In areas of high deprivation, approximately 8 out of 10 victims contacting Welsh police about antisocial behaviour can be classified as vulnerable on the basis of personal and/or incidental characteristics.

•

The likelihood of a caller presenting with vulnerability consistently decreases as the amount of area deprivation becomes lower.

Figure 8 singles out repeat victims and shows that the wider socioeconomic environment can also shape call volume and the proportion of high frequency callers to the police about antisocial behaviour.

Figure 8: Percentage of ASB calls to police over one-year by area deprivation in Wales

14

•

The percentage of repeat callers to the police on antisocial behaviour is over 60 percent in areas of high deprivation in Wales compared to below forty percent in areas of low deprivation.

•

High deprivation is associated with the greatest percentage of high frequency callers; 29 percent compared with 11 percent in areas of low deprivation.

The deprivation context is therefore integral to people’s lived experience of antisocial behaviour and contours the nature of contact they initiate and continue with the police.

Deprivation manifests itself as a key driver of both personal and incidental forms of vulnerability among victim callers to the police highlighting the complex intractable social problems that underlie calls to the police about the diversity of problems identifiable as antisocial behaviour.

Tackling what can be termed the ‘situational vulnerability’ of victims and its interaction with other forms of vulnerability is unlikely to be within the sole remit of the police but requires a joined up approach. One consequence of initiatives to reduce poverty and inequality in our communities may be to bring about a reduction in the number of antisocial behaviour incidents reported to police but to date this remains untested.

Figure 9 shows that within police force areas of Wales the percentage of calls received from victims in areas of high deprivation varies markedly.

Figure 9: Percentage of callers in highest deprivation band by police force in Wales

•

One quarter of victims calling Dyfed Powys police are from areas of high deprivation and this is 30 percent in North Wales.

15

•

Approximately 4 out of 10 callers to Gwent and South Wales police are from areas of high deprivation.

Although the victim survey is not representative of people living in these police force areas, economic and health data from the 2011 Census show that both Gwent and South Wales contain within them areas characterised by a high unemployment rate and high rates of health vulnerability whereas North Wales and Dyfed Powys are more in line with the national average on these indicators (see Appendix).

Census data in particular provides another way to understand how differences between police forces on their ASB caller profile reflect the challenges of their wider socioeconomic environment. There is value to using Census data to predict areas where the negative effects of antisocial behaviour are likely to be most keenly felt by people identified as vulnerable.

In conclusion, deprivation is a form of situational vulnerability that increases the likelihood of people being in a situation where, in all likelihood, they will more readily experience or witness antisocial behaviour, and it increases the likelihood that they themselves can be classified as vulnerable.

16 Â Â

Section 3: Police recording of Personal Antisocial Behaviour Following recent changes to the way in which police record and classify reported incidents of antisocial behaviour, the category of ‘personal’ has been added alongside ‘environmental’ and ‘nuisance’. Personal ASB covers incidents that are personally directed at an individual, their family or a group they are a part of.

The previous section highlighted ‘personal antisocial behaviour’ as being a form of incidental vulnerability potentially damaging to victims in terms of its effect on well-being and quality of life. This is supported by analysis of the victims’ survey for Wales: •

18 percent of victims who perceive that ASB is personally targeted at them, their family or a group they are a part of, rate it as having a total negative impact on their everyday quality of life. This compares with 12 percent who contacted the police about environmental antisocial behaviour and 8 percent who called about nuisance ASB.

•

2 out of 10 victims who feel that their experience of ASB is personal also believe it to have a hate crime motivation, substantially higher than for the other recorded ASB categories.

•

Approximately 6 out of 10 repeat callers to the police in Wales are victims who perceived their ASB to be either ‘personal’ or ‘nuisance’. Victims of environmental ASB are much less likely to be repeat callers (49 percent).

These findings suggest that there is an intrinsically harmful and pernicious quality to the victims’ experience of personal antisocial behaviour that needs to be accounted for in the way police consider harm and assess risk. A key first step for the police is to adequately record and capture this quality of the victim’s experience.

Figure 10 compares how far police records of personal antisocial behaviour concur with the victims’ own perception of their ASB as personal. It shows that for each police force in Wales, the victims’ perception of the incident as ‘personal’ outweighs that of the police.

•

Approximately one quarter of victims contacting Dyfed Powys, Gwent and North Wales have their ASB recorded as ‘personal’ by the police. However, personal antisocial behaviour increases two-fold in Dyfed Powys and North Wales based on the victims’ own assessment of their ASB and increases from 26 percent to 38 percent in Gwent.

•

South Wales police have the greatest percentage of recorded personal antisocial behaviour, but this still falls below their victims’ own perceptions of the incident.

