June 2012 - Performance Report

TAYSIDE POLICE

Contents

Welcome

This performance report covers a range of force performance and is available on the force web site every month. It provides an overview of local performance results and pub-lic feedback. Areas covered are:

- Dundee Local Policing Area

- Angus Local Policing Area

- Perth & Kinross Local Policing Area

The report incorporates information from local Inspectors about what they are doing to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in your community. Results are presented at Section (local community ) level.

VISION AND

VALUES

STANDARDS

OF SERVICE

COMMUNITY

PRIORITIES

ENGAGE

AND LISTEN

REVIEW

RESULTS

MANAGE

RESOURCES

JUNE 2012

Background

Guidance

Policing Tayside

Policing Dundee

Policing Angus

Policing Perth & Kinross

4

5

9

13

20

27

Summary of Results 6

Introduction 3

Resources & Assets 33

3

DELIVERING LOCAL POLICING

B uilding public confidence and trust is how Tayside Police aims to improve satisfaction with the quality of service provided to its communities. This is achieved through the effec-tive delivery of policing services which meet the needs of local communities. It is about ease of access to services, giving the public a voice in order to influence how the force responds to is-sues that matter to them, delivering appropriate and robust interventions, working with partners, providing feedback to the public and keeping them informed of progress and improvement.

C orporate support forms an important role in ensuring that appropriate resources are in place to deliver an efficient and effective service to the public. The force uses performance indicators to gather information about performance, quality of ser-vice and public perception. These are listed below. They are derived from priorities identified through the annual strategic assessment and also include issues, such as housebreaking and vandalism, identified through public feedback. The challenging economic climate means that robust monitoring and reporting processes are instrumental in ensuring that the force is on track to deliver its objectives within the resources available.

Key Performance Indicators

1. Standards of Service

• First Contact : overall satisfaction rating

• First Contact: caller provided with the name of the call handler

• Proportion of people who received an update on the progress of their enquiry

• Overall customer experience of the service provided by the police

2. Crime and Detection Rates

• Violent Crime

• Robbery

• Vandalism

• Domestic Housebreaking

3. Road Casualties

4. Proportion of working time lost to sickness absence

In addition, a programme of regular surveys tests local public opinion on how neighbourhoods are policed in order that where action is required, it can be initiated in a timely manner.

Introduction

4

Background

P erformance Indicators are derived from detailed policing plans and busi-

ness plans outlining what Local Policing Ar-eas and supporting departments intend to deliver in support of the priorities set out in the three-year Tayside Policing Plan 2011-2014. These form the basis for this per-formance publication. Two community priorities: ‘Public Safety’ and ‘Public Reassurance’, underpin the policing plan . Analysis of data and context

1 with respect

to performance indicators, combined with the outputs from public consultation, pro-vide an indication of the extent to which the force is succeeding in contributing to im-proved community outcomes.

What this will tell us about performance

Tayside Police Key Performance Indicators

help the force define and measure progress

toward the achievement of standards of

service and force objectives.

Monitoring results over the longer term al-

lows the force to see where sustained im-

provement occurs, or identifies challenges

which require to be addressed.

Consulting, engaging and listening Public consultation and feedback runs as a thread throughout performance manage-ment and provides information that lets us know whether we are doing things right. ‘Customers’ include our staff. FOOTNOTE: 1.Context Indicators are not measures of performance per se; rather they provide additional background infor-mation in relation to the demands placed upon the force and the environment in which it operates.

5

Guidance

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

B aselines for improvement adopt the methodology used in previous years,

incorporating the most recent three years average performance as a starting point for improvement. For some KPIs a slight adjustment is ap-plied to the three-year average target which may take account of developing trends or patterns over the last 36 months. The target may be adjusted up or down ac-cordingly to ensure that it is both challeng-ing and realistic in terms of achievement . Improvement Targets are agreed annually through a process of consultation with terri-torial commanders and heads of depart-ments. These are ratified by the Force ex-ecutive and Tayside Joint Police Board.

R esults are colour-coded against the following criteria: Results are presented as a ‘Dashboard’ for ease of viewing. Further context is pro-vided at the beginning of the document as a summary. Behind the scenes, results over time are monitored using charts, to which upper and lower control limits are applied.

P erformance reporting. Where performance is adhering to the

‘norm’, i.e. remaining within upper and lower control limits, minimal reporting takes place. Areas of concern or exceptional

performance, lying outwith the upper or lower control limits, is commented upon in the summary. In addition, areas of police business not contained within the key performance indi-cators (such as fleet, health and safety, staff development) are reported on in dashboard style, subject to data being available, with a view to producing a bal-anced view of organisational activity. This promotes the diverse range of services that support operational policing.

P ublication of Performance Results. This document is published monthly on

the force web-site in accordance with the statutory requirement under Section 13 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003 which covers public performance reporting in relation to the publication of performance information and evidence of continuous im-provement.

On or above target Below target

6

1. STANDARDS OF SERVICE Three out of four customer satisfaction targets were achieved for the quarter April to June 2012, with particular attention drawn to the ‘updating the public’ indicator where results exceeded the 2012/13 target set at 65.0% by 7.8 percentage points finalising at 72.8%. Overall satisfaction at first contact evidenced a 3.5 percentage point improvement compared to the same quarter the previous year rising from 92.1% to 95.6% and exceeded the force target set at 94.0% by 1.6 percentage points. The proportion of respondents who were provided with the name of the person dealing with their en-quiry reduced slightly from 84.7% in 2011/12 to 84.5% in 2012/13 and fell short of the increased tar-get set at 85.0% by 0.5 percentage points. Significant improvements were evident in relation to service users receiving an update on the progress of their enquiry increasing 15.1 percentage points to 72.8% compared to 57.7% in 2011/12. As previ-ously stated this result well exceeded the target set for 2012/13 of 65.0%. In addition, further analysis undertaken on this indicator highlighted that 85.5% of customers who had reported a crime were up-dated on progress with their enquiry with a lesser proportion, 48.3%, of those who had made contact for reasons other than to report a crime, confirming that they had received an update. Satisfaction with the overall service provided by Tayside Police returned an improvement of 5.0 per-centage points compared to the commensurate fig-ure the previous year, rising from 80.4% to 85.4% and again achieved the target set for 2012/13 of 85.0%.

2. CRIME Performance in relation to overall crime groups : • Violent crime (Group 1) - a decrease of 20.6% (27 crimes)

• Crimes of indecency (Group 2) - a decrease of 9.2% (10 crimes)

• Crimes of dishonesty (Group 3) - a decrease of 1.5% (35 crimes)

• Malicious mischief, vandalism etc (Group 4) - a reduction of 19.1% (305 crimes)

(Data was sourced directly from Apex crime reporting system on 3 July and may differ slightly to other published results due to some reclassification of crimes and any additional ‘no crime’ status being applied in the intervening period.)

The force achieved 5 out of 9 crime-related targets ~ violent crime and vandalism —recorded crime and detection rate plus the detection rate for robbery.

The detection rate for groups 1 to 4 crimes (45.3%) failed to achieve target by 1.2 percentage points and a further 42 detections would have been required in order to achieve target. Similarly, with domestic housebreaking, the detection rate of 30.6% failed to achieve the target of 31.0% and, tantalisingly, just one more detection would have produced an on tar-get result. Two areas of recorded crime did not achieve target; 32 robberies had occurred by the end of June 2012, 2 more than in the same period last year. 193 do-mestic housebreakings were recorded this year, 45 more than the 148 recorded at the same time last year.

3. COMMUNITY POLICING The community policing questions are replicated in both the Service Satisfaction and Public Perception surveys in order to compare perceptions of commu-nity policing from a service user perspective (those who have had direct contact with the police – Ser-vice Satisfaction survey) and as a member of the general public, who may not have had contact with the police (Public Perception survey). Comparisons of the results for these questions for both surveys are detailed later in this document under Public Per-ception – Community Policing. • 50.4% of service users thought that the cur-

rent level of police patrols in their neighbour-hood was ‘about right’ for their community needs. Conversely, 48.8% felt it was ‘too little’ and a minimal 0.8% believed that there was ‘too much’ patrolling.

• The majority of respondents, 77.3%, felt reas-sured when they witnessed an officer on patrol in their neighbourhood whilst 5.0% stated that it caused them concern.

• Three out of ten respondents, 29.0%, con-firmed that they were able to recognise their community officer either by name, sight or both. A further 15.3%, although unable to identify their local officer by sight or name, knew how to contact them should the need arise. 35.2% of residents stated that they would like to know the identify of the commu-nity officers who looked after their neighbour-hood whilst interestingly a fifth, 20.5%, did not feel there was a need for them to know their community officers.

• ‘Local newspapers’ were the preferred me-

Summary of results: April 2012 - June 2012

7

dium for respondents to be kept informed about actions being taken by officers in their communities.

• 70.2% of service users agreed that officers understood the issues that mattered in their neighbourhoods and 64.0% felt that officers were dealing with such matters. Overall, 71.1% of respondents had confidence in the police in their neighbourhood.

• Taking everything into account, 72.1% of ser-vice users thought that community officers were doing a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ job in their area.

4. TELEPHONE RESPONSE 3368 emergency calls were received in June and 90.5% of these were answered within 10 seconds. 18018 non-emergency calls were received and 65.7% were answered within 40 seconds

5. SICKNESS ABSENCE The absence rate for police officers was 3.2% at the end of June and met the target of 4.0%. The police staff result at 4.9% was a deterioration on the 3.5 recorded at the same time last year and failed to meet the target of 4.0%.

6. ROAD CASUALTIES Between April and the end of June 6 adult fatalities were recorded, one more than at the end of June 2011. A further 39 people were seriously injured (51 last year), three of which were children. The total number of people killed or seriously injured (45) was 11 fewer than at the same time last year. From April 2011, the force adopted the govern-ment’s Road Safety Framework Targets to the year 2020.

7. PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF CRIME Nine out of ten respondents in Tayside, 90.3%, per-ceived their neighbourhood to be a safe place to live. This indicates a slight reduction of 1.0 percent-age point compared to the same quarter the previ-ous year when 91.3% of respondents were of the same opinion. Whilst opinions remained fairly static between 2012/13 and 2011/12 in relation to those who felt

that crime levels had remained the same during the period – six out of ten respondents - a 4.9 percent-age point improvement was recorded for those who felt that crime had decreased rising from 11.4% to 16.3% and similarly, a minimal 0.4 percentage point reduction in those who felt that crime had in-creased, falling from 24.3% to 23.9%. The main issues of concern to residents when asked unprompted were ‘dangerous/careless driv-ing’, 27.7% (17.6%), followed by ‘drug dealing or drug abuse’, 19.8% (15.0%) and ‘antisocial behav-iour’, 19.8% (28.5%). This provides a similar repre-sentation of concerns as in the previous year with only ‘dangerous/careless driving’ and ‘antisocial be-haviour’ changing position. In terms of prevalence of crime in local neighbour-hoods, almost four in ten respondents, 38.1% (48.2%) said that ‘antisocial behaviour’ was a com-mon problem in their local area, closely followed by ‘vandalism/graffiti’, 37.0% (37.3%) and ‘dangerous/careless driving’, 31.1% (31.0%). This result indi-cates that opinions mirrored those of the previous year where ‘antisocial behaviour’ was deemed the most common issue blighting local communities. 37.3% (38.4%) of respondents confirmed that they were concerned at becoming a victim of crime in their area and when asked to comment on the is-sues which caused them concern, ‘housebreaking’, 46.3% (48.3%), followed by ‘antisocial behaviour’, 37.1% (45.9%), were the major issues of concern. Feelings of safety walking alone in local neighbour-hoods both during the day and after dark evidenced a decline in confidence in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12 whereby 92.0% (95.8%) of the public felt safe during the day and 55.1% (62.4%) felt safe af-ter dark. A minority 1.8% of residents stated that a fear of crime prevented them from taking part in their every-day activities. This represents a reduction of 3.5 percentage points compared to the 5.3% who pro-vided the same response in 2011/12. Service Delivery When asked to provide views on the force’s service delivery, first in terms of the importance of certain activities and then how well those activities were executed, every aspect of service delivery evi-denced an improvement in performance compared to the same quarter the previous year. This was particularly apparent for ‘providing a visible pres-ence’ which returned an improvement of 12.3 per-

8

centage points, rising from 41.8% in 2011/12 to 54.1% in 2012/13. The greatest disparity in opinion between impor-tance and effectiveness however still remains with visible policing and suggests that ‘providing a visible presence’ is the main area of policing which the public perceive Tayside Police should continue to improve going forward.

9

POLICING TAYSIDE

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Tayside Land Area: 7,528 square kilometres Population: 405,720 Police Officers: 1258 Police Staff: 543 Special Constables: 172 Mid year population estimates - most recent - published by The General Register Office for Scotland on 30 June 2011 Staff profile as at 31 March 2012 and is based upon headcount - which includes full and part-time working.

Dundee Local Policing Area

Population 145,570 Land area 60 sq km

Angus Local Policing Area

Population 110,630 Land area 2,182 sq km Perth & Kinross

Local Policing Area Population 149,520

Land area 5,286 sq km

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

First Contact: Overall satisfaction rating for service provided at first contact

94.0% 95.6% 92.1% 3.5 94.0% 96.0% 87.1% 8.9 94.0% 97.6% 90.0% 7.6 94.0% 93.9% 97.9% -4.0

First Contact:% of respondents provided with the name of the person dealing with their enquiry

85.0% 84.5% 84.7% -0.2 85.0% 83.1% 78.0% 5.1 85.0% 87.5% 85.0% 2.5 85.0% 83.3% 90.7% -7.4

Updating the Public: Overall % of customers who received an update on the progress of their enquiry

65.0% 72.8% 57.7% 15.1 65.0% 67.5% 59.2% 8.3 65.0% 79.7% 58.6% 21.1 65.0% 72.5% 55.6% 16.9

% customers who received an update following their

contact to report a crime~ 85.5% 66.9% 18.6 ~ 77.2% 69.0% 8.2 ~ 91.7% 67.7% 24.0 ~ 88.1% 64.4% 23.7

% customers who received an update following their

contact for reasons other than to report a crime~ 48.3% 46.4% 1.9 ~ 46.2% 47.1% -0.9 ~ 52.4% 48.1% 4.3 ~ 47.6% 44.4% 3.2

Customer Experience: Overall satisfaction rating of the service provided by Tayside Police

85.0% 85.4% 80.4% 5.0 85.0% 80.9% 78.9% 2.0 85.0% 91.8% 79.4% 12.4 85.0% 84.5% 82.4% 2.1

(Response Rate)

CRIME

Groups 1-4 recordedNo

target3440 3745 -8.1%

No

target1684 1958 -14.0%

No

target807 786 2.7%

No

target949 1001 -5.2%

- Detection rate 46.5% 45.3% 49.7% -4.4 45.5% 48.0% 48.7% -0.7 47.5% 43.5% 48.3% -4.9 48.0% 41.9% 52.6% -10.7

Violent Crime recorded 520 104 131 -20.6% 273 52 75 -30.7% 104 20 14 42.9% 143 32 42 -23.8%

- Detection rate 85.0% 91.3% 87.8% 3.6 80.0% 90.4% 82.7% 7.7 91.0% 100.0% 92.9% 7.1 93.0% 87.5% 95.2% -7.7

Robbery recorded 133 32 30 6.7% 89 16 20 -20.0% 8 1 0 *** 36 15 10 50.0%

- Detection rate 70.0% 90.6% 63.3% 27.3 62.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0 85.0% 100.0% 0.0% *** 85.0% 80.0% 90.0% -10.0

Vandalism recorded 4650 913 1138 -19.8% 2300 393 591 -33.5% 1250 296 276 7.2% 1100 224 271 -17.3%

- Detection rate 31.0% 32.2% 33.0% -0.8 28.0% 31.8% 30.3% 1.5 32.0% 29.7% 37.0% -7.2 34.0% 36.2% 34.7% 1.5

Domestic Housebreaking recorded 700 193 148 30.4% 445 132 90 46.7% 95 23 25 -8.0% 160 38 33 15.2%

- Detection rate 31.0% 30.6% 36.5% -5.9 28.0% 35.6% 38.9% -3.3 33.0% 13.0% 48.0% -35.0 33.0% 23.7% 21.2% 2.5

315/900 (35.0%) 101/324 (31.2%) 88/252 (34.9%) 126/324 (38.9%)

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS SCORECARD APRIL 2012 - JUNE 2012

POLICING DUNDEEPOLICING TAYSIDE POLICING ANGUS POLICING PERTH & KINROSSKEY

On or above 3 year averageBelow 3 year average

2012-13 Target

2012-13 R

esult

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Target

2012-13 R

esult

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Target

2012-13 R

esult

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Target

2012-13 R

esult

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

ROAD CASUALTIES

People killed 26 6 5 20.0% N/A 0 0 *** N/A 3 1 200.0% N/A 3 4 -25.0%

People seriously injured 222 39 51 -23.5% N/A 9 13 -30.8% N/A 7 11 -36.4% N/A 23 27 -14.8%

Children killed 1 0 0 *** N/A 0 0 *** N/A 0 0 *** N/A 0 0 ***

Children seriously injured 25 3 9 -66.7% N/A 2 4 -50.0% N/A 0 4 -100.0% N/A 1 1 0.0%

RESOURCES

Sickness Absence - police officers 4.0% 3.2% 3.8% -0.6 4.0% 3.8% 2.7% 1.1 4.0% 3.8% 5.7% -1.9 4.0% 2.9% 5.3% -2.4

Sickness Absence - police staff 4.0% 4.9% 3.5% 1.4 4.0% 3.4% 4.5% -1.2 4.0% 6.0% 5.1% 0.9 4.0% 4.2% 3.2% 0.9

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS SCORECARD APRIL 2012 - JUNE 2012 continued

VISION AND

VALUES

STANDARDS OF

SERVICECOMMUNITY

PRIORITIES

ENGAGE

AND LISTEN

REVIEW

RESULTSMANAGE

RESOURCES

KEY

On or above 3 year averageBelow 3 year average

POLICING DUNDEEPOLICING TAYSIDE POLICING ANGUS POLICING PERTH & KINROSS

12

TAYSIDE CRIME IN MORE DETAIL PERIOD APRIL to JUNE 2011/2012 2012/2013 June Alone

CRIME CLASSIFICATIONMade

known

DETECTIONS

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

INC./DEC.

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

GROUP 1Murder 3 3 100.0% 3 4 133.3% 0 0.0% 1 1 100.0%

Attempted Murder 20 18 90.0% 8 8 100.0% -12 -60.0% 1 1 100.0%

Culpable Homicide 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -

Serious Assault 47 43 91.5% 42 35 83.3% -5 -10.6% 13 10 76.9%

Robbery (Incl attempts) 30 19 63.3% 32 29 90.6% 2 6.7% 8 5 62.5%

Child Cruelty/Neglect 21 22 104.8% 15 16 106.7% -6 -28.6% 4 3 75.0%

Pos of Firearm with intent to endanger life 2 2 100.0% 0 0 - -2 -100.0% 0 0 -

Abduction 2 2 100.0% 1 1 100.0% -1 -50.0% 0 0 -

Threats 6 6 100.0% 2 1 50.0% -4 -66.7% 1 1 100.0%

Others 0 0 - 1 1 100.0% 1 - 0 0 -

GROUP 1 - TOTAL 131 115 87.8% 104 95 91.3% -27 -20.6% 28 21 75.0%

GROUP 2Rape 19 15 78.9% 18 10 55.6% -1 -5.3% 5 3 60.0%

Assault with intent to rape 0 0 - 2 0 0.0% 2 - 1 0 0.0%

Indecent assault 59 39 66.1% 34 34 100.0% -25 -42.4% 12 14 116.7%

Lewd & Libidinous practices 7 4 57.1% 4 10 250.0% -3 -42.9% 2 5 250.0%

Public Indecency 13 8 61.5% 11 10 90.9% -2 -15.4% 3 7 233.3%

Others 11 6 54.5% 30 25 83.3% 19 172.7% 4 2 50.0%

GROUP 2 - TOTAL 109 72 66.1% 99 89 89.9% -10 -9.2% 27 31 114.8%

GROUP 3Housebreaking ~ domestic dwelling 148 54 36.5% 193 59 30.6% 45 30.4% 42 20 47.6%

Housebreaking ~ domestic non-dwelling 67 12 17.9% 56 8 14.3% -11 -16.4% 26 5 19.2%

Housebreaking ~ commercial 69 37 53.6% 91 28 30.8% 22 31.9% 40 5 12.5%

Theft, attempt theft from locked premises/property 40 13 32.5% 71 15 21.1% 31 77.5% 36 8 22.2%

Theft, attempt theft from locked motor vehicle 126 36 28.6% 73 27 37.0% -53 -42.1% 27 2 7.4%

Theft, attempted theft of a motor vehicle 84 49 58.3% 56 26 46.4% -28 -33.3% 16 9 56.3%

Convicted thief in poss.of tools etc. w.i. to steal 3 3 100.0% 6 6 100.0% 3 100.0% 1 1 100.0%

