A Tool for Policy Development

Purpose: This tool has been developed to provide support to policy-makers in the first phase of policy development. It helps them to develop a good
evidence-based understanding of the problem they face and identify the most promising policy options. It is most useful to policy-makers who are new to a
problem or are addressing a new problem. It does not provide guidance on later stages of the policy development process such as option appraisal, cost-
benefit analysis and issues relating to design and implementation of policies. The tool corresponds to sections 2 (purpose and intended effect) and 4
(options) of the Regulatory Impact Assessment - see http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/ria_guidance/index.asp

Note 1: 'Agents' is a term used to refer to individuals, households, firms, communities, or any 'body' that is involved in some way in the problem. According
to this tool, the purpose of government policy is to encourage, incentivise, force or in any way 'enable' agents to change their behaviour and take actions that
address costly social problems.
Note 2: 'Policy-makers' refers to anyone who has a role in the development of policy. It is expected that the tool will require input from a range of people,
including researchers, analysts and practitioners.

Structure: The tool consists of a series of steps.

Step 1: Setting the scene.

Step 1 contains three parts; defining the problem; identifying the incidence of the problem, and who is affected by it and how. It has a number of purposes. It
helps to develop a better understanding of the problem, provides information that is required in subsequent steps and gives some sense of the scale of the
problem.

Step 2: Can and should anything be done?

Step 2 has two parts. The first part involves identifying who can impact on the problem and what actions they may take. For example, 'householders locking
doors' impacts on 'burglary'; 'bar staff NOT serving drunks' reduces alcohol-related violence. This step is likely to generate a long list. In the second part
these actions are filtered to identify which of them are likely to have the most impact, considering the benefits to society and the costs to the agent who takes
it. The purpose is to focus policy-making on designing policy that 'encourages' only those actions that are most worthwhile. This step forces users to think
about costs at a relatively early stage in the policy development process.

Step 3: Why is the problem happening?

This step involves understanding what motivates agents and why they may fail to take actions that are beneficial (i.e. those identified in step 2). Developing
this understanding is a key step in designing effective policy.

Step 4: What can be done about it?

The final step contains two parts. The first involves identifying all the policy options that may encourage agents to change their behaviour and take the
actions identified in step 2. The second involves selecting those that seem most promising and which merit taking forward to a more rigorous appraisal of the
costs and benefits (beyond the scope of this tool). Links are provided to an evidence base on policy effectiveness that should help in this.

How to use the tool?

Each step contains short guidance, instruction and two examples. The examples ( alcohol-related violence and crime on industrial estates) can be viewed by
pressing the example buttons at the bottom of the tables. In most cases, a simple template is provided to capture the relevant information. These have
been designed to be sufficiently flexible that users have freedom to note any relevant information. However, they do require users to be transparent about
the source of evidence, where appropriate. There are many ways in which this tool may be used. It has been used as the basis for a workshop.
Alternatively, it can just be used less formally, for example, as an aid to thinking about policy. It may not be possible to complete every element of the tool
and, in some cases, it will not be necessary. However, you are advised to consider all the elements and, where it is not possible to complete, this indicates
where further research, analysis or consultation may be required.

The examples contained in the tool are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent Home Office policy.
Step 1: Setting the scene

Part A: What is the problem?

Purpose: To define the problem.

Guidance: A problem is defined as an outcome which has negative consequences (e.g., alcohol-related violence, people-smuggling, burglary). The problem may be specified in
a particular context (e.g.burglary in London, domestic violence where the victim is a male, etc.)
Instructions: Enter the problem in the yellow box below.

Problem
Step 1: Setting the scene

Part B: What is the scale of the problem?

Purpose: To estimate the incidence of the problem (e.g. incidence of burglary in London, incidence of domestic violence against males in England and Wales).