17

Figure 10: Categorisation of ASB incident as ‘personal’ by police force and by victim

In the survey as a whole, police forces in England and Wales classify 28 percent of incidents as personal antisocial behaviour, therefore three of the Welsh forces are around the average and South Wales is above the average.

Another way to represent the data is to show the ‘consensus percentage’ for each force; when both police and victim concur that the reported incident fits with personal antisocial behaviour.

Figure 11: The consensus percentage for victim and police on ‘personal ASB’.

18

•

For over half of victims in Gwent and South Wales, there is agreement between the police and the victim that the incident in question is personal antisocial behaviour.

•

The consensus percentage is lower for Dyfed Powys (42 percent) and is only 39 percent in North Wales where earlier analyses showed that levels of personal ASB perceived by the victim were comparable to South Wales (Figure 10).

The overall consensus percentage for all forces in England and Wales was 42 percent meaning that Welsh forces are relative good performers on this indicator; three out of four forces are at or above the national average. However, within Wales these data show that wide variation exists in the performance of police forces in terms of how they evaluate and record this type of antisocial behaviour to be consistent with victims’ own experiences.

Evidence that personal antisocial behaviour is a form of vulnerability that has the potential to magnify negative impacts on the victims’ quality of life must add impetus to police risk assessments and recording practices at the point of report. Although forces in Wales are relative good performers in this area, there remains room for improvement; ongoing monitoring of the categories used to classify the incidental qualities of antisocial behaviour should consider the harm that is likely to accrue for these victims.

19

Section 4: Police performance on Victim Outcomes This section focuses on the outcomes for victims of antisocial behaviour who contact the police. Three different measures associated with police performance are used for this purpose: 1. Victim satisfaction with local police, call handlers and police action at the last point of report.

2. The proportion of victims experiencing repercussions or intimidation as a result of their ASB report to police 3. The intentions of victims to report ASB to the police in the future.

1. Victim Satisfaction Figure 12 compares overall satisfaction among ASB callers with the way their report was dealt with by their local police with satisfaction among repeat victims and repeat and vulnerable victims7. The results show that members of the public who contact the police most about antisocial behaviour, and for whom it is likely to have greatest impact are least likely to be satisfied by their local police response.

Figure 12: Victim satisfaction with local police response to their report of ASB 100 90 80 70 60

56

51

56

50

54

52

47

44 38

40

41 39

All vicYms 44 44

Any repeat vicYm Repeat and Vulnerable VicYm

30 20 10 0 Dyfed Powys

•

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

Approximately one half of all ASB callers from Gwent and North Wales are satisfied with their local police response but satisfaction decreases for repeat victims and is lowest among repeat and vulnerable victims.

7

Defined as repeat callers with vulnerability on health and/or personal ASB.

20

•

South Wales achieves high overall satisfaction (54 percent) but satisfaction falls by 10 percent for repeat victims and for repeat and vulnerable victims.

•

Dyfed Powys police achieve high satisfaction on this measure with overall victim satisfaction comparable to that reported by their repeat and vulnerable victims.

Victim satisfaction based on how well the police dealt with the antisocial behaviour the last time the they called to report it is shown in Figure 13. In three out of the four Welsh forces, less than half of their repeat and vulnerable victims felt satisfied compared with overall satisfaction levels of around 56 percent.

•

The satisfaction baseline on this measure is higher for Dyfed Powys compared to other forces at approximately 6 out of 10 repeat victims and repeat and vulnerable victims.

Figure 13: Victim satisfaction with how police dealt with their ASB report 100 90 80 70 60

64

59 60

50

58

54

49

58

55 53 47

50

47

All vicYms Any repeat vicYm

40

Repeat and Vulnerable VicYm

30 20 10 0 Dyfed Powys

Gwent

North Wales South Wales

Victim satisfaction with police call handling is generally much higher than for the other two satisfaction measures, exceeding 80 percent in Dyfed Powys, North Wales and Gwent (Figure 14).

21

Figure 14: Victim satisfaction with police call handling on ASB 100 90

83 84 84

80

81

80 79

86 85

69

70

77

72

68

60

All vicYms

50

Any repeat vicYm

40

Repeat and Vulnerable VicYm

30 20 10 0 Dyfed Powys

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

•

There is less victim satisfaction with call handling in South Wales police relative to other Welsh forces and satisfaction is lower for repeat victims and lower still for their repeat and vulnerable victims.

•

In Gwent, satisfaction with call handling falls from 80 percent overall to only 69 percent for victims identifiable as repeat and vulnerable.

•

A repeat and vulnerable victim status made no difference to high levels of call handling satisfaction in Dyfed Powys police force. Repeat and repeat and vulnerable callers to North Wales police were more likely to be satisfied with the way their call was handled than victims overall.