In building with intent to steal 35 34 97.1% 36 33 91.7% 1 2.9% 10 10 100.0%

Theft 1477 862 58.4% 1361 703 51.7% -116 -7.9% 501 270 53.9%

Theft from motor vehicle 93 37 39.8% 73 4 5.5% -20 -21.5% 23 1 4.3%

Reset 15 16 106.7% 16 17 106.3% 1 6.7% 3 4 133.3%

Embezzlement 5 5 100.0% 1 1 100.0% -4 -80.0% 0 0 -

Fraud 109 89 81.7% 169 79 46.7% 60 55.0% 66 27 40.9%

Others 14 4 28.6% 48 21 43.8% 34 242.9% 19 8 42.1%

GROUP 3 - TOTAL 2285 1251 54.7% 2250 1027 45.6% -35 -1.5% 810 370 45.7%

GROUP 4Fireraising 36 12 33.3% 39 25 64.1% 3 8.3% 9 5 55.6%

Malicious Damage/Vandalism 1138 375 33.0% 913 294 32.2% -225 -19.8% 320 93 29.1%

Others 46 36 78.3% 35 28 80.0% -11 -23.9% 7 6 85.7%

GROUP 4 - TOTAL 1220 423 34.7% 987 347 35.2% -233 -19.1% 336 104 31.0%

SUB-TOTAL OF GROUPS 1 TO 4 3745 1861 49.7% 3440 1558 45.3% -305 -8.1% 1201 526 43.8%

GROUP 5Public mischief & wasting police time 30 30 100.0% 18 18 100.0% -12 -40.0% 7 7 100.0%

Escape or rescue from police custody or prison 1 1 100.0% 6 6 100.0% 5 500.0% 1 1 100.0%

Resisting arrest or obstructing police officer 76 77 101.3% 58 58 100.0% -18 -23.7% 24 24 100.0%

General attempts to pervert the course of justice 25 23 92.0% 23 24 104.3% -2 -8.0% 9 8 88.9%

Sex Offenders' register offences 1 1 100.0% 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 -

Bail - Fail to keep conditions 172 165 95.9% 179 175 97.8% 7 4.1% 69 66 95.7%

Possession of offensive weapons 87 84 96.6% 57 56 98.2% -30 -34.5% 22 22 100.0%

Drugs - supply, with intent to supply etc 71 69 97.2% 65 67 103.1% -6 -8.5% 25 26 104.0%

Drugs - personal possession 414 412 99.5% 429 428 99.8% 15 3.6% 135 135 100.0%

Drugs - manufacture etc 13 16 123.1% 17 16 94.1% 4 30.8% 6 6 100.0%

Others 46 38 82.6% 22 19 86.4% -24 -52.2% 9 10 111.1%

GROUP 5 - TOTAL 936 916 97.9% 875 868 99.2% -61 -6.5% 307 305 99.3%

TOTAL OF GROUPS 1 TO 5 4681 2777 59.3% 4315 2426 56.2% -366 -7.8% 1508 831 55.1%

Please Note: This document is an end of month 'snap-shot' in time and the data may vary from later publications where updates have been taken into consideration.

13

POLICING DUNDEE

CRIME

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

Groups 1-4 1684 1958 -14.0% 514 529 -2.8% 441 489 -9.8% 372 498 -25.3% 357 442 -19.2%

- Detection rate 48.0% 48.7% -0.7 56.2% 59.9% -3.7 51.2% 41.9% 9.3 42.5% 47.2% -4.7 38.1% 44.6% -6.5

Violent Crime (G1) 52 75 -30.7% 15 22 -31.8% 12 17 -29.4% 17 16 6.3% 8 20 -60.0%

- Detection rate 90.4% 82.7% 7.7 86.7% 77.3% 9.4 91.7% 82.4% 9.3 94.1% 87.5% 6.6 87.5% 85.0% 2.5

Indecency (G2) 49 49 0.0% 28 19 47.4% 10 12 -16.7% 8 12 -33.3% 3 6 -50.0%

- Detection rate 100.0% 55.1% 44.9 100.0% 52.6% 47.4 90.0% 41.7% 48.3 87.5% 58.3% 29.2 166.7% 83.3% 83.4

Dishonesty (G3) 1151 1197 -3.8% 403 359 12.3% 287 312 -8.0% 215 292 -26.4% 246 234 5.1%

- Detection rate 48.0% 55.1% -7.1 55.3% 67.4% -12.1 51.6% 49.4% 2.2 40.5% 52.1% -11.6 38.6% 47.4% -8.8

Mal Mischief, vandalism (G4) 432 637 -32.2% 68 129 -47.3% 132 148 -10.8% 132 178 -25.8% 100 182 -45.1%

- Detection rate 37.0% 32.3% 4.7 36.8% 37.2% -0.4 43.9% 21.6% 22.3 36.4% 34.8% 1.6 29.0% 35.2% -6.2

Robbery 16 20 -20.0% 4 5 -20.0% 5 7 -28.6% 4 5 -20.0% 3 3 0.0%

- Detection rate 100.0% 50.0% 50 100.0% 20.0% 80 120.0% 71.4% 48.6 100.0% 80.0% 20 66.7% 0.0% 66.7

Vandalism 393 591 -33.5% 59 119 -50.4% 117 138 -15.2% 123 161 -23.6% 94 173 -45.7%

- Detection rate 31.8% 30.3% 1.5 32.2% 36.1% -3.9 36.4% 20.3% 16.1 31.7% 31.7% 0 25.5% 32.9% -7.4

Domestic Housebreaking 132 90 46.7% 28 11 154.5% 24 18 33.3% 35 21 66.7% 45 40 12.5%

- Detection rate 35.6% 38.9% -3.3 14.3% 45.5% -31.2 58.3% 33.3% 25 42.9% 42.9% 0 31.1% 37.5% -6.4

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS: DUNDEE LPA SCORECARD APRIL - JUNE 2012

Caution! Variation in results may appear extreme due to very small numbers of crimes involved. Cells with symbol *** mean that a valid percentage change could not be calculated.

POLICING

DUNDEE

SECTION 1

City Centre and

Maryfield

SECTION 2

Lochee

and Ryehill

SECTION 3

Downfield

and Hilltown

SECTION 4

Longhaugh and

Broughty Ferry

14

POLICING DUNDEE

Customer Satisfaction

2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change


94.0% 96.0% 87.1% 8.9 95.5% 92.3% 3.2 96.9% 87.5% 9.4 100.0% 89.3% 10.7 90.0% 80.0% 10.0

First Contact: % of respondents provided with the name of the person dealing with their

enquiry

85.0% 83.1% 78.0% 5.1 78.5% 85.7% -7.2 83.3% 82.3% 1.0 93.3% 76.9% 16.4 75.0% 69.2% 5.8

Updating the Public: Overall % of customers who received an update on the

progress of their enquiry

65.0% 67.5% 59.2% 8.3 65.0% 84.6% -19.6 68.0% 63.6% 4.4 68.2% 58.3% 9.9 68.8% 35.3% 33.5

% of customers who received an update

following their contact to report a crime77.2% 69.0% 8.2 68.8% 100.0% -31.2 85.7% 58.3% 27.4 85.7% 90.9% -5.2 69.2% 41.7% 27.5


following their contact for reasons

other than to report a crime

46.2% 47.1% -0.9 50.0% 66.7% -16.7 45.5% 70.0% -24.5 37.5% 30.8% 6.7 66.7% 20.0% 46.7


85.0% 80.9% 78.9% 2.0 82.6% 86.7% -4.1 87.1% 76.9% 10.2 84.7% 79.3% 5.4 63.2% 75.0% -11.8

Response Rate

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS: DUNDEE LPA SCORECARD - STANDARDS OF SERVICE - APRIL to JUNE 2012

20/78 (25.6%)101/324 (31.2%) 23/75 (30.7%) 32/90 (35.6%) 26/81 (32.1%)

POLICING

DUNDEE

SECTION 1

City Centre and

Maryfield

SECTION 2

Lochee

and Ryehill

SECTION 3

Downfield

and Hilltown

SECTION 4

Longhaugh and

Broughty Ferry

Caution should be exercised when interpreting the results at sectional level due to the very small sub-sample sizes.

First Contact

- A statistically significant improvement in satisfaction with service at first contact from 87.1% to 96.0%. This result exceeds the force target set at 94.0%.

- Improvement in identifying the person dealing with the enquiry from 78.0% to 83.1%.

Updating the Public

- Eight percentage point improvement in updating the public from 59.2% to 67.5%. This result achieves the force target set at 65.0%.

When analysed by reason for contact - 77.2% of those who reported a crime were updated compared to 69.0% the previous year. A slight reduction, however, was evident in

relation to those whose contact was for reasons other than to report a crime whereby 46.2% received an update compared to 47.1% in 2011.

Customer Experience

- Improvement in overall customer experience from 78.9% to 80.9%.

15

POLICING DUNDEE

Public Perception

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

Crime in neighbourhood

% of residents who thought that

the crime rate in their

neighbourhood had remained

the same or improved over the

past year

70.7% 80.0% -9.3 53.8% 71.4% -17.6 80.7% 66.6% 14.1 66.7% 85.0% -18.3 70.9% 87.5% -16.6

Feelings of safety after dark

% of residents who felt safe

walking alone in their

neighbourhood after dark

51.7% 51.3% 0.4 36.4% 41.7% -5.3 40.0% 40.0% 0.0 61.9% 45.8% 16.1 64.0% 66.7% -2.7

Concerns at becoming a

victim of crime

% of residents concerned at

becoming a victim of crime in

their neighbourhood

53.2% 56.7% -3.5 69.2% 66.7% 2.5 54.5% 66.6% -12.1 50.0% 54.5% -4.5 46.1% 48.0% -1.9

Issues that cause most

concern in neighbourhoods

*Other includes:

Litter, Dog Fouling, Fly tipping

etc

Response Rate 26/78 (33.3%)95/324 (29.3%) 13/75 (17.3%) 33/90 (36.7%) 23/81 (28.4%)

Drug dealing/drug abuse (23.1%)

Dangerous/careless driving

(21.8%)

Antisocial behaviour (17.9%)

Housebreaking (14.1%)

Vandalism/graffiti (10.3%)

Other* (7.7%)

Motor vehicle crime (2.6%)

Assault (1.3%)

Alcohol related crime (1.3%)

Cause no concern:

Robbery




(15.4%)

Other* (15.4%)



Cause no concern:

Alcohol related crime

Assault

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery




(13.8%)



Other* (6.9%)

Assault (3.4%)



Cause no concern:

Robbery



(25.0%)



Other* (12.5%)


Cause no concern:


Assault

Robbery

Vandalism/graffiti


(35.0%)





Cause no concern:


Assault

Motor vehicle crime

Other*

Robbery

DUNDEE LPA SCORECARD - PUBLIC PERCEPTION ~ APRIL - JUNE 2012

POLICING

DUNDEE

SECTION 1

City Centre and

Maryfield

SECTION 2

Lochee

and Ryehill

SECTION 3

Downfield

and Hilltown

SECTION 4

Longhaugh and

Broughty Ferry

16

Policing Dundee: Community Summaries ~ April to June 2012

SECTION 1: CITY CENTRE AND MARYFIELD Main areas of public concern: anti-social behav-iour, housebreaking and dangerous/careless driving

CRIME Highlights

• Reduction of 31.8% in violent crime (7 crimes).