Guidance: In some cases, it will be appropriate to break the problem up into its components. For example, if the problem is 'crime on industrial estates', it is important to identify the incidence
of the range of crimes affecting estates. Secondly, incidence will vary according to many factors and these should be identified. For example, crime may affect certain firms and estates
disproportionately. Finally, include any comparator (e.g. to other areas, other similar crimes etc.) that may seem relevant. To gauge the extent of the problem of crime on estates, it is useful to
know how crime on an estate compares with crime for firms NOT located on an estate. Provide sources of evidence against the relevant data, where possible. Note: the incidence is NOT the
only determinant of the scale of the problem (see part C).

Instructions: Enter information on the incidence and context of the problem in Table 1 below, with evidence and sources.

Table 1
Incidence, context and source
Step 1: Setting the scene

Part C: Who is affected by the 'problem' and how?

Purpose: This step has at least two purposes. Firstly, it provides important information that gives us an indication of the impact and scale of the problem and how seriously
policy-makers should regard it. Secondly, it provides us with information that will be used in later steps to indicate whether it is worthwhile taking action to address the
problem.

Guidance: Complete Table 2. It is important to appreciate that costs refer to costs of ALL negative consequences associated with the problem even those more intangible
ones (e.g. cost of emotional and psychological damage to victims of crime). Try to be as comprehensive as possible and identify all costs and who is affected. Where
possible, quantify the cost providing the source of data. In some cases, it may be appropriate to first break the problem down into components before costing. For example,
for crime on industrial estates, it is appropriate to first identify the relevant crimes before costing each (e.g. commercial burglary, theft of a commercial vehicle, etc.). A final
column is provided for additional comments. This can contain any information that you feel is relevant. For example, this might contain information on how costs of burglary
vary from incident to incident.

Table 2
Problem Who bears the cost? Description of cost Cost Source Additional comments
Step 2: Can and should anything be done?

PART A: What actions could be taken to address the problem, and by whom?

Purpose: This step is a brainstorming exercise. Its purpose is to identify ALL the 'agents' that can impact on the problem, and what actions they can take.

Guidance: Complete Table 3. An 'agent' is a term used to refer to individuals, households, firms, communities, or any 'body' that is involved in some way in the problem either because
their actions contribute to the problem or help to alleviate it. An action is defined as something that impacts on the problem in a relatively direct way. For example, locking doors is an
action that impacts on burglary. By contrast, a policy is defined as something that encourages, forces or by any means 'enables' agents to take these actions. Therefore, in identifying
agents and actions, include private sector agents (e.g. individuals, households, and communities) AND public sector agents who take action to deliver existing policies (e.g. police,
teachers, etc.) BUT do NOT include POLI CY-MAKERS or NEW POLICY OPTIONS. Consideration of policy comes at a later stage in the tool. Note: in some cases, an action will involve
NOT doing something. For example, 'not drinking excessively' and 'not going to risky pubs' reduces alcohol-related violence. Some actions have a more indirect effect on the problem,
and you may wish to distinguish these 'intermediate actions'. For example, 'analysing the problem and developing a strategy to reduce crime' is an intermediate action.

Instructions: Enter the relevant agents and actions in the first and second columns, and enter evidence in the final column.

Table 3
Agent Actions Evidence

#REF!
Step 2: Can and should anything be done?

B: Which of these actions are most beneficial?

Purpose: This step is a filtering device. It challenges policy-makers to think about costs and benefits at an early stage. The purpose is to identify which of the actions identified
in the previous step are likely to have the greatest impact on the problem and therefore where policy-makers should concentrate most attention, at least initially. The step also
aims to identify actions that may reduce the problem but which are not worthwhile because of the cost. There is no point in designing policy to encourage these actions.