It is notable that victim satisfaction was not associated with area deprivation on any of these measures. This suggests that satisfaction among victims of antisocial behaviour is more contingent on what the police do rather than the wider context in which they operate.

2. Repercussions or Intimidation Attention now focuses on how well victims of antisocial behaviour fare post-report to the police. Approximately one-third reporting antisocial behaviour to the police in Wales said that they experienced repercussions and intimidation as a result of doing so. Figure 15 shows the percentage by police force.

22

Figure 15: Percentage of victims who experience repercussions or intimidation as a result of reporting ASB. 45

42

40 35

37

36

34 30

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dyfed Powys

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

All

Intimidation and repercussions that arise as a result of reporting antisocial behaviour to the police should be viewed as an indicator of social harm that negatively impact upon on the quality of life of the victim. Police and other agencies have a duty of care to the victim to minimise their risk of social harm arising from the act of reporting antisocial behaviour.

•

The likelihood of experiencing repercussions and intimidation is greatest for victims who perceive their antisocial behaviour to be personally targeted at 45 percent in Wales. These experiences will therefore further compound the damaging effects of this type of antisocial behaviour on victims’ well-being and quality of life.

3. Victim intentions to report to the police in the future With an estimated two-thirds of antisocial behaviour not reported to the police at all and a good proportion of victims ‘suffering in silence’ before they make their first call, another measure of police performance in this area is their ability to retain the confidence and trust of victims to call on them in the future if needed.

Figure 16 shows that victim intentions to report to the police if they witness or experience the same type of antisocial behaviour again is generally high across all police forces in Wales.

23

Figure 16: Percentage of victims who would report same type of ASB if witnessed or experienced in the future.

100

91

90

86

88

86

87

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

All

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Dyfed Powys

However, the risk of future non-reporting is significantly linked with the type of antisocial behaviour incident in question and the victims’ experience after reporting.

•

1 in 10 who experienced intimidation or repercussions as a result of their call said they will not report the same type of ASB to the police in the future, with a further 5% undecided.

•

10 percent of personal ASB victims would not report this type of incident to the police in the future, significantly more than for other types of antisocial behaviour.

This increases to 13 percent for the most acute category of repeat and vulnerable victim in Wales.

Together these findings show that what happens to the victim after they report to the police can be critical in determining their overall risk of social harm. The provision of good allround protection for victims in the short or longer term is vital to retain their trust and confidence in reporting to the police in the future.

Victims of antisocial behaviour who present to the police with an identifiable vulnerability are precisely those most at risk of feeling dissatisfied, of being exposed to negative repercussions and of disengaging with the police on these issues.

Within Wales, Dyfed Powys police stand out as a force that achieves high all-round satisfaction among its callers regardless of their victim status. For the other three forces, satisfaction ‘tails off’ for those victims who are more likely to have complex or long-lasting 24

needs. This finding is not unique to Wales but it points to further work to be done with these victims to ensure they feel listened to and taken seriously by police.

The co-ordination of good all round victim support and communication by the police and other agencies is required to help protect those must vulnerable in the short and longer term.

25 Â Â

Section 5: Antisocial behaviour and Housing Tenure in Wales This section gives a particular focus to the housing situation of antisocial behaviour victims in Wales based on their current tenure as a home owner, renter from a private landlord (‘private rental’) or renter from either a housing association or the council (‘social housing’).

Housing is inextricably linked with the “antisocial behaviour problem” in the minds of policy makers and Welsh government. Although it is recognised that antisocial behaviour affects people living in all tenures, efforts to manage and reduce antisocial behaviour have in practice focused on the social housing sector with its more readily amenable regulatory structure and staff on-the-ground to both report antisocial behaviour and enforce sanctions.

However, the UK Census for 2011 shows that Wales has a high rate of home ownership; greater than for England8 therefore it is important not to neglect the experience of ASB for victims who are home owners, as well as recognising the increasing numbers renting their home from the private sector as the recession continues to bite.

This analysis compares the reported experience of ASB victims in Wales across tenures to focus on: 1. The commonalities in the victim experience of antisocial behavior across tenures, as well as differences; 2. The vulnerability profiles and harm associated with ASB experienced by victims living in different types of tenure; 3. The links between tenure and deprivation among ASB victims.

From a sample of ASB callers to the police over a one month period in 2011, Table 2 shows that two thirds in Wales were not in social housing.

Table 2: ASB callers in Wales by housing tenure Tenure

%

N

Home Owner

54

428

Social housing

31

250

Private renter

11

87

Other/ don’t know

5

35

Total

100%

800

8

A higher percentage of households in Wales owned their accommodation (67% per 879,000) compared to England (63 percent, 14.0 million). Source: ONS, 2011 Census Key Statistics for Wales.