• Reduction in vandalism of 50.4% (60 crimes)

Performance alert! • Increase in crimes of dishonesty of 12.3%

(largest increase in LPA) • Increase in crimes of domestic house-

breaking of 154.5%, from 11 to 28 DETECTION RATE Highlights

• Best detection rate across the Local Polic-ing Area (LPA) for groups 1-4 at 56.2%, 6 percentage points higher than at the end of last month

• Improvement in detection rate for violent crime from 77.3% last year to 86.7%

Performance alert! • Fall of 31.2 percentage points in detection

rate for domestic housebreaking, from 45.5% to 14.3% (lowest across the LPA).

STANDARDS OF SERVICE Performance alert!

• Reductions across all three measures relat-ing to updating the public.

• Reduction in the percentage of customers who were satisfied with the overall service provided by Tayside Police from 86.7% last year to 82.6% this year.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• A deterioration from 71.4% to 53.8% for people who thought that crime in their neighbourhood had remained the same or improved over the past year

• An increase of 2.5 percentage points from 66.7% to 69.2% in the percentage of resi-dents who expressed concern at becoming a victim of crime in their neighbourhood.

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Inspector Steve Main said: "All policing activity was progressed in accordance with Tayside Police Community Priorities during the first quarter of 2012-13. Section 1 performance during this reporting period was maintained at a high standard reflected in major reductions in vandalisms and improved overall de-tection rates. Domestic housebreaking remains an identified area of public concern. However, the sharp increases experienced in May were resolved following the ar-rest of two individuals as reported last month. The activity of these individuals had a detrimental effect which was reflected in an overall increase in crimes of dishonesty. In relation to Standards of Service, all supervisors still need to improve performance to ensure that members of the public are updated as soon as pos-sible or within 28 days of initial contact Policing initiatives and a proactive policing style con-tinue to be utilised to prevent crime, incidents of vio-lence and anti-social behaviour. These include: Section 1 Summer Dry Up Action Plan - aimed at tackling youth and alcohol related issues, prostitu-tion and kerb crawling Operation Centre Safe - utilised during weekend evenings to prevent incidents of violent crime, alco-hol related disorder and other forms of anti-social behaviour "

SECTION 2: LOCHEE AND RYEHILL Main areas of public concern: drug dealing/drug abuse, vandalism/graffiti and dangerous/careless driving

CRIME Highlights

• Reduction of 29.4% in crimes of violence (5 crimes)

• Reduction of 15.2% in vandalism (21 crimes)

(* Results should be viewed in conjunction with sample size. Changes in results may appear inflated due to the small number of respondents involved.)

17


Performance alert! • Rise in domestic housebreaking from 18 to

24 (33.3%) - this was the only measure that had deteriorated - every other result (crime recorded and detection rates) had improved.

DETECTION RATE Highlights

• Improvement of 9.3 percentage points in detection rate for violent crime from 41.9% to 51.2%

• Robbery detection rate improved dramati-cally from 71.4% to over 100%

• Best detection rate in LPA (and biggest im-provement) for vandalism from 20.3% to 36.4%

• Improvement in detection rate for domestic housebreaking from 33.0% to 58.3%

STANDARDS OF SERVICE

• An improvement of 27.4 percentage points in the percentage of customers who re-ceived an update following their contact to report a crime from 58.3% to 85.7%

• 87.1% of customers expressed overall satis-faction with the service provided, compared to 76.9% at the same time last year.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• An improvement from 66.6% to 80.7% for residents who thought the crime rate in their neighbourhood had remained the same or improved over the past year

• 54.5% of residents said they were con-cerned at becoming a victim of crime in their neighbourhood, an improvement of 12.1 percentage points on the result at the same time last year (66.6%). This was the best improvement across the LPA.

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Sergeant Dave Small said: “One of my main concerns over the last few months has been the level of violent crime across the sec-tion. I have made every effort to tackle this issue and have received fantastic support from our partner agencies. The local community also assisted in pro-viding us with invaluable information. The efforts of all concerned undoubtedly contributed to the overall

reduction in violent crime. Once again, we saw a reduction in reported vandal-ism and an increase in our detection rate. My com-munity officers continue to work in conjunction with our partners in identifying areas of concern and tar-geting the individuals responsible. Looking back over the last three months, I am full of praise for my staff, partners and the communities they patrol. In order to achieve results team work is vital and this is something that is very strong throughout the section. Our overall standard of service continues to improve and this is something I shall closely monitor through-out the coming months. My main aim continues to be providing a safe environment for the people of Lochee and surrounding area.”

SECTION 3: DOWNFIELD AND HILLTOWN Main areas of public concern: drug dealing/abuse, dangerous/careless driving and house-breaking

CRIME Highlights

• Best reduction in LPA for groups 1 to 4 at 25.3% (126 fewer crimes)

• Best reduction in LPA for crimes of dishon-esty at 26.4% (77 fewer crimes)

• Reduction of 23.6% in vandalism (38 fewer crimes)

Performance alert! • Increase of 66.7% in crimes of domestic

housebreaking, from 21 to 35 DETECTION RATE Highlights

• 29.2 percentage point improvement in crimes of indecency from 58.3% to 87.5%

Performance alert! • 11.6 percentage point fall in the detection rate for crimes of dishonesty from 52.1% to 40.5%

STANDARDS OF SERVICE Highlights

• 100% rating from Downfield and Hilltown


18


residents for service provided at first contact and also for being provided with the name of the person dealing with their enquiry, for the second month in succession.

• 84.7% of customers expressed overall satis-faction with the service provided, compared to 79.3% at the same time last year.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• Only 66.7% of residents thought that the crime rate in their neighbourhood had re-mained the same or improved in the last year compared to 85.0% at the same time last year.

• An improvement from 45.8% to 61.9% for residents who felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after dark

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY

Inspector Paul McCord said:

“I am delighted that my previous statements and ef-forts to concentrate our resources in tackling crimes which affect our community the most, such as theft and vandalism as well as anti-social behaviour, have been rewarded, in the main, with excellent perform-ance results this month. The continued support of all the staff at Downfield and Hilltown has resulted in a very good performance which I am very pleased with and thank all the staff for their efforts. I am also particularly encouraged by the 100 % satis-faction rate of our customers in relation to their first impression and interaction with the police at first point of contact. It is very important to me that our officers engage with their community at all times and are positive, well mannered and inclusive in their in-teraction with individuals. We are obviously doing this and also providing reassurance to our commu-nity that we are complete professionals and there to work with them in making our area a better place to work and live.

I would once again request that the community en-gage with our officers at every opportunity and pro-vide us with any information that you believe may help us in our quest to make our communities safer.

SECTION 4: LONGHAUGH AND BROUGHTY FERRY Main areas of public concern: dangerous/

careless driving, drug dealing/drug abuse and anti-social behaviour CRIME Highlights

• Reduction of 60% in violent crime (from 20 to 8)

• 45.7% decrease in vandalism (79 crimes)

DETECTION RATE Performance alert!

• 8.8 percentage point drop in detection rate for crimes of dishonesty ~ from 47.4% to 38.6%

• Deterioration in the detection rate for van-dalism from 32.9% to 25.5%


• 68.8% of customers received an update fol-lowing their contact to report a crime com-pared to only 35.3% last year.

Performance alert! • Only 63.2%% of customers expressed over-all satisfaction with the service provided, compared to 75.0% at the same time last year.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• 70.9%% of customers thought crime in their neighbourhood had remained the same or improved over the last year compared to 87.5% last year—a deterioration of 16.6 per-centage points.

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Inspector Kevin Williams said: “The first quarter of the year presented numerous challenges for policing in this area and I was, there-fore, pleased to see significant reductions in violent crime, vandalisms and indeed the overall number of Group 1 - 4 crimes. We also achieved a sustained reduction in the number of housebreakings in the area after a difficult start to the period. We will work hard to maintain this reduction in crime and, hope-fully, this will filter through and lead to improved pub-lic perception."


19

POLICING DUNDEE: Crime in more detail

PERIOD APRIL to JUNE 2011/2012 2012/2013 June Alone


known

DETECTIONS

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

INC./DEC.

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

GROUP 1

Murder 1 1 100.0% 3 3 100.0% 2 200.0% 1 1 100.0%

Attempted Murder 10 9 90.0% 4 4 100.0% -6 -60.0% 0 0 -


Serious Assault 30 26 86.7% 23 18 78.3% -7 -23.3% 7 5 71.4%

Robbery (Incl attempts) 20 10 50.0% 16 16 100.0% -4 -20.0% 2 2 100.0%



Abduction 2 2 100.0% 0 0 - -2 -100.0% 0 0 -

Threats 1 1 100.0% 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 -

Others 0 0 - 0 1 - 0 - 0 0 -

GROUP 1 - TOTAL 75 62 82.7% 52 47 90.4% -23 -30.7% 12 9 75.0%

GROUP 2Rape 12 7 58.3% 6 7 116.7% -6 -50.0% 1 1 100.0%

Assault with intent to rape 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -



Public Indecency 3 3 100.0% 8 7 87.5% 5 166.7% 2 5 250.0%

Others 10 6 60.0% 22 21 95.5% 12 120.0% 2 2 100.0%

GROUP 2 - TOTAL 49 27 55.1% 49 49 100.0% 0 0.0% 9 12 133.3%







Convicted thief in poss.of tools etc. w.i. to steal 3 3 100.0% 5 5 100.0% 2 66.7% 1 1 100.0%


Theft 777 475 61.1% 674 371 55.0% -103 -13.3% 243 143 58.8%


Reset 9 10 111.1% 12 13 108.3% 3 33.3% 2 3 150.0%

Embezzlement 3 4 133.3% 0 1 - -3 -100.0% 0 0 -

Fraud 47 33 70.2% 66 30 45.5% 19 40.4% 23 10 43.5%

Others 7 0 0.0% 25 9 36.0% 18 257.1% 6 5 83.3%

GROUP 3 - TOTAL 1197 659 55.1% 1151 553 48.0% -46 -3.8% 382 195 51.0%



Others 27 23 85.2% 20 20 100.0% -7 -25.9% 3 4 133.3%

GROUP 4 - TOTAL 637 206 32.3% 432 160 37.0% -205 -32.2% 137 47 34.3%



Escape or rescue from police custody or prison 1 1 100.0% 3 3 100.0% 2 200.0% 0 0 -