Guidance: Complete Table 4 considering all actions identified in 2A. First, you are required to assess whether 'further action is worthwhile'. To do this, you are required to
answer two questions with YES, NO or UNKNOWN. The questions are 'Will the action reduce the harms associated with the problem (i.e. the costs of the problem, as identified
in step 1)?' and 'Will the reduction in harms exceed the costs to the AGENT taking the action?' Bear in mind we are interested in costs and benefits of taking FURTHER action
than is already taking place. If the answer to both questions is YES, the Table will conclude the action IS worthwhile (column 5). Second, where an action is deemed worthwhile
or results in an 'unknown', rank the actions, with 1 corresponding to actions where benefits most significantly exceed costs. This ranking will determine priorities in step 3.
Where possible, cite the source of evidence in assessing costs and benefits. A column 'Comments' is provided for you to add any information that may be relevant. For
example, costs and benefits are likely to vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime or you may wish to comment on the reliability of any evidence.
Instructions: Answer the questions in columns 3 and 4 by using the drop-down boxes. All rankings must be unique (i.e. no actions can have a joint ranking).

Table 4

Are the costs to the

Will further action agent incurred in the
significantly reduce action less than the
the harms that benefits to himself Is FURTHER
arise from this and others in action really
Agent Actions problem? society? worthwhile? Evidence Comments Rank
Step 3: Why is the problem happening?

Why don't agents take these actions?

Purpose: To understand why agents behave as they do, and why they fail to take actions that would address the problem. This information will help in the design of policy.
Guidance: Complete Table 5. One approach is to list the agents and actions according to the ranking in step 2B, and consider each in turn. At least initially, you might wish to focus only on the top-
ranked actions. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to re-define the actions. For example, where a number of actions appear to be related and there is a common reason why they do not take place, you
may wish to treat them together (see the Industrial Estates example). In identifying why agents behave as they do there (column 4) there are a number of factors to consider, and Box 1 provides guidance
on these. Column 5 ask you to categorise the reasons agents fail to take actions that are socially beneficial. Most categories are 'market failures' box 2 provides some guidance, but this step may need
the assistance of an economist. The purpose is to link with an policy evidence base that will help in completing the final step and identifying policy options, links are activated in the final column. Note: not
all actions will be associated with a category. Box 2 provides guidance.

Instructions: If you wish, press the button to transfer the 1st ranked 'agent' and 'action' from the last step. Press the button again to transfer the 2nd and so on. Use the drop-down box to select the
market failure in the 5th column.

Table 5
Rank Agents Actions Why do they FAIL to take this action? Category More Information

Box 1: Guidance for completing column 4 of Table 5

In considering why agents behave as they do, it may be useful to think about
_ what the agent cares about (enjoyment, profits, what peers think)
_ how the agent makes decisions (rationally, i.e. the agent has the ability to make good choices for themselves or are decisions based on habit)
_ the resources and capabilities available to them when they make decisions (skills, knowledge)
_ what are the alternative actions they could take
_ the critical factors in their decision-making (the perceived costs and benefits)

Box 2: Guidance for completing column 5 of Table 5

The reasons agents do NOT take the best course of action for themselves and/or for others in society can be categorised according to market failures, government failure and other reasons not consistent
with the traditional economic model. These are:
Category Definition
Externalities occur when an individual’s actions or behaviour directly impacts on others’ welfare and the individual does not take these spillover effects into account (e.g. a
Externality
firm that pollutes, individuals who fail to get vaccinated against infectious diseases).
Imperfect information arises where individuals are not perfectly ‘informed’ about the options available to them and the costs and consequences of their decision-making
Imperfect information
(e.g. an individual that is not aware of the risk and consequence of fraud).
Asymmetric information exists where one party to a transaction is better informed than the other is and is able to use this to their advantage (e.g. tradepeople and private
Asymmetric information
doctors providing unnecessary services).
“Pure” public goods are said to be ‘non-rival’ (the consumption of a good by one person does not impact on the amount available to others) and non-excludable (once the
Public goods good is made available, it is not possible or very difficult to exclude others from consuming it). Examples include national security, clean air, street-lighting. In practice, most
public goods exhibit some degree of rivalry and/or excludability (e.g. roads, natural resources).

Imperfect competition arises when one or more firms have some degree of control in the market. In the extreme, market structure is characterised by perfect competition
Imperfect competition
(lots of firms all without market power) and monopoly (where one firm controls the market). In reality though, most markets tend to fall in between these two extremes.