26

•

In Wales, the majority of ASB callers to the police are home owners; 1 in 3 live in social housing and 1 in 10 are renting from the private sector.

Housing tenure is associated with the type of antisocial behavior incident that the victim contacts the police about, but it is not the case that social housing predominates for all reported types of ASB. •

Incidents of environmental ASB are more commonly reported to the police by home owners or private renters than by those living in social housing.

•

Across all tenures, the most commonly reported type of ASB is assigned the category ‘nuisance’ and this type of ASB is more common among home owners than other tenures.

Table 3: Housing tenure by the victims’ perception of antisocial behavior type Owner

Social

Renter

Environmental

12

9

14

Personal

26

39

30

Nuisance

63

52

56

%

100

100

100

Reported incidents of personal antisocial behavior are associated with people living in social housing (39 percent). This is significant because personal antisocial behavior is potentially the most harmful. Peoples’ housing situation (for which tenure is only a proxy measure), is likely to contour people’s required use of shared space and facilities, their proximity to others, the diversity and residential stability of their neighborhood. The social housing sector also exists as a safety net for the vulnerable and people most in need of support. The following section examines how far different forms of vulnerability among victims of antisocial behavior are associated with social housing or apply to victims in other tenures.

Repeat Victims Housing tenure is associated with the number of repeat calls made to the police about antisocial behavior.

•

A majority of victims are contacting the police repeatedly about antisocial behavior, regardless of their tenure.

27

•

Social housing is associated with a high frequency of repeat calls (10 or more each year) to police.

•

There is less variation across tenures in the percentage of lower frequency callers (approximately 36 percent).

High frequency calls to the police are likely to be indicative of an acute met need among victims regardless of tenure. Within this group, home owners are more likely to be ringing the police about the same problem than those in social housing (80 percent and 69 percent respectively).

Figure 17: Percentage of Repeat ASB victims by housing tenure in Wales 100 90 80 70 60 50 40

28

22

19

30 20

35

37

37

Owner

Social

Private

10 0 Repeat caller (3-­‐9)

Repeat caller (10+)

In addition to their repeated exposure to ASB, the vast majority of repeat callers across housing tenures are vulnerable in some other way associated with health, personal ASB, hate crime and quality of life. Figure 18 shows that when victims with these vulnerability characteristics are excluded, the percentage of repeat victims is very low and differences across tenures are no longer significant.

28

Figure 18: Percentage of Repeat-only victims by housing tenure in Wales 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

16

13

8

Owner

Social

Private

Vulnerable Victims Table 4 focuses on the distribution of other vulnerability characteristics among victims from different tenures, leaving aside repeat callers.

Table 4: Vulnerability characteristics by housing tenure in Wales Vulnerability characteristic

Social % 18

Private % 10

P (Sig)

Health

Owner % 20

Personal ASB

18

18

21

ns

9 22 19

<0.05 <0.01 ns

19

ns

“Other” - Hate - ASB QOL

impact

on

Multiple Vulnerable Victim

4 7 13 13

9 21 18 18

ns

•

The distribution of health vulnerability and the experience of personal antisocial behavior are not alone significantly associated with housing tenure among callers to the police in Wales.

•

Victims who own their own home are less likely to report that the ASB they are experiencing has a hate crime motivation (7 percent) with equivalent higher percentages in social housing and among private renters (approximately 22 percent).

This significant finding suggests that incidents motivated by hate or prejudice are particularly important in Wales outside the privately owned sector.

29

•

The data suggests that having multiple vulnerabilities and feeling that ASB has a total negative effect on quality of life is also less common among home owners than other tenures.

Repeat and Vulnerable Victims Connecting repeat caller status with the other characteristics of vulnerability highlights considerable variation in the distribution of repeat and vulnerable victims across housing tenures in Wales.

Figure 19 distinguishes between three classifications of a repeat and vulnerable victim (RVV): 1.

An individual who calls the police repeatedly and has a long-term health disability themselves or in their household.

2. As (1) above but adding those who meet the condition of experiencing personal antisocial behavior.

3. As (2) above but with a high frequency repeat caller threshold of 10 or more calls to police in the last year.

Figure 19: Percentage of Repeat and Vulnerable Victims by housing tenure in Wales 100 90 80 70

RVV health

60

52

50

40

40 30 20

34 26

RVV health and/or personal ASB

39 24

High frequency RVV on above

25 16

12

10 0 Owner

•

Social

Private

Repeat and vulnerable victims contacting the police about ASB are concentrated in social housing. In other words, social housing residents presenting to the police are most likely to experience antisocial behavior that is persistent and targeted.

