2. THORPE CLOSE NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICING INITIATIVE PC 2372 Chris Barton PC 1972 Gareth Pearson PC 1842 Steve Armes Fiona Fisher - Community Gateway Housing

3. THORPE CLOSE NEIGHBOURHOOD

5. ANALYSIS Sources of Information Community Gateway Loss of revenue : Voids : Unreported Damage/Costs : Problem Tenants Local Councillors/Residents EVA : Windmill Association : Surveys & Surgeries Police Data Recording Systems Crime : Calls to Service : Custody : Intelligence

7. 35% of dwellings are void Dwellings used as postal addresses & subjected to illegal occupiers Legitimate tenants abandon property leaving keys for persons unknown Dwellings used as ‘open houses’ 60% of tenants warned regarding anti-social behaviour Dwellings difficult to let – 4.6 offers made on each dwelling 64% of tenants do not sustain tenancy for more than 2 yrs THORPE HOUSE

8. LOCAL COUNCILLORS Environmental Visual Audit Poorly maintained areas Poor security features Damage

9. RESIDENT’S QUOTES “When I first moved in it was a lovely area to live, now it’s a dump” (12 year tenant) “ There seems to be a lot of people who look like drug addicts hanging around” (7 year tenant)

10. RESIDENT’S QUOTES “The area has now become a drug zone, dealers are coming and going every hour. The flats in the corner of Thorpe Close need to come down” (2 year tenant) “I won’t go out after dark” (5 year tenant)

11. RESIDENT’S QUOTES “I don’t feel safe, my door is double locked all day” (13 year tenant) “I had a brick put through my window, I’d like to see this estate cleaned up and back to the lovely community we had” (15 year tenant)

12. UNDER-REPORTING COMMUNITY GATEWAY POLICY Repairs of damage RESIDENTS Fear of reprisals Lack of trust “The Council and Police take no notice when you ring up” (12 year tenant)

13. Friday 28 th November 2003 A Typical Day in the Area 10am Approximately 15 known drug users seen to visit certain addresses, known for drug dealing, for short periods before leaving again Local youths seen running to and from an unconnected address where young offenders frequented. One of the youths was on bail at the time for a burglary on Thorpe Close Vagrant found sleeping on a communal landing in Thorpe House with human faeces nearby 6.30pm Within a half hour period a different set of known drug users seen visiting the area A couple staggered through the estate swearing and shouting at each other in a drunken stupor on their way home Common prostitute arrested outside Thorpe House NO INCIDENTS REPORTED TO POLICE

23. PROBLEM ANALYSIS TRIANGLE

24. Features of the Location

25. Features of the Victim High fear of crime, siege mentality Lack of faith in Police & Community Gateway Repeat Victims / Tenants from vulnerable groups

26. Features of the Offender

27. SPIRAL OF DECLINE

28. Incidents 2003Incidents 2004 NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPACT

29. Project Objectives 50% Reduction in Crime/Disorder Damage, Violent Crime, Burglary, Drugs 30% Reduction in Calls to Service Reduction in maintenance costs – Damage Increased Revenue – Voids & Damage Community Empowerment/Ownership Reduced Fear of Crime Multi-Agency Neighbourhood Policing Model

30. RESPONSE - Police

32. RESPONSE - Community Feedback from Surveys Setup of weekly joint surgeries Re-invigorate Reporting of Incidents Windmill Community Association

33. RESPONSE

34. THORPE HOUSE OPTION APPRAISAL Current Condition Maintained Refurbishment Demolition

37. ASSESSMENT – Police Figures to year end 2005 55% Reduction in Overall Crime 47% Damage Reduction 60% Violent Crime Reduction 83% Burglary Reduction 86% Drugs Reduction 40% Reduction in Calls to Service Increased Reporting

40. SARA.ARA.ARA.ARA

45. ASSESSMENT – Police 2006 Update 91% Reduction in Overall Crime Damage 93% Reduction (1 crime) Violent Crime – No recorded offences Burglary 83% Reduction (1 crime) Drugs – No recorded offences 86% Reduction in Calls to Service

46. ASSESSMENT - Community Empowerment/Ownership Reduced Fear of Crime Increased Reporting Restoration of Community Pride

47. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED Initial lack of ownership by Gateway 32 staff in 18 months Initial community mistrust Thorpe House One flat privately owned

48. ASSESSMENT – Why Did it Work POP Process Breaking cycle of Problem tenants & Associates Froze the Problem Evictions Re-housing of legitimate tenants Partnership Working