Government failure arises when government intervention reduces welfare (e.g. where excessive taxation reduces incentives to work, where government ownership creates a
Government failure
monopoly).
Non-rationality Non-rationality Some behaviour is non-rational (e.g. caused by inertia, habit, influence of others).
Step 4: What can you do about it?

What are the most promising policies ?

Purpose: To identify the policies that are likely to lead agents to take actions that address the problem and benefit society.

Guidance: Complete Table 6 below for those agents and actions identified in the previous step 3. Identify all possible policy options and consider the pros and cons of
each. The evidence base, 'Understanding policy' provides some help by setting out criteria for judging policy effectiveness and appraising effectiveness of policy
interventions in various contexts. Finally, where possible, rank options, the highest ranked should provide the 'Policy options' for formal appraisal in, for example,
Regulatory Impact Assessment. The rankings should be based on a provisional estimate of the likely costs and benefits of each option.
Table 6
Agent Action Policy Option Pros Cons Rank
YES
NO
UNKNOWN

Externality Externality .
Imperfect information Imperfect Information .
Asymmetric information
Asymmetric information
Public goods Public Goods .
Imperfect competition Imperfect Competition
Government failure Government Failure
Non-rationality Non- Rationality.
Step 1a
Alcohol-related violence

Step 1b
Victims
Incidence,
Binge believed
drinkers context
werethe more
offender
andlikely or to
source
Leading crimes : Violence,
offenders
offend than to be under
other regular the drinkers
1 criminal damage, sexual offences
influence
drinkofatalcohol in about half
1 (who
1.2M
(48 Violent
per cent)
least once
incidents
of all violent
a month
annually are associated with alcohol misuse ( Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, Prime Minister's Strategy Unit 2004)
but getdrinkers
drunk less often)for a
1 Binge
incidents
The 2001/02
(Offending (BCS
account
04/05).
BCSand
Crime found 44 per
Justice
disproportionate volume of crime
1 cent
Survey
The of violent
2003).
2001/02
reported
incidents
BCS
by adults found occurred
that
(Offending
at the weekend
1 21per of all(6pm Friday to
Crime cent
Crimes and
are Justice violent
concentratedSurvey incidents
2003).
by
6am Monday)
occurred in or and 63 per
around a pub cent
or
Research
1 time, consistently
location and shows
perpetrator the
occurred
club. 38 during
per cent the evening or
of violence
peak
1 In a UKtime for
study violent offending is
night
between(Allen et of
strangersal.,142 men
2003).
weekend
imprisoned nights
for andoccurred
rape, theper
58 peak in that
cent
Young male
1 Violence
location (Allen binge drinkers
et venues
al., 2003). were
location
reported isoutside
in and around may
pubs be
and
1 more thandrinking
associated twice
with asin likely
large
the six tohours
numbers of
clubs
prior to(Allen
the et
rape al., 2003).
(Grubin and
commit a violent
intoxicated people offence (16%)
congregating
1 than
Gunn,other
1990). young
and competing
Factors associated formale withregular
limited food and
violence in
1 Maguire
drinkers
transport and
(7%). Nettleton
facilities (Marsh
high-risk pubs and clubs include
(2003)
and Fox-
1 found
Kibby,A&E1992).
inconvenient
data boosted the
access routes, poor
number of violent incidents
ventilation,
1 Crimes
The 2001/02 are overcrowding
under-reported
BCS found and per
nine
identified by police data by 16 per
1 permissive
cent social environments,
cent.of stranger and seven per
communicated through pub/club
1 cent
Some of acquaintance
policies venues staffare
violence
'high risk'
incidentsand involved behaviour
the use of a
1 glass
(Homel oret al., 2001).
bottle as a weapon (Allen
1 et al., 2003).