30

•

Nearly one-quarter of victims in social housing are in the most acute category of repeat and vulnerable victim, contacting police ten or more times in a one year period.

These findings point to a strong link between the police and registered social landlords in Wales in terms of where police are being requested to intervene. Strengthening this link by sharing information on vulnerable victims of antisocial behavior can only aid efforts to better protect them and provide more timely and appropriate interventions.

However, the finding that around one-third of home owners and private renters are repeat and vulnerable victims based on their health and/or the personal nature of the ASB they are experiencing should not be ignored. A further 1 in 10 in living in these tenures can be classified as the most acute category of repeat and vulnerable victim.

Housing tenure as Situational Vulnerability These findings suggest that the most vulnerable repeat victims are concentrated in social housing in Wales. The links between social housing and vulnerability are likely to reflect both that people with pre-existing vulnerability are disproportionately housed in this sector but also that the situational context of social housing may increase exposure to antisocial behavior among those least resilient to its harmful effects.

The extent to which housing tenure may itself be an indicator of situational vulnerability (the wider socio-economic context in which people live) is examined in Figure 20 by focusing on the association between tenure and deprivation among ASB callers.

Figure 20: Percentage of callers in each deprivation category by housing tenure 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Mid High 26

32

32 23

19

22

33

Mid Low 21

16

13

7

Owner

•

High

56

Social

Low

Private

The majority of social housing residents who called the police about ASB live in areas of high deprivation (56 percent) and this percentage is much lower for private renters (32 percent) and home owners (26 percent).

31

•

Within these highly deprived areas, victims living in social housing are more likely to be in the acute category of repeat and vulnerable victim than are home owners (16 percent and 27 percent respectively).

Residents of social housing therefore have a call profile that is highly skewed towards areas of high deprivation. For home owners the percentage of calls to police about ASB is more evenly spread across levels of deprivation.

•

42 percent of calls from home owners and 34 percent of calls from private renters come from victims living in areas of mid-low or low deprivation.

Situational vulnerability associated with area deprivation cuts across all tenures but high deprivation should not be an exclusive focus, particularly for those outside the social housing sector.

Partners in Social Housing It might be anticipated that the survey of victim callers to the police that forms the basis of this analysis is an underestimate of reporting on antisocial behavior among social housing residents. This is because the structure of social housing itself can often provide an alternative means for victims to report antisocial behavior. A good proportion of incidents may be dealt with on site by the ‘eyes and ears’ of social housing; the caretakers, the wardens, the housing officers and so on. Their early involvement may prevent escalation and preclude the need for victims to contact the police at all therefore they represent a key partner for police in the detection and management of antisocial behavior.

Although by definition everyone in this survey did report their experience of ASB to the police, the data shows that other agencies were also significantly more likely to intervene as a result of a call made by a social housing resident (23 percent) than for a private renter (14 percent) or a home owner (11 percent). This survey sample is therefore likely to represent the most complex cases in social housing for which a multi-agency response was necessary.

•

Of those resident in social housing that did call the police, other parties involved in the ASB response were: the Council 15%; Housing association 5%; Warden/ housing officer or manager 2%; Environmental health 1% or an ASB Team or PCSO 1%.

•

Among victims whose report of antisocial behaviour prompted a multi-agency response, however, victim satisfaction with these other agencies was lower than for the police (74 percent and 82 percent respectively).

The relatively high joint working of the police and council in resolving antisocial behaviour reports among social housing tenants has important implications at a time when council services and resources are contracting. Now more than ever there are calls for more sharing 32

of information about antisocial behaviour. In practice, however, there is a current lack of consensus within the social housing sector about how to define antisocial behaviour and record it. A 2013 survey of Registered Social Landlords in Wales9 also shows that less than half assess the risk of social harm that may accrue for vulnerable victims living in their properties. Whilst greater sharing of information is a laudable aim, there is clearly work to be done in establishing, first what the problem is, and second how this fits with other intelligence held by the police and community safety partnerships.

Figure 16 highlights why any cross-sector approach must have at its centre a focus on supporting the victim, particularly when they can be identified as vulnerable.

•

Victims living in social housing are more exposed to intimidation and repercussions as a result of reporting ASB to the police and this contributes to the level of harm they experience.

Figure 16: Percentage reporting intimidation or repercussions from reporting ASB by housing tenure 100 90 80 70

All

60 50 40

44 33

47

29

30

19

20 10

Any vulnerability

38

33 18

Not vulnerable and not repeat vicYm

3

0 Owner

Social

Private

Figure 16 shows that the repercussion risk is heightened for victims identifiable as vulnerable across all tenures but particularly within social housing.