Sex Offenders' register offences 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -

Bail - Fail to keep conditions 99 93 93.9% 85 82 96.5% -14 -14.1% 34 31 91.2%





Others 31 27 87.1% 12 11 91.7% -19 -61.3% 5 7 140.0%

GROUP 5 - TOTAL 544 529 97.2% 494 484 98.0% -50 -9.2% 162 159 98.1%



20

POLICING ANGUS

CRIME

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

Groups 1-4 807 786 2.7% 310 237 30.8% 192 188 2.1% 233 255 -8.6% 72 106 -32.1%

- Detection rate 43.5% 48.3% -4.8 41.6% 45.1% -3.5 45.3% 50.0% -4.7 49.8% 51.4% -1.6 26.4% 45.3% -18.9

Violent Crime (G1) 20 14 42.9% 8 4 100.0% 2 2 0.0% 8 6 33.3% 2 2 0.0%

- Detection rate 100.0% 92.9% 7.1 112.5% 75.0% 37.5 100.0% 100.0% 0 87.5% 100.0% -12.5 100.0% 100.0% 0

Indecency (G2) 19 32 -40.6% 6 9 -33.3% 7 3 133.3% 6 16 -62.5% 0 4 -100.0%

- Detection rate 115.8% 81.3% 34.5 83.3% 111.0% -27.7 142.9% 200.0% -57.1 83.3% 50.0% 33.3 0.0% 50.0% -50

Dishonesty (G3) 458 451 1.6% 204 140 45.7% 81 109 -25.7% 141 148 -4.7% 32 54 -40.7%

- Detection rate 47.2% 50.8% -3.6 43.1% 48.6% -5.5 55.6% 56.9% -1.3 53.9% 55.4% -1.5 21.9% 31.5% -9.6

Mal Mischief, vandalism (G4) 310 289 7.3% 92 84 9.5% 102 74 37.8% 78 85 -8.2% 38 46 -17.4%

- Detection rate 30.0% 38.8% -8.8 29.3% 31.0% -1.7 29.4% 32.4% -3 35.9% 41.2% -5.3 21.1% 58.7% -37.6

Robbery 1 0 *** 0 0 *** 0 0 *** 1 0 *** 0 0 ***

- Detection rate 100.0% 0.0% *** 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 100.0% 0.0% *** 0.0% 0.0% 0

Vandalism 296 276 7.2% 86 82 4.9% 101 67 50.7% 74 81 -8.6% 35 46 -23.9%

- Detection rate 29.7% 37.0% -7.3 30.2% 31.7% -1.5 29.7% 28.4% 1.3 33.8% 37.0% -3.2 20.0% 58.7% -38.7

Domestic Housebreaking 23 25 -8.0% 13 9 44.4% 2 8 -75.0% 8 6 33.3% 0 2 -100.0%

- Detection rate 13.0% 12.0% 1.0 7.7% 22.2% -14.5 0.0% 62.5% -62.5 25.0% 66.7% -41.7 0.0% 50.0% ***

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS: ANGUS LPA SCORECARD APRIL - JUNE 2012


POLICING ANGUSSECTION 1

Forfar

and Kirriemuir

SECTION 2

Montrose

and Brechin

SECTION 3

Arbroath

SECTION 4

Carnoustie

21

POLICING ANGUS


2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change


94.0% 97.6% 90.0% 7.6 94.7% 81.3% 13.4 100.0% 100.0% 0.0 100.0% 85.7% 14.3 95.2% 90.9% 4.3


enquiry

85.0% 87.5% 85.0% 2.5 76.9% 84.6% -7.7 93.3% 100.0% -6.7 93.8% 77.8% 16.0 83.3% 80.0% 3.3



65.0% 79.7% 58.6% 21.1 60.0% 57.1% 2.9 84.2% 29.4% 54.8 75.0% 71.4% 3.6 94.7% 84.6% 10.1


following their contact to report a crime91.7% 67.7% 24.0 60.0% 66.7% -6.7 88.9% 50.0% 38.9 100.0% 66.7% 33.3 100.0% 87.5% 12.5




52.4% 48.1% 4.3 60.0% 50.0% 10.0 0.0% 11.1% -11.1 33.3% 80.0% -46.7 75.0% 80.0% -5.0


85.0% 91.8% 79.4% 12.4 80.0% 62.5% 17.5 90.9% 81.0% 9.9 95.6% 82.4% 13.2 100.0% 92.9% 7.1

Response Rate 21/45 (46.7%)88/252 (34.9%) 20/65 (30.8%) 22/63 (34.9%) 25/79 (31.6%)

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS: ANGUS LPA SCORECARD - STANDARDS OF SERVICE - APRIL to JUNE 2012


First Contact

- Improvement in satisfaction with service at first contact from 90.0% to 97.6% (an almost perfect result across the LPA). This result well exceeds the force target set at

94.0%.

- Improvement in identifying the person dealing with the enquiry from 85.0% to 87.5%. Again, this result exceeds the target set at 85.0%.

Updating the Public

- A statistically significant 21.1 percentage point improvement in updating the public from 58.6% to 79.7%, the highest result across the force. This result again well

exceeds the force target set at 65.0%.

When analysed by reason for contact - 91.7% of those who reported a crime were updated compared to 67.7% the previous year. A further improvement was also

evident in relation to those whose contact was for reasons other than to report a crime whereby 52.4% received an update compared to 48.1% in 2011.

Customer Experience

- A statistically significant improvement in overall customer experience from 79.4% to 91.8%, the highest result across the force.

POLICING

ANGUS

SECTION 1

Forfar

and Kirriemuir

SECTION 2

Montrose

and Brechin

SECTION 3

Arbroath

SECTION 4

Carnoustie

22

POLICING ANGUS

Public Perception

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change






past year

89.3% 70.6% 18.7 92.9% 66.7% 26.2 93.7% 66.6% 27.1 80.0% 54.6% 25.4 90.9% 81.8% 9.1





54.5% 70.2% -15.7 53.3% 71.4% -18.1 50.0% 79.0% -29.0 55.5% 62.5% -7.0 63.7% 67.9% -4.2


victim of crime



their neighbourhood

21.1% 34.7% -13.6 25.0% 23.1% 1.9 25.0% 22.2% 2.8 16.7% 56.2% -39.5 15.4% 35.7% -20.3



*Other includes:


etc

Response Rate

ANGUS LPA SCORECARD - PUBLIC PERCEPTION ~ APRIL - JUNE 2012


Dangerous/careless driving (24.0%)




Other* (6.0%)

Assault (4.0%)


Cause no concern:

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery




(22.2%)

Other* (22.2%)


Cause no concern:


Assault

Housebreaking

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery



(27.8%)



Cause no concern:


Assault

Housebreaking

Motor vehicle crime

Other*

Robbery





(15.4%)

Assault (7.7%)


Other* (7.7%)

Cause no concern:

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery

Vandalism/graffiti

75/252 (29.8%) 16/57 (28.1%) 25/60 (41.7%) 19/69 (27.5%) 15/66 (22.7%)



(30.0%)




Assault (10.0%)

Cause no concern:


Motor vehicle crime

Other*

Robbery

POLICING

ANGUS

SECTION 1

Forfar

and Kirriemuir

SECTION 2

Montrose

and Brechin

SECTION 3

Arbroath

SECTION 4

Carnoustie

23

Policing Angus: Community Summaries ~ April to June 2012

SECTION 1: FORFAR AND KIRRIEMUIR Main areas of public concern: drug dealing/drug abuse, anti-social behaviour and dangerous/careless driving

CRIME Performance alert!

• Increase in crimes of dishonesty of 45.7% (64 crimes).

• Housebreaking up by 44.4% from 9 last year to 13 this year


• Deterioration in the detection rate for housebreaking of 14.5 percentage points from 22.2% to 7.7%


• 80.0% of customers expressed overall sat-isfaction with the service provided, com-pared to 62.5% at the same time last year ~ a 17.5 percentage point improvement.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• 92.9% of residents thought that the crime rate in their neighbourhood had remained the same or improved over the past year compared to only 66.7% last year.

• Only 53.3% of residents said they felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after dark compared to 71.4% last year at the same time, a deterioration of 18.1 percent-age points.

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Inspector Ally Robertson said: "The communities within this area remain safe and strong and our ethos of being highly visible and ac-tive continues. This is what the communities want and we will continue to work hard and target the ar-eas that the communities want us to concentrate upon. Crime in this community remained low but the areas

where increases were evident are being addressed, the anti-social element who are responsible will re-ceive the attention they deserve and improvements will come in due course. Although the satisfaction rates from the public demonstrate their confidence in our performance I can still see that some mem-bers of the community feel that venturing out during darkness causes them anxiety. This can only be ad-dressed by enhancing their confidence by being visi-ble on the street. This emphasis will continue throughout this year until they genuinely feel safe”.

SECTION 2: MONTROSE AND BRECHIN Main areas of public concern: anti-social behav-iour, dangerous/careless driving and vandalism/graffiti

CRIME Highlights

• Reduction in crimes of dishonesty of 25.7% (28 crimes)

• Housebreaking decreased from 8 crimes to 2

Performance alert! • 50.7% increase in vandalism from 67 to

101 DETECTION RATE Performance alert!

• 4.7 percentage point deterioration in detec-tion rate for Groups 1 to 4 from 50.0% to 45.3%


• A significant improvement of 54.8 percent-age points in the percentage of customers who received an update on the progress of their enquiry from 29.4% to 84.2%

• A 9.9% percentage point improvement on the overall customer experience from 81.0% to 90.9%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• 93.7% of residents thought that the crime rate had remained the same or improved over the past year compared to only 66.6%


24


at the same time last year. • Only 50.0% of residents said they felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after dark compared to 79.0% last year at the same time.