Step 1c
£5,472.00
Home
Office On-
line report
Violent crimes Victim Pain and suffering 30/05
Lost earnings (if self-employed)
Impaired leisure time
Family & friends Emotional cost (e.g. worry)
Time spent caring
Licensees Lost sales (deterred custom)
Security costs
Victim cost (if own victimisation)
 Time spent in CJS (attending court etc.)
Tax payers £1,928.00
Home
Office On-
line report
CJS Costs 30/05

Home
Office On-
line report
NHS costs £1,347.00 30/05
£1,648.00
Home
Office On-
line report
Employers Lost output 30/05

Home
Office On-
line report
Criminal Damage Licensees Damage to property £212.00 30/05

Home
Office On-
line report
Security costs £13.00 30/05
Lost sales (deterred custom)

Time spent in CJS (attending court etc.)

Home
Office On-
line report
Neighbourhood business Damage to property £212.00 30/05
 Home
Office On-
line report
Security costs £13.00 30/05

Lost sales (deterred custom)

Time spent in CJS (attending court etc)
Community Damage to local amenities

Home
Office On-
line report
Tax payers CJS Costs £126.00 30/05
Binge drinkers account for a
Step 2a disproportionate
21 per cent of all volume of crime
violent incidents
Agent Actions Evidence
reported by
occurred adults
in or (Offending
around a pub orCrime
club.
Victim Not drinking excessively and
38%Justice Survey
of violence 2003).strangers
between
Victim Avoiding risky areas occurred in that location (BCS)
Victim Avoiding confrontation
48 per cent of offenders believed to be
Offender Not drinking excessively under the influence of alcohol in violent
Offender Avoiding risky areas incidents
See above (BCS)
Offender Avoiding confrontation
Offender Not perpetrating violence
Licensee Not encouraging excessive drinking
Licensee Providing safe environments

The 2001/02 BCS found nine per cent

of stranger and seven per cent of
acquaintance violence incidents
involved the use of a glass or bottle as
Licensee Using glass containers a weapon (Allen et al., 2003).
Licensee Not serving drunks
 Licensee Not diverting problems off-premises
Bar Staff Not serving drunks
Factors associated with violence in
high-risk pubs and clubs include
inconvenient access routes, poor
ventilation, overcrowding, and
permissive social environments,
communicated through pub/club
policies and staff behaviour (Homely et
Licensed trade Providing safe environments al., 2001).

Not encouraging excessive

Licensed trade drinking
Police/CJS Increasing resourcing of prevention
Police/CJS Management of problem
Police/CJS Increasing enforcement of sanctions
Local authorities Reducing licensing in congested areas
Local authorities Increasing provision of services at peak times
Bar Staff Not serving under-age drinkers
Advising other licensees of
Licensee potential problems
Cooperating to ban known
Licensee 'trouble makers'

Step 2b
Victim Not drinking excessively YES YES YES
 Victim Avoiding risky areas UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Victim Avoiding confrontation UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Offender Not drinking excessively YES YES YES
Offender Avoiding risky areas YES YES YES
Offender Avoiding confrontation YES YES YES
Offender Not perpetrating violence YES YES YES
Licensee Not encouraging excessive drinkingYES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Licensee Providing safe environments UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Licensee Using glass containers YES YES YES
Licensee Not serving drunks YES YES YES
Licensee Not diverting problems off-premises
UNKNOWN NO NO
Bar Staff Not serving drunks YES YES YES
Licensed trade Not encouraging excessive drinkingYES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Licensed trade Providing safe environments UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Police/CJS Increasing resourcing of prevention
YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Police/CJS Management of problem UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Police/CJS Increasing enforcement of sanctions
UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Local authorities Reducing licensing in congested areas
UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Local authorities Increasing provision of services atYES
peak times UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Bar Staff Not serving under-age drinkers UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Licensee Advising other licensees of potential
YESproblems YES YES
Licensee Cooperating to ban known 'troubleYESmakers' YES YES
Employing SIA -accrediated
Licensee door staff UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
0 0
0 0

Step 3
Psychological factors Non-
Rationality
1 Offender Not perpetrating violence .
Family History
 Effect of alcohol Externality

Lack of care for victim

Low price of alcohol Externality

.
2 Offender Not drinking excessively
No liability for full cost of Externality
victimisation and disorder
.