•

Only 2 out of 10 victims resident in social housing who had no repeat status or other vulnerability characteristics experienced repercussions as a result of their reporting ASB compared with 5 out of 10 vulnerable victims in the same housing tenure.

9

Delaney, A. et al. (2014) Wales Anti-­‐Social Behaviour: Policy and Practice Review. Welsh Government.

33

This is a significant finding because it suggests that the legislative grip on social housing and antisocial behavior is amiss in protecting and supporting victims who decide to involve the police. Those most likely to experience repercussions are precisely those least equipped to deal with them. This serves to further compound their vulnerability.

•

The average score on a quality of life harm index for social housing residents who experience intimidation or repercussions as a result of reporting ASB to the police is significantly greater10 than if no intimidation occurred.

•

Intimidation and repercussions also impact upon the victims’ overall wellbeing, with 27% who experienced it rating their quality of life as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ compared with 18 percent who did not experience it.

10

Mean negative impact score is 6.3 out of 10 compared with 4.9 out of 10 if no intimidation occurred.

34

Conclusion This report has taken an empirical focus to antisocial behavior using data specific to Wales.

It has examined a number of victim characteristics that can be used to assess risk and harm and considered outcomes for different types of victim. The analysis has primarily stratified the data by police force area but has also compared housing tenures within Wales to show areas of common concern and the potential going forward to use scarce resources in a more targeted or joined up way.

Comparing and contrasting the four police forces shows a great deal of variation in their victim caller profiles, their strengths and weaknesses in dealing with these kinds of incident and the way in which victims appraise their interactions with the police.

•

Dyfed Powys: the survey profile of callers suggests that situational drivers (socioeconomic deprivation) may be less acute in Dyfed Powys than other areas of Wales.

However, there is a relatively high amount of vulnerability – particularly health vulnerability, among callers to the police on anti-social behaviour. HMIC grades show that this force performs well on dealing with victims at the point of report, especially in its identification of repeat victims and vulnerable victims and in providing effective harm and risk assessments to all victims. This may explain why, despite the ‘personal drivers’ of ASB being potentially high in this area, vulnerability does not translate into a high volume of repeat callers or high frequency callers in Dyfed Powys. This force also achieves a consistent high satisfaction profile for different types of victims.

•

Gwent: this profile is characterised by strong situational call drivers, with a high percentage of victims from areas of high deprivation. This area also has the highest official incident rate for ASB in Wales, but the victim survey shows that it does achieve consensus in terms of police and victim perceptions of ‘personal’ ASB in the majority of cases. In the national picture, Gwent is in the lower strata of overall performance for forces in England and Wales and areas of concern are in dealing with ASB at the point of report and harm and risk assessments for all victims. Although markers of vulnerability were relatively low among callers in the survey, Gwent has the highest percentage of repeat only callers and repeat callers who have health vulnerability. The satisfaction data suggests that Gwent is less effective in meeting the needs of both repeat victims and repeat and vulnerable victims.

•

South Wales: callers from this area were most likely to be from areas of high deprivation; hence there are strong situational drivers of calls on ASB. This force had the highest percentage of ‘high frequency’ repeat victims in Wales and many of these could be identified as vulnerable victims, by virtue of their health status (personal driver) or the personal nature of the ASB they were experiencing (incidental driver). Hence South Wales represents an area where situational, incidental and personal drivers combine together to shape the nature and volume of ASB calls to the police. Although South Wales were strong in their use of IT to identify hotspots and were in agreement with victims on the categorisation of ‘personal’ ASB in more than 35

half of cases, they were the worst performers on providing effective harm and risk assessments. The satisfaction data for South Wales suggests that they are less effective in meeting the needs of repeat victims and vulnerable victims. â&#x20AC;˘

North Wales: this force has a number of features in common with South Wales with a relatively high distribution of repeat and vulnerable victims on health and on personal antisocial behaviour. The force achieves the best victim satisfaction profile on call handling for all its victims but has a relatively poor alignment of police and victim perceptions of personal antisocial behaviour.

Large-scale public opinion surveys have repeatedly documented that ASB features prominently in the public's concerns about their neighbourhood security and quality of life.

There is growing evidence that the community impact of ASB is escalated in circumstances where it is repeatedly encountered, and where the context lacks those factors that afford a degree of resilience to harm. A key finding of this analysis has been that the occurrence of intimidation by victims following reporting to the police, significantly amplifies the sense of being harmed that they experience. This in turn, shapes their likelihood of engaging with police in future should they experience any other similar problems. This has important practice implications. Police and their partners need to look at interventions that could be put in place to help manage the risks of any post-incident intimidation and repercussions.