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Sergeant Hamish Gray said: The first quarter figures clearly showed that the over-all crime rate continued to fall. This was a result of the significant efforts made by those local officers who continued to be proactive in attempting to pre-vent crime and to be visible to their Community. Par-ticularly welcome was the significant decrease in crimes of dishonesty, including housebreakings. However, this was somewhat tempered by the in-crease in the number of vandalisms being committed at weekends, particularly to motor vehicles parked in the centre of Montrose, but just out of range of CCTV coverage. We intend to address this by increasing the amount of foot patrol carried out in the areas af-fected and also by the use ‘domehawk’ - a redeploy-able CCTV camera. The focus of local officers in Montrose and Brechin over the coming months will continue to be on sup-porting the victims of antisocial behaviour, as well as targeting instances of alcohol fuelled violence and disorder, in particular the sort that can occur outside licensed premises at close of business. Local officers will continue to carry out the proven and effective practise of being present outside the larger licensed premises at end of permitted hours. The customer satisfaction results for the first quarter of the year were more than satisfactory, and it was very pleasing to note the significant increases in those who reported a good overall experience when dealing with Police, and the quite inordinate increase in those who had received the very necessary subse-quent contact and updates. Section personnel will make every effort to maintain this excellent percent-age figure. While it is very satisfying to see that almost 94% of persons in the Community perceived that the crime rate either remained the same or fell, this was some-what at odds with the significant reduction in those who felt that it was safe for them to walk unaccompa-nied after dark. This does not reflect the actual pic-ture, i.e. that crime in our Community is actually fal-ling year on year, and local people have every rea-

son to feel safe. While I am satisfied that this is most likely a glitch in the figures (it certainly isn’t indicative of previous months), Section personnel will not be-come complacent, and whenever possible will con-tinue to carry out high visibility patrols in the Commu-nity. I note that local residents were also concerned about careless and dangerous driving, and to address this issue Section officers have instigated an action plan to deal with the most commonly received complaint, that being the actions of young antisocial drivers.

SECTION 3: ARBROATH Main areas of public concern: drug dealing/drug abuse, antisocial behaviour and housebreaking

CRIME Highlights

• Reduction of 62.5% in crimes of indecency from 16 to 6


• Best detection rate across the LPA for gro • ups 1-4 at 49.8%.


• 93.8% of Arbroath residents stated that they were provided with the name of the person dealing with their enquiry at initial contact, a 16 percentage point improvement on the 77.8% recorded last year and this was also the best result across the LPA

• 13.2 percentage point improvement on the overall satisfaction rating from 82.4% to 95.6%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• 80.0% of residents thought that the crime rate in their neighbourhood had remained the same or improved over the past year compared to 54.6% last year

• 16.7% of residents said they were con-cerned at becoming a victim of crime in their neighbourhood, an improvement of 39.5 percentage points on the result at the same time last year (56.2%).


25

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Inspector Adrian Robertson said: “The first quarter figures clearly showed that the overall crime rate continued to fall in Arbroath sec-tion. This is a testimony to the efforts of all local offi-cers to be proactive in attempting to prevent crime and be visible in their community. The focus of local officers in Arbroath and Friock-heim over the coming months will continue to be on supporting the victims of antisocial behaviour and targeting those responsible for committing acts of violence, often associated with drinking alcohol. Lo-cal officers will continue to conduct dedicated pa-trols in and around pubs, bars and clubs in an effort to deter alcohol related violence and disorder. The intention is to make the area even safer for those intent on using local facilities. The customer satisfaction results for the first quarter of the year demonstrated that the vast majority of the community are happy with the level of service provided by the police locally, and that more people have been regularly updated regarding their contact with the police. It is clear that we require to make more effort to ensure that persons who have con-tacted the police for reasons other than reporting a crime, are fully updated. I undertake to see an im-provement in this area in the months ahead. I am delighted that the public perception survey re-sults showed that we significantly reduced the num-ber of persons who felt concerned at becoming the victim of crime (from 56.2% to 16.7%). This reflects the actual picture - crime in this area is falling year on year, and local people have every reason to feel safe. I note that local people are also concerned about drug dealing and abuse, and in the months ahead, local officers plan to undertake a significant period of activity dealing with this issue.”

SECTION 4: CARNOUSTIE Main areas of public concern: anti-social behav-iour, dangerous/careless driving, drug dealing/drug abuse and assault

CRIME Highlights

• Reduction of 32.1% in Groups 1 to 4 (34 crimes) - best reduction across the LPA

• Reduction of 40.7% in crimes of dishonesty

(22 crimes) - best reduction across the LPA

• Reduction of 23.9% in vandalism from 46 to 35 - best reduction across the LPA


• Deterioration in the detection rate for Groups 1 to 4 from 45.3% to 26.4%

• Deterioration in the detection rate for van-dalism from 58.7% to 20.0%


• An improvement of 10.1 percentage points in the percentage of customers who re-ceived an update on the progress of their enquiry from 84.6% to 94.7%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• 90.9% of respondents thought the crime rate had remained the same or improved over the past year, compared to 81.8% last year

• 15.4% of residents said they were con-cerned at becoming a victim of crime in their neighbourhood, an improvement of 20.3 percentage points on the result at the same time last year (35.7%).

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Inspector Fiona Jarrett said: “It was excellent to see the reduction in all groups of crime across the Carnoustie/Monifieth area which was the best in all the Angus LPA. This was due to the pro active policing style and high visible patrols when resourcing numbers allowed. The detection rates for the crimes committed can still be greatly improved upon and this will be our aim over the next few months. Any assistance with information from members of the public would be greatly appreciated. I was pleased to see from the public perception fig-ures that members of the public felt safer in their neighbourhoods and this was down to our policing style and efforts of the local officers and other agen-cies.”


26

POLICING ANGUS: Crime in more detail PERIOD APRIL to JUNE 2011/2012 2012/2013 June Alone


known

DETECTIONS

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

INC./DEC.

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

GROUP 1

Murder 1 1 100.0% 0 0 - -1 -100.0% 0 0 -

Attempted Murder 2 2 100.0% 2 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 -


Serious Assault 7 7 100.0% 10 9 90.0% 3 42.9% 3 2 66.7%

Robbery (Incl attempts) 0 0 - 1 1 100.0% 1 - 0 0 -

Child Cruelty/Neglect 3 2 66.7% 6 7 116.7% 3 100.0% 0 0 -

Pos of Firearm with intent to endanger life 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -

Abduction 0 0 - 1 1 100.0% 1 - 0 0 -

Threats 1 1 100.0% 0 0 - -1 -100.0% 0 0 -

Others 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -

GROUP 1 - TOTAL 14 13 92.9% 20 20 100.0% 6 42.9% 3 2 66.7%

GROUP 2Rape 5 5 100.0% 5 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 1 1 100.0%

Assault with intent to rape 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -


Lewd & Libidinous practices 1 2 200.0% 1 3 300.0% 0 0.0% 0 1 -

Public Indecency 2 1 50.0% 1 1 100.0% -1 -50.0% 1 1 100.0%

Others 0 0 - 1 2 200.0% 1 - 0 0 -

GROUP 2 - TOTAL 32 26 81.3% 19 22 115.8% -13 -40.6% 8 12 150.0%

GROUP 3Housebreaking ~ domestic dwelling 25 12 48.0% 23 3 13.0% -2 -8.0% 13 0 0.0%



Theft, attempt theft from locked premises/property 10 5 50.0% 8 0 0.0% -2 -20.0% 1 0 0.0%



Convicted thief in poss.of tools etc. w.i. to steal 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -

In building with intent to steal 9 9 100.0% 5 5 100.0% -4 -44.4% 0 0 -

Theft 298 164 55.0% 310 165 53.2% 12 4.0% 123 69 56.1%


Reset 1 1 100.0% 2 2 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 0 -

Embezzlement 1 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 -

Fraud 19 13 68.4% 38 17 44.7% 19 100.0% 17 4 23.5%

Others 1 1 100.0% 11 8 72.7% 10 1000.0% 3 1 33.3%

GROUP 3 - TOTAL 451 229 50.8% 458 216 47.2% 7 1.6% 189 79 41.8%


Malicious Damage/Vandalism 276 102 37.0% 296 88 29.7% 20 7.2% 113 31 27.4%

Others 8 6 75.0% 5 3 60.0% -3 -37.5% 1 0 0.0%

GROUP 4 - TOTAL 289 112 38.8% 310 93 30.0% 21 7.3% 117 32 27.4%

SUB-TOTAL OF GROUPS 1 TO 4 786 380 48.3% 807 351 43.5% 21 2.7% 317 125 39.4%

GROUP 5Public mischief & wasting police time 5 6 120.0% 6 6 100.0% 1 20.0% 0 0 -

Escape or rescue from police custody or prison 0 0 - 1 1 100.0% 1 - 0 0 -


General attempts to pervert the course of justice 4 4 100.0% 6 7 116.7% 2 50.0% 2 2 100.0%

Sex Offenders' register offences 0 0 - 1 1 100.0% 1 - 0 0 -



Drugs - supply, with intent to supply etc 4 6 150.0% 11 12 109.1% 7 175.0% 3 3 100.0%

Drugs - personal possession 91 89 97.8% 78 78 100.0% -13 -14.3% 34 34 100.0%


Others 6 4 66.7% 8 7 87.5% 2 33.3% 2 2 100.0%

GROUP 5 - TOTAL 193 192 99.5% 182 184 101.1% -11 -5.7% 70 71 101.4%

TOTAL OF GROUPS 1 TO 5 979 572 58.4% 989 535 54.1% 10 1.0% 387 196 50.6%


27

POLICING PERTH & KINROSS

CRIME

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

Groups 1-4 949 1001 -5.2% 545 587 -7.2% 145 176 -17.6% 179 193 -7.3% 80 45 77.8%

- Detection rate 41.9% 52.6% -10.7 46.4% 53.5% -7.1 25.5% 51.1% -25.6 45.8% 54.9% -9.1 30.0% 37.8% -7.8

Violent Crime (G1) 32 42 -23.8% 24 29 -17.2% 1 6 -83.3% 4 6 -33.3% 3 1 200.0%

- Detection rate 87.5% 95.2% -7.7 87.5% 93.1% -5.6 0.0% 100.0% -100 100.0% 100.0% 0 100.0% 100.0% 0

Indecency (G2) 31 28 10.7% 16 9 77.8% 5 6 -16.7% 6 12 -50.0% 4 1 300.0%

- Detection rate 58.1% 67.9% -9.8 50.0% 77.8% -27.8 60.0% 66.7% -6.7 83.3% 66.7% 16.6 50.0% 100.0% -50

Dishonesty (G3) 641 637 0.6% 370 383 -3.4% 97 99 -2.0% 119 129 -7.8% 55 26 111.5%

- Detection rate 40.2% 57.0% -16.8 47.0% 58.7% -11.7 16.5% 54.5% -38 44.5% 59.7% -15.2 27.3% 26.9% 0.4

Mal Mischief, vandalism (G4) 245 294 -16.7% 135 166 -18.7% 42 65 -35.4% 50 46 8.7% 18 17 5.9%

- Detection rate 38.4% 35.7% 2.7 37.0% 33.1% 3.9 42.9% 40.0% 2.9 40.0% 32.6% 7.4 33.3% 52.9% -19.6