Low (perceived) risk and

cost of sanction Governme
nt Failure
Enjoyment

Encouraged by licensed Asymmetri

trade c
informatio
n
Lack of alternative
entertainment

Low price of alcohol Externality

.
3 Victim Not drinking excessively
Lack of alternative
entertainment
 Enjoyment

Encouraged by licensed Asymmetri

trade c
informatio
n
Don't pay full health care Externality
costs etc.
.

Don't accurately assess Imperfect

risks Informatio
n
.

Profit Externality

.
4 Licensee Not serving drunks
Fear of confrontation

Low risk of sanction

Governme
nt Failure
Pressure from employer

Up-front costs, before

Advising other licensees of potential realisation of benefits
5 Licensee problems.
 Difficulties agreeing on Public
cooperative actions Goods

Lack of knowledge Imperfect

Informatio
n
.

Difficulties of estimating Public

how individual pubs will Goods
benefit from collective
actions .

Step 4
Agent Action Policy Option Pros Cons
Enforcing exclusion orders banning Increases risk of penalty at Difficult to
Offender Not perpetrating violence perpetrators from premises next offence enforce

The
perpetrato
r may just
go
elsewhere
 Penalises
all
Offender Excessive drinking Increase tax on alcohol Reduce consumption drinkers
Cost of
levying
Increased tax revenue taxes

Industry
reluctance
Increased
Increase sanction for drunkenness Increases cost of drinking CJS costs
Victim Excessive drinking As above
Make people aware of
Information campaign on risks dangers Costly
Lack of
evidence
on
effectiven
ess
Cost of
Reduce alcohol enforcem
Licensee Serving drunks Increase penalty consumption ent
Reprisals
might be
more
Targeted at drunks costly
Response
of
licensee
Not advising other licensees of Difficult to
Licensee potential problems Pub Watch Scheme Relatively cheap start up
Facilitates cooperation
between pubs to prevent Set up
violent situations costs
 Requires
continued
cooperatio
n of all
pubs that
Only affects 'trouble are
makers' involved
The cost figure is for
violence against the person
The cost figure is for
violence against the person

The cost figure is for

violence against the person

The cost figure is for

violence against the person

Home
Office On-
line report
Sexual offences Victim Pain and suffering £22,754.00 30/05

Lost earnings (if self-

employed)
Impaired leisure time
Emotional cost (e.g.
Family & friends worry)

Time spent caring

 Home
Office On-
line report
Tax payers CJS Costs £3,298.00 30/05

Home
Office On-
line report
NHS costs £916.00 30/05
Employers Lost output

All costs
are in
2003
prices.
Rank
3
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2

1
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
5

UNKNOWN

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper
chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper
chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper
chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper
chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

chapter 4 of the
Understanding Policy
Options Paper

Rank

Tessa. If you want to make

changes to this last column
(i.e. the one with the ranks) let
me know and I will change the
code.
Changing these values here
will have no affect
Step 1a
Crime on Industrial Estates

Step 1b
Leading crimes: theft by outsiders, vandalism, burglary, theft by employees, vehicle theft (based on CVS 2002)

For manufacturers on IE: average four crimes p.a. Higher incidence of overall crime, burglary & theft by
employees & outsiders for firms located on IE than for those not located on an industrial estate(CVS 2002)

For retailers on IE: Average 15 crimes p.a. lower incidence of overall crime, but higher burglary & vehicle
theft for firms located on IE than for firms not located on IE (CVS 2002)

Crime highly concentrated on some estates & firms (CVS 2002,

supported by consultation with IE Working Group)

Crime concentrated on estates which are: in deprived areas, have easy access,
are run-down (Police Research Group Paper No. 54)

IE is Industrial Estate

Step 1c
£900 HORS 217 Security £3,400 HORS 217
Commercial burglary Business Security costs Theft of a commercail vehicle Business costs
£50 HORS 217 Businesse Insurance £1,500 HORS 217
s/consum administra
Businesses/consumers Insurance administration ers tion
£1,200 HORS 217 Replacem £4,600 HORS 217
ent &
repair of
lost and
damaged
Business Replacement & repair of lost and damaged property Business property
£40 HORS 217 £60 HORS 217
Business Lost output Business Lost output
£490 HORS 217 CJS £70 HORS 217
Tax-payer CJS response Tax-payer response

