NightVision
A visual audit of alcohol related incidents in Bath City Centre.
2005 & 2006
Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science
National Crime Mapping Conference
25 May 2006
4th
Jon Poole
Community Safety Research Officer
jon.poole@avonandsomerset.police.uk
01225 842532
Introduction
Background – Why visual audit?
Project methodology and analysis
Generating action and next steps
Background – Community
Safety and Drugs Audit 2004
Alcohol related crime and disorder the
greatest single ‘knowledge gap’ in the area.
Strong correlation between ‘non-domestic’
violent crime occurring at night and the
location of licensed premises
Bath City Centre contained over 30% of all
violent crime and 50% of licensed premises
Background – Other Priorities
New licensing arrangements
Detailed and consistent evidence base
required for:
•
•
•
Going ‘beyond’ recorded incidents
Assisting agencies in correct resource
targeting
Understanding the link between
individual perception and recorded
data
Background – The Project
Group
Individuals with knowledge of the environment
from a variety of sources:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Police
Local Authority Community Safety and
Drugs Team
Local Councillor
Residents Association
Licensing group representatives
Chamber of Commerce
Research Officer
Methodology – Overview (1)
A system to record what individuals see and
feel while they are out in the night-time
economy
Early desire for results to
be presented through
GIS.
Limited resources and need
for limited technical expertise
to use
Methodology – Overview (2)
Opportunity to record ‘anything else’
De-brief on return from each route, asking
surveyors to provide a meta-narrative in terms
of their experience
Less requirement for GIS compliance,
standard qualitative surveying methodology
Adopted Living Streets methodology for
Community Street Auditing
Methodology – Overview (3)
Strong desire to ensure the appearance of
objectivity and neutrality:
•‘if you don’t like noise, don’t live near a
pub’
Against
•‘how would you like waking up every
Saturday morning with vomit on your
doorstep’
Methodology – Surveyors (1)
Surveyors chosen from ‘interest groups’
• Students
• Licensees
• Local Residents
• ‘Health Care Professionals’
Over two projects experienced a roughly
proportional breakdown by age and sex.
(although <21s under-represented)
Methodology – Surveyors (2)
Strong need for surveyors to be discrete
Need for risk assessment.
PCSOs in unobtrusive clothing provided
support.
Methodology – Routes (1)
Vital that routes took surveyors to where
incidents were likely to happen.
Based on crime and disorder hotspots for the
previous year.
Small routes (30-45mins), to try and avoid
missing too much.
Methodology – Routes (2)
Violent Crime and Disorder – Bath City Centre – Overview 2005/6
Methodology – Categories (1)
Explored issues of safety and vulnerability used ‘signal crimes’
A list of issues thought to relate to drunken
behaviour and by association, alcohol related
violence and disorder
Analytical differences between ‘behaviour’
and ‘physical features’.
Methodology – Categories (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Behaviour
Aggression or
Intimidating Behaviour
Nuisance Noise
Obviously intoxicated
persons
Urinating or Vomiting
Street Drinking
Violent Criminal
Behaviour
•
•
•
•
•
Physical Features
Dropped Litter/Food
Bottles/Can and Broken
glass on street
Urine and Vomit
Criminal Damage (to
cars, street furniture
including vandalism)
Other
Incidents/Physical
Features
Methodology – Dates
Careful consideration of dates:
Chose period which was historically ‘average’
for incidents of alcohol related crime and
disorder.
Last weekend of February and first weekend
of March.
Attempt to avoid major sporting events but
does include first weekend after pay-day
Methodology – Arrangement &
Timing
On each night surveyors were ordered into
two groups of two with PCSOs walking behind
Groups went out at 15 past every hour
between 23:15 and 02:15 in line with patterns
of disorder
Methodology – Data input and
analysis
64 forms per project received and all recorded
incidents geocoded
Allowed for hotspot mapping and for overview
analysis.
Spatial analysis not conducted on some
categories (not enough incidents)
Correlation analysis on surveyor perception
Aggregation of duplicate incidents.
Methodology – Analysis
Hotspot Mapping – All Nights, All Routes – Dropped Litter/Food
Results – First Project
Nuisance noise and obviously intoxicated
persons most commonly recorded behaviour
Dropped litter/Food and Bottles, Cans and
Broken glass most commonly recorded
physical features
A number of hotspot areas were identified
Results – Both studies
28% increase in recorded incidents
80% increase in dropped litter/food - likely to
relate to issues of trade waste.
Some hotspot transition:
- Displacement
- New licensed premises
No notable links with new licensing
arrangements.
Results – Overview
No significant spatial correlations between
any total population of categories and
‘recorded crime and disorder’
Similarity in hotspot location for a large
number of our categories and other crime and
disorder data.
Results – Surveyor Subjectivity
Based on the correlation analysis, Aggression
or Intimidating Behaviour, Nuisance Noise
and Obviously Intoxicated Persons were
deemed to be the most ‘subjective’
categories.
But hotspots remained consistent across both
studies.
Results – Perceptions of
Safety
Surveyors felt on the whole ‘fairly safe’
Where surveyors recorded feeling ‘very
unsafe’ or ‘fairly unsafe’ there was a direct
link with incidents of Violent Criminal
Behaviour.
Aggressive people, poor lighting or lack of
directed interventions were issues which
made people feel unsafe in specific areas.
Generating Action
Strong support from CSDP, project circulated
and discussed with a wide range of groups
and agencies.
Significant media attention (not always
positive)
Nearly 13 months to generate something in
addition to than ‘good feeling’
Partner involvement vital in generating a
willingness to change within existing
resources
Some Outcomes
Hotspot analysis used for tasking:
- Police operations
- Licensing enforcement
Evidence for funding and resourcing
- Community Safety street lighting funds
- Street Marshals
- Creation of a night-time cleansing team
The Future
Project to be repeated in the Summer to gain
a seasonal comparison
Consideration of using PDAs and portable
mapping technology
A ring fenced research and development fund
Development of strategic and regenerationbased outcomes
Conclusions
The project has been accepted by diverse
stakeholders as a fair assessment tool for a
wide range of issues in the night-time
economy
Accounting for individual perception is a vital
part of any analysis of this type
Well funded and organised research is
necessary, but is always dependent on a
willingness to change from partner
agencies and groups
NightVision
Thank You
Jon Poole
Community Safety Research Officer
jon.poole@avonandsomerset.police.uk
01225 8452532
Bath and North East Somerset Community Safety and Drugs Partnership
www.be-safe.info