Robbery 15 10 50.0% 14 10 40.0% 1 0 *** 0 0 *** 0 0 ***

- Detection rate 80.0% 90.0% -10 85.7% 90.0% -4.3 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0

Vandalism 224 271 -17.3% 123 153 -19.6% 38 60 -36.7% 48 42 14.3% 15 16 -6.3%

- Detection rate 36.2% 34.7% 1.5 35.8% 32.0% 3.8 44.7% 73.3% -28.6 33.3% 31.0% 2.3 26.7% 50.0% -23.3

Domestic Housebreaking 38 33 15.2% 16 22 -27.3% 9 3 200.0% 7 7 0.0% 6 1 500.0%

- Detection rate 23.7% 21.2% 2.5 50.0% 45.5% 4.5 0.0% 0.0% 0 14.3% 42.9% -28.6 0.0% 0.0% 0

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS: PERTH & KINROSS LPA SCORECARD APRIL - JUNE 2012


POLICING PERTH

& KINROSS

SECTION 3

Perth City

SECTION 5

East Perthshire

SECTION 6

South Perthshire

SECTION 7

North and

West Perthshire

28



2012-13 Target

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change


94.0% 93.9% 97.9% -4.0 92.5% 95.5% -3.0 94.3% 100.0% -5.7 100.0% 100.0% 0.0 87.6% 100.0% -12.4


enquiry

85.0% 83.3% 90.7% -7.4 79.2% 85.2% -6.0 80.8% 91.7% -10.9 94.7% 100.0% -5.3 77.8% 100.0% -22.2



65.0% 72.5% 55.6% 16.9 64.7% 42.1% 22.6 76.7% 73.7% 3.0 75.0% 60.0% 15.0 76.5% 75.0% 1.5


following their contact to report a crime88.1% 64.4% 23.7 93.3% 41.2% 52.1 94.4% 83.3% 11.1 76.0% 71.4% 4.6 100.0% 100.0% 0.0




47.6% 44.4% 3.2 42.1% 42.9% -0.8 50.0% 57.1% -7.1 66.7% 33.3% 33.4 50.0% 50.0% 0.0


85.0% 84.5% 82.4% 2.1 77.5% 77.1% 0.4 86.1% 91.3% -5.2 93.1% 84.0% 9.1 83.3% 83.3% 0.0

Response Rate

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS: PERTH & KINROSS LPA SCORECARD - STANDARDS OF SERVICE - APRIL to JUNE 2012

18/47 (38.3%)126/324 (38.9%) 42/112 (37.5%) 36/78 (46.2%) 30/87 (34.5%)


First Contact

- Reduction in satisfaction with service at first contact from 97.9% to 93.9%.

- Reduction in identifying the person dealing with the enquiry from 90.7% to 83.3%.

Updating the Public

- A statistically significant 16.9 percentage point improvement in updating the public from 55.6% to 72.5%. This result well exceeds the force target set at 65.0%.

When analysed by reason for contact - 88.1% of those who reported a crime were updated compared to 64.4% the previous year. An improvement was also evident in

relation to those whose contact was for reasons other than to report a crime whereby 47.6% received an update compared to 44.4% in 2011.

Customer Experience

- Improvement in overall customer experience from 82.4% to 84.5%.

POLICING PERTH

& KINROSS

SECTION 3

Perth City

SECTION 5

East

Perthshire

SECTION 6

South

Perthshire

SECTION 7

North &

West Perthshire

29


Public Perception

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

% / p

p Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change

2012-13 Result

2011-12 Result

%/pp Change






past year

71.8% 75.9% -4.1 80.8% 73.0% 7.8 71.4% 76.0% -4.6 54.5% 72.4% -17.9 88.9% 100.0% -11.1





58.2% 64.8% -6.6 59.4% 61.1% -1.7 50.0% 71.0% -21.0 63.4% 60.6% 2.8 58.8% 75.0% -16.2


victim of crime



their neighbourhood

34.0% 28.5% 5.5 38.7% 20.0% 18.7 45.4% 35.5% 9.9 32.3% 35.3% -3.0 12.4% 12.5% -0.1



*Other includes:


etc

Response Rate 17/48 (35.4%)111/324 (34.3%) 33/99 (33.3%) 25/78 (32.1%) 36/99 (36.4%)

PERTH & KINROSS LPA SCORECARD - PUBLIC PERCEPTION ~ APRIL - JUNE 2012


(47.8%)





Cause no concern:


Assault

Motor vehicle crime

Other*

Robbery


(40.9%)




Other* (9.1%)



Cause no concern:

Assault

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery



(28.6%)



Other* (14.3%)

Cause no concern:

Assault

Housebreaking

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery

Vandalism/graffiti

Dangerous/careless driving (36.5%)






Other* (5.4%)

Cause no concern:

Assault

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery


(25.0%)






Other* (5.0%)

Cause no concern:

Assault

Motor vehicle crime

Robbery

POLICING PERTH

& KINROSS

SECTION 3

Perth City

SECTION 5

East

Perthshire

SECTION 6

South

Perthshire

SECTION 7

North &

West Perthshire

30

Policing Perth & Kinross: Community Summaries ~ April to June 2012


SECTION 3: PERTH CITY Main areas of public concern: dangerous/careless driving, vandalism/graffiti and drug dealing/drug abuse CRIME Highlights

• Reduction of 19.6% for vandalism (30 crimes)

• Reduction of 27.3% for housebreaking (6 crimes)


• 3.8 percentage point improvement in detec-tion rate for vandalism from 32.0% to 35.8%

• 4.5 percentage point improvement in detec-tion rate for housebreaking from 45.5% to 50.0%

Performance alert! • 11.7 percentage point drop in detection rate

for crimes of dishonesty from 58.7% to 47.0%


• An improvement of 52.1 percentage points in the percentage of customers who re-ceived an update following their contact to report a crime from 41.2% to 93.3%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• 38.7% of residents said they were con-cerned at becoming a victim of crime in their neighbourhood, a deterioration of 18.7 per-centage points on the result at the same time last year (20.0%).

SECTION 5: EAST PERTHSHIRE Main areas of public concern: dangerous/careless driving, anti-social behaviour and drug dealing/abuse CRIME Highlights

• Best reduction in LPA for groups 1 to 4 of 17.6% (31 fewer crimes)

• Vandalism down by 36.7% (22 fewer crimes).

Performance alert! • Domestic housebreaking up from 3 to 9

crimes DETECTION RATE Performance alert!

• Fall in detection rate for Groups 1 to 4 from 51.1% to 25.5%

• A fall of 38 percentage points in detection rate for crimes of dishonesty from 54.5% to 16.5%


• An improvement of 11.1 percentage points in the percentage of East Perthshire cus-tomers who received an update following their contact to report a crime, rising from 83.3% to 94.4%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• Only 50.0% of residents said they felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after dark compared to 71.0% last year at the same time.

• 45.4% of residents said they were con-cerned at becoming a victim of crime in their neighbourhood, a deterioration of 9.9 per-centage points on the result at the same time last year (35.5%). However, this was an improvement on last month’s result of 53.3%.

SECTION 6: SOUTH PERTHSHIRE Main areas of public concern: dangerous/careless driving, anti-social behaviour and drug dealing/abuse CRIME Highlights

• Groups 1 to 4 down by 7.3% (14 crimes) DETECTION RATE Performance alert!

• Fall in detection rate for Groups 1 to 4 from

31

Policing Perth & Kinross: Community Summaries ~ April to June 2012

54.9% to 45.8% • Fall in detection rate for crimes of dishon-

esty from 59.7% to 44.5% • Deterioration in detection rate for house-

breaking, one detected compared with three the previous year over the same number of crimes (7).


• An improvement of 15 percentage points in the percentage of customers who received an update on the progress of their enquiry from 60.0% to 75.0%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• Reduction of 17.9 percentage points in the percentage of residents who thought that the crime rate in their neighbourhood had remained the same or improved over the past year from 72.4% to 54.5%

TARGETED COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Inspector Iain Ward Said: “There was a general reduction in crimes across the Section, significantly, a third reduction in violent crime with a one hundred percent detection rate. Unfortunately there was a slight dip in detection rates. All supervisors have been carrying out regular reviews and dip-sampling of crimes and incidents and it was good to note that our satisfaction rates were again above 90 per cent. Respondents’ re-plies showed a marked increase in the number of victims who had been updated on the progress of reported crimes. There was also a rise in the per-centage of customers who had received an update following their contact for reasons other than to re-port a crime. South Section staff should be con-gratulated for their efforts. Nevertheless there is still some room for improvement on these results. Anti social and speeding motorists are of greatest importance to our community and, in response to this, Operation Tupelo is being organised to directly respond to their concerns. This operation will run during September with the community having the op-portunity to directly influence the operation.”

SECTION 7: NORTH AND WEST PERTHSHIRE Main areas of public concern: drug dealing/drug abuse, dangerous/careless driving and alcohol related crime CRIME Performance alert!

• Increase of 77.8% in Groups 1 to 4 from 45 to 80

• Increase of 111.5% in crimes of dishonesty from 26 to 55

• 6 housebreakings recorded this year com-pared to 1 last year


• 23.3 percentage point drop in vandalism from 50.0% to 26.7%


• An improvement on updating the public on the progress of their enquiry, from 75.0% to 76.5%

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

• Only 58.8% of respondents stated they felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark compared to 75.0% last year


32

POLICING PERTH & KINROSS: Crime in more detail PERIOD APRIL to JUNE 2011/2012 2012/2013 June Alone


known

DETECTIONS

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

INC./DEC.