Reduced
investmen
t (reduced
Region/So wages/pro
Region/Society Reduced investment (reduced wages/profits) ? ciety fits) ?
£2,700 £9,700
Househol Total cost Normal
d burglary per vehicle
costs commerci theft costs
Total cost per commercial burglary HORS 217 £1,400 al burglary HORS 217 £890

Step 2a
Landlords, businesses Window grills IE Working Group
Landlords, businesses Perimeter fences Wrexham, Bolton, Slough, Langwaite IEs
Landlords, businesses, LA Access barriers Evaluations
Removal of valuables (cash, easier stolen
Landlords, businesses products) at night
Businesses, employees Security of keys
Businesses, employees Locking doors
Landlords, businesses Lighting
Landlords, businesses, security Firm-level CCTV (includes monitoring)
Landlords, businesses, security Shared CCTV (includes monitoring)
Signage (signs warning that the site is
Landlords, businesses protected)
Landlords, businesses, security Patrol estate (esp. outside working hours)
Landlords, businesses, security Presence of security
Police Investigation and detection
Businesses Pre-employment checks
Businesses ‘Mark’ property
Landlords, businesses, LA Attractive well-maintained environment
Businesses Community-based initiatives
Design of estate and its buildings (e.g.
Landlords, developers, LA absence of exposed end-units)
Absence of features that hide offenders
Landlords, developers, businesses, LA (e.g. waste-land, hedges)
Intermediate Actions
Analysis of the crime problem and
development of a strategy for addressing it.
Police, security firms, business, landlords
Businesses Reporting crime to police and others
Police Recording crime effectively
Development of an estate-wide strategy for
Landlords, businesses, police, security, LA crime prevention
Provision of advice on crime prevention
Police, security industry, insurance industry
Implementing provision for security in
Local authorities, police planning
Security industry, police Training of security staff
Note: LA is Local Authority

Step 2b
Landlords, businesses Window grills NO UNKNOWN NO
Anecdotal
evidence
regarding
effectiven
Landlords, businesses Perimeter fences YES YES YES ess 4
Landlords, businesses, LA Access barriers YES YES YES 5
Landlords, businesses Removal of valuables at night YES YES YES
Businesses, employees Security of keys UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Businesses, employees Locking doors UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Landlords, businesses Lighting UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Landlords, businesses, security Firm-level CCTV (includes monitoring) YES NO NO
Anecdotal
evidence
regarding
effectiven
Landlords, businesses, security Shared CCTV (includes monitoring) YES YES YES ess 3
Landlords, businesses Signage UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Landlords, businesses, security Patrol estate (esp. outside working hours) YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Landlords, businesses, security Presence of security UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Police Investigation and detection YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 6
Businesses Pre-employment checks YES YES YES
Businesses ‘Mark’ property UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Landlords, businesses, LA Attractive well-maintained environment UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Businesses Community-based initiatives UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Design of estate and its buildings (e.g.
Landlords, developers, LA absence of exposed end-units) YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Absence of features that hide offenders
Landlords, developers, businesses, LA (e.g., waste-land, hedges) NO UNKNOWN NO
0 Intermediate Actions

Analysis of the crime problem and

Police, security firms, business, landlords development of a strategy for addressing it. YES YES YES 2
Businesses Reporting crime to police and others UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Police Recording crime effectively YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Evidence
of >50%
reduction
in crime
reduction
Landlords, businesses, police, security, LA Development of an estate-wide strategy YES YES YES effect 1