A second key finding derived from the analysis concerns the prevalence of ASB victimisation amongst individuals who do not reside in social housing. Again this has direct practical relevance in light of the increased emphasis within recent housing legislation, upon involving non-police resources in managing these problems. Two specific issues are identified in this respect. First, there are a greater range of interventions available to tackle ASB when it occurs in social housing settings, when compared with problems in private housing. Second, that the diversity of agencies involved in ASB management is inhibiting an effective response. This stems from the fact that those involved do not share common frameworks and approaches in terms of categorising ASB and how they record information. The importance of this is it suggests that the solution often proposed for increasing effectiveness in managing ASB problems, namely increased data sharing, will not be sufficient. If data is to be linked and matched in order to provide a 'single view' of the problem in any space then this requires shared definitions, categorisations and intervention frameworks to be established. A recommendation based upon this research is that Welsh Government and all relevant partners agree a common approach.

The development of such measures would do much to increase the overall effectiveness and efficiency of responses to ASB. In the context of ongoing public sector austerity it is important in managing overall levels of demand on key agencies and service providers that wherever possible interventions 'get it right first time'. Whilst the evidence compiled for this report shows relatively high levels of satisfaction with the services provided to them on the

36 Â Â

part of ASB victims, equally it identifies the presence of a group of multiply vulnerable repeat victims who are profoundly negatively affected by their ongoing exposure to ASB.

37

Appendix

Table A.1 HMIC performance questions included in the analysis Performance area

HMIC question from 2012

1. Performance at point of report

•

•

•

•

2. Use of IT systems

• •

3. Follow-­‐up contact

•

• 4. Harm and risk assessment

•

•

At the point of report, repeat complainants are identified (including crimes, not just limited to repeat ASB).

For instance, automatic IT (by telephone number, address, and/or name) or via a manual trawl of IT systems, or via a probe of the complainant by the call At the point of report, vulnerable complainants are identified. For instance, via automatic IT where the complainant has been previously deemed vulnerable (by telephone number, address, and/or name) or via a manual trawl of IT systems, or via a probe of the complainant by the call handler.

At the point of report there is a system to identify local priorities. For instance via automatic IT, or a consistent manual trawl of IT systems.

At the point of report ASB incidents are correctly identified and appropriately categorised as either personal, nuisance, or environmental.

Trends and hotspots are identified through IT systems.

All ASB incidents reported (including verbally to staff, by letter, or email) are recorded on the force system.

Are complainants of ASB contacted in line with their needs to update them on police action taken and check on their view of progress of the reported incident?

Follow up contact with complainants is recorded.

Consideration of harm and ongoing assessment of risk have been applied to all those affected by ASB. This could include offenders as well as victims There is an attendance or graded response policy for ASB which, as a 38

5. Management and communication

• •

minimum considers risk to the victim, response and deployment criteria. This includes clear direction to provide an explanation to the caller if there is no attendance.

Does the force manage ASB problems through NIM processes?

CID, Response, and NPT Staff are regularly briefed about ASB issues, and in detail about specific local ASB issues.

Area level variation in Wales To aid the interpretation of these research findings, background statistics for the police force areas of Wales were obtained for relevant local authority areas using the 2011 Census and the HMIC crime and policing comparator data for 2011/12. The data for local authorities within each police force area shows marked variability both within and between areas on indicators of: 1. Health vulnerability: the percentage of persons with a limiting longstanding illness; 2. Economic health: the unemployment rate; 3. An aging population: the mean age of residents.

Table A.2 shows that local authority areas in both Dyfed Powys and North Wales have a low unemployment rate compared to Wales as a whole. These areas tend to have a mean age of population that is above the average for Wales and a level of health vulnerability that is fairly consistent across local authority areas and generally just below or on the national percentage.

By contrast, health vulnerability peaks in three local authority areas of South Wales, namely Merthyr Tyfil, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Neath Port Talbot. The latter area also has an older than average population and an unemployment rate higher than for Wales as a whole. Two areas of Gwent can also be characterised by high unemployment and health vulnerability; Bleanau Gwent and Caerphilly.

Out of these four police force areas, Gwent has the highest incident rate of ASB 1,000 of the population (65.69), followed by South Wales, Dyfed Powys and North Wales (44.4). Reported ASB incidents for all areas of Wales are below the national incident rate for England and Wales combined (70.63). Note that these figures from HMIC will, by definition, only represent reported ASB.