number %

Made

known

DETECTIONS

number %

GROUP 1

Murder 1 1 100.0% 0 1 - -1 -100.0% 0 0 -

Attempted Murder 8 7 87.5% 2 2 100.0% -6 -75.0% 1 1 100.0%


Serious Assault 10 10 100.0% 9 8 88.9% -1 -10.0% 3 3 100.0%

Robbery (Incl attempts) 10 9 90.0% 15 12 80.0% 5 50.0% 6 3 50.0%



Abduction 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 -

Threats 4 4 100.0% 1 1 100.0% -3 -75.0% 1 1 100.0%

Others 0 0 - 1 0 0.0% 1 - 0 0 -

GROUP 1 - TOTAL 42 40 95.2% 32 28 87.5% -10 -23.8% 13 10 76.9%

GROUP 2Rape 2 3 150.0% 7 1 14.3% 5 250.0% 3 1 33.3%

Assault with intent to ravish 0 0 - 2 0 0.0% 2 - 1 0 0.0%



Public Indecency 8 4 50.0% 2 2 100.0% -6 -75.0% 0 1 -

Others 1 0 0.0% 7 2 28.6% 6 600.0% 2 0 0.0%

GROUP 2 - TOTAL 28 19 67.9% 31 18 58.1% 3 10.7% 10 7 70.0%


Housebreaking ~ domestic non-dwelling 8 2 25.0% 20 2 10.0% 12 150.0% 9 1 11.1%





Convicted thief in poss.of tools etc. w.i. to steal 0 0 - 1 1 100.0% 1 - 0 0 -


Theft 402 223 55.5% 377 167 44.3% -25 -6.2% 135 58 43.0%


Reset 5 5 100.0% 2 2 100.0% -3 -60.0% 1 1 100.0%

Embezzlement 1 1 100.0% 0 0 - -1 -100.0% 0 0 -

Fraud 43 43 100.0% 65 32 49.2% 22 51.2% 26 13 50.0%

Others 6 3 50.0% 12 4 33.3% 6 100.0% 10 2 20.0%

GROUP 3 - TOTAL 637 363 57.0% 641 258 40.2% 4 0.6% 239 96 40.2%

GROUP 4Fireraising 12 4 33.3% 11 8 72.7% -1 -8.3% 1 0 0.0%


Others 11 7 63.6% 10 5 50.0% -1 -9.1% 3 2 66.7%

GROUP 4 - TOTAL 294 105 35.7% 245 94 38.4% -49 -16.7% 82 25 30.5%



Escape or rescue from police custody or prison 0 0 - 2 2 100.0% 2 - 1 1 100.0%

Resisting arrest or obstructing police officer 19 19 100.0% 27 27 100.0% 8 42.1% 11 11 100.0%


Sex Offenders' register offences 1 1 100.0% 0 0 - -1 -100.0% 0 0 -





Drugs - manufacture etc 2 2 100.0% 4 4 100.0% 2 100.0% 0 0 -

Others 9 7 77.8% 2 1 50.0% -7 -77.8% 2 1 50.0%

GROUP 5 - TOTAL 199 195 98.0% 199 200 100.5% 0 0.0% 75 75 100.0%



33

C orporate support forms an important role in ensuring that appropriate resources are in place to deliver an efficient and effective service to the public. The challenging economic climate means that robust monitor-ing and reporting processes are instrumental in ensuring that the force is on track to deliver its objectives within available re-sources . At the same time, the Scottish Government has set stretching environmental and energy reduction targets for Scotland. As a major employer in Tayside, Tayside Police is committed to demonstrating its contribution to this aim.

RESOURCES AND ASSETS

34

HEALTH & SAFETY

� 68 % fewer days lost through accidents and violence!

RESOURCES and ASSETS

Accidents and Violent Incidents 2012/13 2011/12 Change

Accidents to Police Officers and Staff 34 11 209%

Violence to Police Officers and Staff 94 88 7%

Total 128 99 29%

Violent incidents to Police Officers resulting in lost time 0 1 -100%

Total number of incidents resulting in lost time 5 2 150%

Total number of days lost 63 196 -68%

Incidents reported to the Health & Safety Executive 1 1 0%

Causation factors 2012/13% of

Total2011/12 % of Total

percentage

pt dif f

Road Traffic collisions 5 4% 0 0% 4

Manual handling 3 2% 0 0% 2

Slips, trips and falls 4 3% 2 2% 1

Training - in house and at the Scottish Police College 5 4% 0 0% 4

Exposure to violence 54 42% 50 51% -8

Assaults 21 16% 19 19% -3

Injuries caused by sharp objects 5 4% 0 0% 4

Injuries during arrests 19 15% 19 19% -4

Others 12 9% 9 9% 0

Total 128 99

35

STAFF TRAINING and DEVELOPMENT

COURSES Cumulative

2012/13 Apr May Jun Apr to Jun

Number of courses held 75 135 119 329

Maximum student places available 485 932 871 2288

Total number of students attending 449 893 816 2158

Percentage of uptake 93% 96% 94% 94%

Total number of training days delivered 811 1133 813 2757

SATISFACTION

April -June

2012

The pre-course information was …

95.7%

95.9%

97.7%

The content of the course was …

98.5%

99.2%

99.7%

The course itself was …

98.3%

89.2%

96.1%

96.4%

98.4%

409 responses

sufficient for my objectives

Last three months

To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements

relevant to my objectives

Taking everything into consideration, the course met my expectations

received in sufficient time

appropriate and with necessary detail

clear and easily understood

well structured

easy to follow

delivered effectively

well organised

the correct length

36

SICKNESS ABSENCE

On target Below target

Last 3 months

Community Policing Div Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%

2001 - 12 3.8% 3.9% 3.8%

Dundee LPA Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 3.9% 3.8% 3.8%

2001 - 12 2.4% 2.6% 2.7%

Angus LPA Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 3.9% 3.8% 3.8%

2001 - 12 5.4% 5.8% 5.7%

Perth & Kinross LPA Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 2.7% 2.8% 2.9%

2001 - 12 5.4% 5.5% 5.3%

Working Days Lost

Apr to JunAve. per

person

Community Policing Div Days lost

Short 788

Medium 385

Long Term 931

All Days Lost 2012-13 2104 1.7

All Days Lost 2011-12 2451 2.0

Percentage difference -14%

Dundee LPA Days lost

Short 286

Medium 165

Long Term 419

All Days Lost 2012-13 870 2.0

All Days Lost 2011-12 641 1.4

Percentage difference 36%

Angus LPA Days lost

Short 158

Medium 86

Long Term 270

All Days Lost 2012-13 514 1.9

All Days Lost 2011-12 783 2.9


Perth & Kinross LPA Days lost

Short 220

Medium 83

Long Term 170

All Days Lost 2012-13 473 1.5

All Days Lost 2011-12 870 2.8


Colour Key

Target 4%Absence Rate

POLICE OFFICERS On target Below target

Last 3 months

Community Policing Div Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 3.8% 4.6% 4.9%

2001 - 12 3.2% 3.4% 3.5%

Dundee LPA Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 3.3% 3.4% 3.4%

2001 - 12 4.5% 5.0% 4.5%

Angus LPA Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 5.3% 5.6% 6.0%

2001 - 12 5.0% 5.5% 5.1%

Perth & Kinross LPA Apr May Jun

2012 - 13 5.2% 4.9% 4.2%

2001 - 12 5.4% 3.6% 3.2%

Working Days Lost

Apr to JunAverage per

person

Community Policing Div Days lost

Short 347

Medium 280

Long Term 782

All Days Lost 2012-13 1409 2.7

All Days Lost 2011-12 2451 1.9


Dundee LPA Days lost

Short 26

Medium 9

Long Term 72

All Days Lost 2012-13 107 1.9

All Days Lost 2011-12 641 2.5


Angus LPA Days lost

Short 27

Medium 17

Long Term 125

All Days Lost 2012-13 169 3.3

All Days Lost 2011-12 783 2.9


Perth & Kinross LPA Days lost

Short 20

Medium 3

Long Term 93

All Days Lost 2012-13 116 2.3

All Days Lost 2011-12 870 1.8


Colour Key

Target 4%Absence Rate

POLICE STAFF

37

FLEET Budget Position @ (month in arrears) 2012/13 2011/12

Percentage

Point Change

Percentage of total spend 21.8% 24.4% -2.6

Vehicle Accident Reports

Accidental 47 45 4.4%

Body Fluid 6 5 20.0%

Mis-fuel 0 0 #DIV/0!

Unreported 14 15 -6.7%

Vandalism 2 4 -50.0%

Total 69 69 0.0%

Accidents per Local Policing Area

Dundee 15 11 36.4%

Angus 21 23 -8.7%

Perth & Kinross 17 20 -15.0%

Headquarters Division 16 15 6.7%

Total 69 69 0.0%

Fleet Mileage per Local Policing Area

Dundee 260,167.00 266,258.00 -2.3%

Angus 277,595.00 274,501.00 1.1%

Perth & Kinross 388,849.00 344,943.00 12.7%

Headquarters Division 210,881.00 227,901.00 -7.5%

Total 1,137,492 1,113,603 2.1%

Average Fuel Consumption (mpg) per LPA

Dundee 30.9 30.7 0.2

Angus 31.2 31.7 -0.5

Perth & Kinross 31.1 31.7 -0.6

Headquarters Division 33.4 31.1 2.3

Average 31.7 31.3 0.4

38

RANDOM DRUG TESTING A programme of testing of both police officers and police staff is carried out. This supports the pre-vention and management of substance misuse within Tayside Police in order to create and main-tain healthy staff and enhance public trust in services delivered by the Force. This programme does not prevent staff reporting concerns about suspected illegal activity by colleagues, which is acted upon.

FINANCE - PROCESSING CARBON FOOTPRINT Carbon Management Plan (CMP)

Our plan to reduce from 6,000 ton-nes CO2 (Fiscal Year 08/09 out-put) to 4,500 tonnes by the end of 2015 is slightly ahead of target at 5,188tonnes (end of FY11 target is 5,354 tonnes).

Police

OfficersProbationers Police Staff

Special

ConstablesMonthly Total

Cumulative

Total

Positive

Results

Apr 8 4 1 0 13 13 0

May 0 0 0 0 0 13 0

Jun 8 4 1 0 13 26 0

2012/13 2011/12 Change (p.p/%)

Invoices processed within 15 days 43% 43% 0

Invoices processed within 30 days 94% 92% 2

Proportion of all payments made by electronic means 96% 95% 1

Invoices issued within 5 working days of receipt of request 100% 96% 4

Working days between period close and distribution of management reports 21 17 24%

Percentage of Payroll errors - related to Pay Section 100% 43% 57

Percentage of Payroll errors - related to provision of information 0% 43% -43

Percentage of Payroll unavoidable errors - related to advance payment 0% 14% -14

Total CO2 emissions from buildings, waste and transport

6,0575,813

5,5795,354

5,1394,932

4,7334,543

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Emission (tonnes)

Emissions from building and street lights (tonnes) Emissions from transport (tonnes)Emissions from waste (tonnes) Emissions from water (tonnes)Target CO2 Emission (tonnes) Reduction

39

END OF REPORT

WHO TO CONTACT

Performance and Planning Unit

0300 111 2222

Email: [email protected]

www.tayside.police.uk

Twitter: @statspolice

This document is available on the force intranet and web site. It can be viewed there in large print by increas-ing the magnification on screen. You can listen to this document as a PDF file by click-ing on the ‘View’, menu, selecting ‘Read out aloud’ and ensuring your volume control is turned up.

Ongoing improvement depends on feedback from contributors and users and we would welcome your views. If you require further information about this re-port please use the contact below.

�

�

�

June 2012 - Performance Report

Documents

Transcript of June 2012 - Performance Report