Police, security industry, insurance industry Provision of advice on crime prevention UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN
Implementing provision for security in
Local authorities, police planning YES YES YES 7
chapter 4
of the
Step 3
Understan
1 Businesses Working together to develop estate-wide Lack of knowledge about crime Imperfect Information . ding
strategies (e.g. estate-wide CCTV, patrol etc.) prevention Policy
Uncertainty over effectiveness of chapter 4
Options
collective action of the
Paper
Understan
Co-operative firms need assurance ding
that others will contribute and that Policy
they aren't wasting time and money chapter 4
Options
of the
Paper
Understan
Collective action has up front costs ding
(communication, development of Policy
plan). The benefits are realised Options
later. Paper
Difficulties agreeing on collective Public Goods .
action and cost-shares due to
problems estimating how much
individual firms benefit, especially
where benefits vary from firm to
firm.
Free riding because it is difficult to Public Goods .
chapter 4
exclude non -contributors from
of the
enjoying benefits of collective
Understan
security.
ding
Inertia Non- Rationality. Policy
2 Police Provision of advice on crime prevention, Benefits of policing low if firms fail Options
investigation and detection. to provide surveillance etc. Paper
Performance measures discourage Government Failure
action against business crime.

Performance measures discourage Government Failure

strategic approach to crime
prevention and provision of advice.

3 Landlords Investing in security and environment Do not bear the costs of crime. Imperfect Competition
Crime is NOT a significant factor in
firm's decisions to enter and exit
estates. Therefore there is little
incentive for landlords to improve
security.

Step 4
Tessa. If you want to make
changes to this last column
Tying public goods to private goods i.e. provide a (i.e. the one with the ranks)
package of services incl. collective security AND Doesn’t work where possible for free- let me know and I will
Working together to develop estate-wide goods firms only receive if they pay (e.g. riders to de-couple goods and where change the code.
strategies (e.g. estate-wide CCTV, patrol, collective waste management, IT support, traffic private goods are NOT sufficiently Changing these values here
Businesses etc.) news) Reduces incentive to free-ride valuable 1 will have no affect
No cost-sharing mechanims perfect for
Use of a variety of cost-sharing mechanisms to Collective action depends on collective security. Serial cost-sharing
determine who pays how much to provide appropriate sharing of costs (e.g. creates incentive for firms to lie about
collective security. E.g. equal cost-sharing, serial serial cost-sharing involves bigger how much they benefit. Equal cost-
cost-sharing (where firm who benefits mosts pays contribution from firm that benefits sharing leads to too little collective
most) most) action.
Use of publicity in developing and implementing Mishandled publicity can cause
estate plans (e.g. involvement of media, holding Can reduce free-riding by creating resentment and destroy partnership-
public meetings, etc.) a reputational cost to free-riders working

Very popular option. Provides Involves some bureaucracy; only really

formal structure, mechanism for
firms to state preference (i.e.
Use of Business Improvement District Scheme in through voting), contracts firms to
developing collective working to prevent crime pay over period, sufficiently flexible
Range of reasons firms fail to
provide security justify public
funding (inertia, imperfect info,
Public funding of a 'co-ordination service' to help uncertainty). In most cases,
firms communicate with each other and develop collective action by firms 'kick-
an estate plan started' by external assistance
Addresses problem that police
forces are not incentivised to
address business crime because it
Measure business crime with regular crime is not reported by firms or
Provision of advice, investigation and survey; provide recording systems for polices otherwise measured (CVS only
Police detection force to record reported business crime happened twice)
appropriate where partnership-working
already established; doesn’t provide
guidance on how to communicate with
each other and share costs appropriately
Co-ordination is a highly skilled job, and
recruitment and incentives of co-
ordinators is key; helping firms develop a
plan will not ensure they implement it 2
Firms don’t report crime sufficiently
because perceive few private incentives
to do so. CVS is expensive 3

Police have many targets. Further

Likely to have rapid effect, signals targets can cause resentment and, if
government commitment to inappropriately set, cause inefficiencies
Provide police with business crime target businesss crime (e.g.some forces may have no problem)
35 44 42 35 42 32 28 10
42 35 32 26
42 35 32 26
41 35 35 26
41 42 35 28
44 10 42 28
10 10
33