39

Table A.2 Background data on police force areas for Wales Local Authority Area

% of persons

2011 Census

with LLI

1

Unemployment rate

2

Mean age of Pop

Dyfed Powys

n

Incidents of ASB per 1,000 pop

n3

50.78

Pembrokeshire

22.3

7.3

40.9

Ceredigion

20.7

5.5

40.5

Carmarthenshire

26.3

7.2

41.1

Powys

20.4

4.9

41.7

Gwent

65.69

Monmouthshire

19.1

5.9

40.8

Newport

21.6

9.3

38.2

Torfaen

24.8

9.4

29

Caerphilly

26.3

10.6

38.1

Bleanau Gwent

28.3

14.6

39.1

North Wales

44.4

Isle of Anglesey

22.4

5.5

41.1

Gwynedd

20.6

5.6

40.4

Conwy

23.4

6.2

43.1

Denbighshire

23.4

8.3

41.4

Flintshire

19.2

7.4

38.6

Wrexham

21.5

6.1

39

South Wales

56.72

Merthyr Tydfil

30

13.8

38.6

Rhondda Cynon Taf

27.2

9.5

38.6

Cardiff

18.8

8.8

36.6

Neath Port Talbot

29.4

9.6

40.4

Swansea

24.7

8.9

40

Bridgend

25

9.2

39.3

Vale of Glamorgan

19.9

8.3

39.3

40

ALL WALES 1

23.3

8.3

39.5

70.63 (Eng & Wales)

Limiting Longstanding Illness

2

for men aged 16-64 and women aged 16-59.

3

Data from HMIC crime and policing comparator

Table A.3 uses approximate indicators from the ipsos-­‐MORI survey of ASB victims to compare with the background data. The victim survey does provide a random sample of victims who contacted the police during a reference period of one-­‐month.

The survey reflects the Census profile in so far as an approximate measure of health vulnerability11 shows that it is greater in South Wales than any other police force area in Wales. However, in the survey, South Wales has the greatest percentage of older callers (aged 65+) whereas the population profiles suggest Dyfed Powys and North Wales generally have an older mean age of population by comparison. More than 4 out of 10 callers sampled from Gwent and North Wales can be characterised as living in areas of high deprivation using the Welsh Index of Deprivation in the survey although unemployment among respondents from these areas is around the national average and lower than for Dyfed Powys and South Wales.

The disparities between the survey profile and the Census population profiles make clear that the ipsos-­‐MORI sample should not be viewed as representative of all people living in these police force areas. Nor should it be viewed as representative of all ASB victims or ASB crime in general. When interpreting the findings in this report, it is important to bear in mind, firstly, that a proportion of victims do not contact the police to report antisocial behaviour and, secondly, that the profile of those who do call is likely to over-­‐represent characteristics in the population such as vulnerability.

However, the survey does provide a random sample or ‘snapshot’ of a single forces’ caller profile and how different types of ASB victim feel about the police response to their call. These can be compared and contrasted across the four Welsh regions and used to draw attention to particular vulnerabilities inherent within their caller profile that may not be obvious from population demographics. For example, even an area not characterised by an aging population may have older residents who are disproportionately affected by, or experiencing, antisocial behaviour and who make contact with the police.

11

Note the Census measure on ‘limiting longstanding’ illness differs from the ipsos-­‐MORI question concerning ‘longstanding’ illness or disability and the latter represents anyone in the household.

41

Table A.3: Victim survey characteristics by police force area

Police force area: Wales

% respondents

Dyfed Powys

Gwent

North Wales

South Wales

unemployed

12

9

8

12

with a limiting illness or disability in self or household

13

15

12

18

aged 65+

16

19

12

22

in highest deprivation band

25

44

46

30

42

Table A.4 Classification of victim types in the MORI survey

Vulnerability factor

Indicator

Health

Personal Targeted ASB

Motivated ASB

QoL impact

Repeat calls 3+

Repeat calls 10+

Repeat Victim (RV)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Repeat Victimisation

Vulnerable Victim: (VVHEALTH)

health Yes

.

.

.

No

Vulnerable Victim: (VVTARGET)

target .

Yes

.

.

No

Vulnerable Victim: other

.

.

Yes

Yes

No

(VVOTHER)

.

.

Yes

.

No

.

.

.

Yes

No

Multiple Vulnerable Victim Any combination of 2 or more vulnerability No (MVV) factors

Repeat & Vulnerable Victim: Yes Health (RVVh)

.

.

.

Yes

Repeat & Vulnerable Victim: Yes Health and Target (RVVht) Yes

Yes

.

.

Yes

.

.

.

Yes

Yes

.

.

Yes

Yes

.

.

.

Yes

.

.

.

.

Yes

Yes

.

.

.

Yes

.

High Repeat & Vulnerable Yes Victim: Health and Target Yes (HRVVht) .

43

+44 (0) 2920 875160 upsi@cardiff.ac.uk www.upsi.org.uk